Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Abstract
Today, three billion people around the world have no access to clean drinking water and about 1.76 billion people live in areas already
facing a high degree of water stress. This paper analyzes the cost-effectiveness of a stand alone small-scale renewable energy-powered
seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) system for developing countries. In this paper, we have introduced a new methodology; an energy
optimization model which simulates hourly power production from renewable energy sources. Applying the model using the wind and
solar radiation conditions for Eritrea, East Africa, we have computed hourly water production for a two-stage SWRO system with a
capacity of 35 m3/day. According to our results, specic energy consumption is about 2.33 kW h/m3, which is a lower value than that
achieved in most of the previous designs. The use of a booster pump, energy recovery turbine and an appropriate membrane, allows the
specic energy consumption to be decreased by about 70% compared to less efcient design without these features. The energy recovery
turbine results in a reduction in the water cost of about 41%. Our results show that a wind-powered system is the least cost and a PVpowered system the most expensive, with nished water costs of about 0.50 and 1.00$/m3, respectively. By international standards, for
example, in China, these values are considered economically feasible. Detailed simulations of the RO system design, energy options, and
power, water, and life-cycle costs are presented.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Reverse osmosis; Energy recovery; Optimal energy options; Energy storage; Power cost; Water cost
1. Background
Today, about three billion people around the world have
no access to clean drinking water. According to the World
Water Council, by 2020, the world will be about 17% short
of the fresh water needed to sustain the world population.
Moreover, about 1.76 billion people live in areas already
facing a high degree of water stress [1]. Water stress is at
the top of the international agenda of critical problems, at
least as rmly as climate change [2]. As a result, the need
for desalination is increasing, even in regions where water
supply is currently adequate.
Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 412 268 3426; fax: +1 412 268 3757.
0960-1481/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.019
ARTICLE IN PRESS
618
2. Situation analysis
2.1. Water demand
Recent studies conduced by the Swiss Federal Institute
for Environmental Science and Technology [1] indicate
that East African countries have renewable freshwater
resources below the calculated threshold of 1500 m3 per
capita per year. Eritrea is already in a condition of water
decit. According to recent studies, in the coastal parts of
the country, water demand is 116 m3/household/year [12].
Thus, for the Berasoel village of 108 households, we are
assuming an average water demand of 35 m3/day and
13,000 m3/year.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
619
Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination System for Beraso'ele Village, Southern Red Sea, Eritrea
Low pressure
pump
Pr1
Feed water
from Red Sea
Pw1
Pretreatment
1st stage
membranes
Q1
Q2 Pr2
High pressure
pump (Booster)
Pw2
2nd stage
membranes
Pr3
Q3
Energy
Recovery
Turbine
Q7
Product
tank
Q6
Q4 P
r4
Pw3
Concentrate
Post
Treatment
Q5
Product/
permeate
water
Fig. 1. Schematic two-stage RO system for the village of Beraesoli, Southeastern Red Sea, Eritrea.
In RO desalination systems, energy is a major consideration. Power consumption by the system includes
power for seawater pumping, high-pressure pumping, i.e. a
booster, and chemical treatment. The total power requirement is calculated using Eq. (1) [23]:
Pwn
Qn Prn
,
En
(1)
where Pwn (kW) is the power consumed by feed, lowpressure, high-pressure and chemical water treatment
pumps, Qn (m3/s) the rates of feed water (Q1), fresh water
production (Q5+Q6), boosted water (Q3), Prn (kPa) the
feed pressure (Pr1), boosted pressure (Pr3), rejection
pressure (Pr2 and Pr4); and En (net efciency of feed
pump) Ep (pump efciency) En (motor efciency) for
the high-pressure pump (booster) and energy recovery
turbine.
According to Darwish et al. [23], the low-pressure pump
consumes the highest energy (Pw1), and the rest constitutes
about 20% of the LP pump. The power required for the
systems LP pump, at 10 m3/h feed water ow rate, 45 bar
pressure, and 0.85 pump efciency, is about 14.7 kW. An
additional 2.9 kW is needed for the booster, feed water,
chemical treatment and other pumps, which is about 20%
of the LP power requirement. Thus, the total power
required for the RO system design is about 17.6 kW. Using
ROSA software, we have obtained a similar result,
17.2 kW. The specic work done is about 3.92 kW h/m3
potable water produced. Without a booster pump, the
system requires about 7.87 kW h/m3, and its water quality
deteriorates from 270 to 800 ppm total dissolved solids.
