this post was submitted on 28 Feb 2026
558 points (95.9% liked)
Technology
82069 readers
2992 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I used to work for a company making a similar device, the chemistry behind the technology is actually a well researched topic, and there are many kinds of various chemistries that can achieve a similar effect. Silica gel packets are the most common, a cheap solution that extracts moisture from the air, but is non-reusable.
These MOF compounds are useful because they have a fundamentally different method of collecting the water molecules. The framework traps the molecules inside, which can be later released with heat. Thermal solar power is free, but does require careful management of the rest of the device such that the material can get hot enough (usually around 100c), which also providing another surface to condense the vapour. I spent alot of time designing and testing such panels. They do work! I can post pictures of fishtanks of water later.
There truly couldn't be much of a downside to these technologies. The real alternative is desalination, which produces hyper concentrated salt pools, or well water extraction, which is also bad...
The reason these technologies is usually due to the cost effectiveness to produce the material, and to build the enclosure around the material. The panels have to scale very large to get any reasonable about of solar power, plus the condensing and collecting mechanisms also add weight and cost. Water is not an expensive product, so at the end of the day, the economics don't always work out favourably.
Happy to answer any questions about the technology.
What you mean to say is "We don't know what the downside will be untill these technologies are implemented and used for a long time and then studied." Otherwise you sound like the well-intentioned-but-unhinged chemist that accidentally starts the zombie apocalypse at the beginning of the movie.
There's two impacts these panels could have. There's the solar irradiation aspect, and the air humidity aspect of them.
In the solar irradiance balance, you have a net energy in, most of which goes directly to heating the ground. A panel would aim to absorb as much as that energy as you can, most of which would go towards a phase change of the material to release the water bonds. MOFs are extremely clean in terms of their re-usability, and don't release any other compounds into the steam when released. Think of it like a condensation system, but without having to collect any water from any ground based source.
The air humidity is the other balance. In theory you could "absorb all the water out of the air". In most business cases, these need to be deployed to more coastal regions, not literally smack in the middle of the desert. But in such cases, the atmosphere is highly dynamic and more or less equalizes total air water content in a certain microclimate. It makes it very renewable since the sun evaporates massive amounts of water from water bodies, which can be returned via either rain, or through water harvested through water-from-air chemistry.
The industry will want to buy water regardless of where they are, so when evaluating technologies, these provide much lower impact to the environment than any existing groundwater based system.