Chlorine cost vs. ozone cost

Answer 1

Chlorine will always be used for secondary sterilization in drinking water, so further discussion will be based on general oxidzer needs. Chlorine requires very inexpensive equipment to dispense. Chlorine is very dangerous to handle, but these dangers are well understood and capable of being mitigated by trained personnel. Chlorine is more expensive in the long run (> 5years usually, depending on oxidizer needs and power costs). Chlorine should not be used in any application that will be offgassing routinely (see ozone depletion, and simply wasting applied dollars) Ozone is very capital intensive to set up. Ozone is also dangerous to handle, but if you turn off the power, ozone is quickly gone back to oxygen. Ozone is less expensive in the long run. Some of the savings comes from the fact that ozone does what it does faster, and requires less C*T (concentration times time) to complete a given reaction. Control systems costs for either system will roughly equivalent.

Answer 2

Chlorine typically costs less than ozone for disinfection due to lower upfront equipment costs and operational expenses. However, ozone is more environmentally friendly, requires fewer chemicals, and does not produce harmful disinfection byproducts like chlorine. Overall, the choice between chlorine and ozone depends on factors such as budget, water quality goals, and sustainability considerations.