Moreover, if the booster pump is not applied, water
production in the second stage could decrease by about
33% per hour, i.e. from 2.1 to 1.4 m3/h. Thus, in terms of
water production, water quality, and energy recovery, a
two-stage RO design is preferable. The system design has
an average conversion factor of 55% (relation between
product water ow and feed water ow), producing about
4.4 m3/h of potable water.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
620
80
0
70
0
60
0
30 bar
50
0
40
0
35 bar
30
0
40 bar
45 bar
50 bar
20
0
10
0
0
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
3/h)
25
45 bar
40 bar
20
35 bar
30 bar
15
10
5
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
(m3/h)
Fig. 2. (a) Water quality and feed water ow rate and (b) power thresholds of the SWRO system.
(2)
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
621
Energy consumption/recovery(kW)
Energy recovery(kW)
Initial energy consumption(kW)
Net energy consumption(kW)
25
20
15
10
5
0
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
622
Probability Density
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
8
10
12
Wind speed (m/s)
14
16
18
20
Fig. 4. Seasonal variations of wind speed Weibull distribution of the study area.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
623
Fig. 5. Daily wind power outputs and the required load of FL 30 kW wind turbines.
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
-5
-1
-15
Fig. 6. Base load, wind power production, battery power dispatched, and water production simulated for the rst.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
624
40
Wind Power (kW)
Base Load (kW)
Water Produced(W+B) (m3)
35
30
Wind Power
25
20
Base Load
15
10
5
Water Produced
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
-5
Time for one year (hr)
Fig. 7. Annual wind power, base load, and water production scenarios.
Baseload of RO, PV Power, Battey Power Storage and Dispatch and Water Production
35
RO Baseload kW
PV Power kW
Water Produced
Battery Power kW
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 230 240 250 260 270 280 290 300 310 320 330 340
-5
-10
-15
Time (hr)
Fig. 8. Simulated RO base load for the rst 2 weeks of the month of January, PV power produced.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
625
RO Base load, PV Power Produced and Water Produced for one year
RO Baseload kW
Water Produced
35
30
Produced(m3/hr)
PV Power kW
40
PV Power
25
20
15
RO Baseload
10
Water Produced
5
0
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Time (hr)
Table 1
Summary of power and water costs for different energy options
Energy options
W_B (1)
W_PV_B (2)
W_D_B (3)
W_PV_D_B (4)
W_D (5)
W_PV_D (6)
PV (7)
D (8)
PV_B (9)
0.18
0.53
0.18
0.57
0.26
0.74
0.27
0.74
0.29
0.79
0.30
0.82
0.30
0.82
0.40
1.04
0.40
1.05
Note: W_B: wind and battery; W_PV_B: wind, photovoltaic, and battery; W_D_B: wind diesel battery; W_PV_D_B: wind, photovoltaic, diesel, and
battery; W_D: wind and diesel; W_PV_D: wind, photovoltaic, and diesel; PV: photovoltaic; D: diesel only; and PV_B: photovoltaic and battery.
such high costs, users tend to give high value to the power
generated by diesel generator as it is exible to meet the
energy needs of both domestic and income generating
activities.
3.2.5.2. Results of the analysis. According to the results
of the analysis, a 25 kW diesel generator is enough to meet
the intended water demand, operating for about 8 h/day.
The lowest electricity cost for a feasible option using a
diesel generator is about 0.39$/kW h, similar to the result
for the PV system.
3.2.6. Integrated power system
This option simulates the combination of the three
options such as wind, PV and diesel energy sources with a
battery as energy storage. In this scenario, the challenge is
the assumptions made in choosing the base load congurations. In the case of stand-alone power systems, it is
possible to congure the base load according to the
behavior of the energy sources. In an integrated case, we
assume that the base load is the same as the wind energy
conguration, 24 h/day and 8760 h/year. Then, based on
the simulation results, in addition to least cost options, we
determine the most feasible options.
In an integrated approach, whenever wind energy is
available, it is the cheapest option. Under this scenario, the
cost of electricity of the feasible options ranges from 0.175
to 0.183$/kW h, for stand alone wind turbine with battery,
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
626
Power cost($/kWh)
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0.25
0.20
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0
10
Energy Options
Fig. 10. Power costs with 25% error.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
627
Water costs($/m3)
1.25
1.00
0.75
0.50
0.25
0.00
0
10
Energy Options
Fig. 11. Water costs with 25% error. (Note: the number of the energy options corresponds to the types of energy options shown in Table 1.)
