STOP DUMPING YOUR MONEY DOWN
- Thread starter Adrinal
- Start date
thecichlidaddict
Fish Herder
An R/O unit is not that cheap, and it uses a ton of water to gain a relativly small amount (generally about 15% of the water gets used) Reverse Osmosis also filters out all elements good and bad, and the good must be added back in using.. guess what? Additives!
Sorry, I'm not against R/O, but money saving is the wrong reason to do it, it will end up costing more.
Sorry, I'm not against R/O, but money saving is the wrong reason to do it, it will end up costing more.
thecichlidaddict
Fish Herder
I forgot to mention the cost of replacing the filtering elements as well.
thecichlidaddict
Fish Herder
On the other hand reverse osmosis is a great way to start off with the freshest, cleanest water possible, and although it does end up costing more, that doesn't mean it isn't worth it.
EddieW
Fish Addict
Adrinal,
All very well piping the waste to the drain/yard, but bear in mind a lot of people are on metered water. In London our water costs are due to go up by about 40% shortly to cover the cost of replacing very old pipes and this would add a very large amount to the cost of RO.
Not saying that RO is not for everyone, just that you need to balance the costs.
Cheers, Eddie
All very well piping the waste to the drain/yard, but bear in mind a lot of people are on metered water. In London our water costs are due to go up by about 40% shortly to cover the cost of replacing very old pipes and this would add a very large amount to the cost of RO.
Not saying that RO is not for everyone, just that you need to balance the costs.
Cheers, Eddie
Bol
Fish Addict
I'm going to have to agree with tca, in that using RO water isn't going to save you money. Not even in a couple of years.
I'll even start by upping the stakes against my opinion... Lowe's has a five-stage RO unit on sale right now for $187. Let's call it $200, installed.
There's no way that I can believe that you're going to save $200, even over three years, by using RO water.
Using RO water, you have at least the following operating costs:
* Increased water usage (may be minimal cost for some people).
* Filter media replacement
* Reconstituting chemicals -- I don't really believe you don't need them "with the right substrate", mostly because I've never seen any data backing that up. Granted, most of the water chemistry information I've seen is tied to planted tanks. However, from what I understand, RO water, by itself, is not optimal for fish, as it's missing some fairly key trace elements.
On the other hand, using tap water, you have ...
* Dechlorinator. Currently, I use Prime, and my $6 bottle could theoretically last almost four years. At most, and being generous, dechlor will cost about $20/year.
* AmmoLock, fish stress stuff -- never use 'em, there's no need, if you keep a properly maintained tank. But, just for the sake of argument, lets say you buy a container of this kind of stuff quarterly. Call it ... oh, four things at an average of $7.50, or $30/year.
You can't really claim that using RO water will eliminate the need for medicine, in my opinion. While it sounds reasonable that you'll have fewer diseases to treat, it may not be the case. In fact, you could end up causing more harm than good, if you mess up your reconstitution (low KH --> pH crash, anyone?).
So, even with (in my opinion) very generous estimates, you'd spend around $50 per year on "water treatment". Heck, toss in $20 a year on "saved medicine", if you like. That still means the cost of the RO unit will take three years to "pay off", and that's not including the operating costs of the unit itself. I have no idea what those are, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the filters alone would eat up the $70/year you just "saved", or a good part of it.
I'll even start by upping the stakes against my opinion... Lowe's has a five-stage RO unit on sale right now for $187. Let's call it $200, installed.
There's no way that I can believe that you're going to save $200, even over three years, by using RO water.
Using RO water, you have at least the following operating costs:
* Increased water usage (may be minimal cost for some people).
* Filter media replacement
* Reconstituting chemicals -- I don't really believe you don't need them "with the right substrate", mostly because I've never seen any data backing that up. Granted, most of the water chemistry information I've seen is tied to planted tanks. However, from what I understand, RO water, by itself, is not optimal for fish, as it's missing some fairly key trace elements.
On the other hand, using tap water, you have ...
* Dechlorinator. Currently, I use Prime, and my $6 bottle could theoretically last almost four years. At most, and being generous, dechlor will cost about $20/year.