Water Production(m3/month)
5000
4500
4000
PV Powered
3500
Wind Powered
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
r
em
be
be
D
ov
N
ec
em
ob
ct
O
em
er
r
be
st
Se
pt
Au
gu
ly
Ju
ne
Ju
ay
M
ril
Ap
ar
y
au
br
Fe
ar
y
ar
nu
Ja
ch
Months
Fig. 12. Monthly PV- and wind-powered water production.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
628
14%
PV Powered
Wind Powered
12%
10%
8%
6%
4%
2%
r
em
ec
D
em
be
be
er
N
ov
O
ct
ob
be
Se
pt
em
gu
st
ly
Au
Ju
Ju
ne
ay
M
ril
Ap
ua
Fe
b
ra
ar
ry
y
ar
nu
Ja
ch
0%
Months
Fig. 13. Water productivity and energy storage.
$ per m3 of water
Energy Expense with and without the energy recovery(ER) system under different energy options
$1.6
$1.5
$1.4
$1.3
$1.2
$1.1
$1.0
$0.9
$0.8
$0.7
$0.6
$0.5
$0.4
$0.3
$0.2
$0.1
$0.0
W_B
W_PV_B
W_D
W_D_B
W_PV_D_B W_PV_D
PV_B
PV
Energy options
ARTICLE IN PRESS
A.M. Gilau, M.J. Small / Renewable Energy 33 (2008) 617630
and $0.43/m3, respectively. This implies that the windpowered system could be competitive.
Our energy optimization model for RO desalination
system is a rst step toward facilitating its wider application. Moreover, the energy optimization model, which has
not been used before for such a purpose, provides a useful
and relatively straight forward approach, particularly for
simulating hourly renewable energy production and consequently synchronizing this with the energy load in order
to operate under the wide operating system parameters of
the RO plant. However, in order to determine the
robustness of the methodology, we believe that the model
requires further testing, especially for the design of an
actual SWRO system. With current results, we recommend
that, since the availability of energy recovery systems
capable of operating under highly variable conditions is
limited, for higher water productivity and continuous
energy recovery, it is important to operate above 10 m3/h
feed water at low pressures between 30 and 45 bar. The
lower the pressure, the lower the energy required for
producing a limited quantity of water. In contrast, if a
greater rate of water production is needed, then a higher
energy/higher pressure design is required.
References
[1] Vorosmarty CJ, Green P, Salisbury J, Lammers RB. Water stress in
to todays and tomorrows world. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Water 2001;3(1);
Science 289:2848.
[2] Vaknin S. The emerging water wars. The progress report. Progress.org; 2005. Accessed December 29, 2005.
[3] Government of Eritrea (GoE). Asmara Power Distribution and Rural
Electrication Project, Environmental and Social Assessment (ESA).
Report including Environmental and Social Management and
Monitoring Plan (ESMMP). Ministry of Energy and Mines, Asmara,
Eritrea, January 2004.
[4] Kalogirou A. Seawater desalination using renewable energy sources.
Prog Energy Combust Sci 2005;31(3):24281.
[5] Gilau A. Desalination by solar distillation. Ministry of Energy,
Mining and Water Resources, Asmara, Eritrea; September 1992.
[6] Feron P. The use of wind power in autonomous reverse osmosis sea
water desalination. Wind Energy Group, the Netherlands. Wind Eng
1985;9(3):1985.
[7] Carta J, Gonzalez J, Subiela V. Operational analysis of an innovative
wind powered reverse osmosis system installed in the Canary Islands.
Sol Energy 2003;75:15368.
[8] Miranda MS, Ineld D. A wind-powered seawater reverse-osmosis
system without batteries. Desalination 2003;153(1):916.
[9] Sultan A, Rheinlander J, Gabler H. Seawater reverse osmosis
powered from renewable energy sourceshybrid wind/photovoltaic/grid power supply for small-scale desalination in Libya.
Desalination 2002;153:1723.
[10] DOW Chemical Company. ROSA 6.0.1 Software, A guide to ROSA
6.0; 2005. /http://www.dow.comS. Accessed October 2005.
[11] National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). HOMER, The
Hybrid Optimization Model for Electric Renewables, 2005. /http://
www.nrel.gov/homer/S. Accessed 2005.
[12] Marie A, Pedersen J. Urban households and urban economy in
Eritrea. Analytical report from the urban Eritrean household income
and expenditure survey 1996/97. Statistics and Evaluation Ofce,
Asmara, Eritrea, May 2001.
629
ARTICLE IN PRESS
630