* AmmoLock, fish stress stuff -- never use 'em, there's no need, if you keep a properly maintained tank. But, just for the sake of argument, lets say you buy a container of this kind of stuff quarterly. Call it ... oh, four things at an average of $7.50, or $30/year.
You can't really claim that using RO water will eliminate the need for medicine, in my opinion. While it sounds reasonable that you'll have fewer diseases to treat, it may not be the case. In fact, you could end up causing more harm than good, if you mess up your reconstitution (low KH --> pH crash, anyone?).
So, even with (in my opinion) very generous estimates, you'd spend around $50 per year on "water treatment". Heck, toss in $20 a year on "saved medicine", if you like. That still means the cost of the RO unit will take three years to "pay off", and that's not including the operating costs of the unit itself. I have no idea what those are, but it doesn't seem unreasonable that the filters alone would eat up the $70/year you just "saved", or a good part of it.
the cheapest way to produce god water cheaply is to simply use a pre filter and a carbon filter of an RO. these cost aroung £24 for the two and will last for 6 months or more. 
I use an RO and yes they are expensive to run and do produce a lot of waste but you get the better quality of water needed for marines. I use it for tropical too but use Kent RO right and @ £10.50 a tub, it ain cheap.
ste
I use an RO and yes they are expensive to run and do produce a lot of waste but you get the better quality of water needed for marines. I use it for tropical too but use Kent RO right and @ £10.50 a tub, it ain cheap.
ste
noelberg
Fishaholic
Gotta agree that treatments don't cost much. A little bottle of Genesis treats 400 gallons and costs $4. Plus it helps promote slime coat. RO might be extremely beneficial in an area where tap/well water is not suited for the type of fish you keep. It's also a fun toy ... but expensive. My fish have thrived on tap water so far, and $200 would buy a really really nice setup plus a lot of water treatment.
i just 2 litres of AquaPlus for $25 (aus) which treats over 3000 litres of water...and for a 35 gallon tank, that will last me ages, so RO water is of little use atm
maaudiosubs
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2004
- Messages
- 48
- Reaction score
- 0
ive seen r/o units at mynards for like under 200 but the tank is realy small so good lucky trying to refill your tank after u clean it. and they are cheap ones. i got an r/o unit thats is realy good. its a kinetico that holds 10 gallons ready at all times it takes about a day to fill it. my dad usta work at a place that sold that crap so we got it cheap a good new r/o system from kinetico dealer here is lik 2 grand installed. there no way i would have one if my dad didnt have #### left over.r/o water at walmmart is 50 cents a gallon or u can get it cheap buy buying the big jugs if u cant affored a r/o unit.
Opcn
Big fish
buy an RO system at big Als they cost about half the price because they are not certified for ppl but fish need beter water than we do and they are certified for fish so I'm all for them. and what is this about 15% If you put 10 gallons of water in you will get 10 gallons of water out the water presure will be lower (because of osmotic presure pushing the other way) but that can be fixed with a pump.
Opcn
Opcn
Dubby
His legend will never die
I would recommend a rainwater collection setup. Would work quite well in the UK too
RO units are expensive to run, extremely so if you are on a metered water supply as the bypass ratio of good water to bad is very unfavourable.
In the past, I used to collect rainwater, but you need to be careful. If the weather that is producing the rain has come from a direction where there is open sea or simple farmland, it is great stuff, but if it has come from, or you live in an industrial area, it contains substantial nitric/nitrous and sulphurous disolved components - acid rain basically. The pH can be extremely low.
Good rain water is almost completely unbuffered, thus is highly unstable, and should be treated with stabilisers in much the same way as RO water.
In the past, I used to collect rainwater, but you need to be careful. If the weather that is producing the rain has come from a direction where there is open sea or simple farmland, it is great stuff, but if it has come from, or you live in an industrial area, it contains substantial nitric/nitrous and sulphurous disolved components - acid rain basically. The pH can be extremely low.
Good rain water is almost completely unbuffered, thus is highly unstable, and should be treated with stabilisers in much the same way as RO water.
Similar threads
- Locked
Most reactions
-
426 -
360 -
286 -
261 -
258 -
191 -
176 -
171 -
140 -
126 -
122 -
102 -
101 -
92 -
88