DESALINATiON

ELSEVIER
Desalination 152 (2002) 83-92
www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Energy consumption in equivalent work by different desalting methods: case study for Kuwait
M.A. Danish*, F. Al Asfour, N. Al-Najem

Mechanical Engineering Department, Kuwait University, Kuwait Tel. +965 (48) 11188;Fax +965 (48) 47131; email: darwish@kucOl.kuniv.edu.kw Received 28 March 2002; accepted 13 April 2002

Abstract Kuwait needs to add more desalting units to its present installed capacity to satisfy the growing need of potable water. The energy consumed by different desalting system is one of the main parameters affecting the choice of new desalting system. Every desalting system consumed either thermal, or mechanical energy or both. This paper presents a method to compare these energies on one scale that the equivalent work consumed. Based on this analysis, the energy consumed by the multi stage flash MSF system, the only system presently used in Kuwait to desalt seawater, was calculated and found equal to 25 kWh/m. This is much higher than the energy consumed by the other two reliable systems, namely reverse osmosis (RO) and multi-effect boiling (MEB) extensively used now in many of the Arabian Gulf Countries, AGC. The average energy consumed by the RO system is 5 kWh/m, and by the MEB is in the range of 12 kWh/m3 when steam is extracted from steam turbines at low availability. Keywords: Multi-stage flash distillation system; Reverse osmosis; Energy consumed per m3of desalted water; Multieffect boiling

1. Introduction Kuwait data on desalted water in the year 2000 [ 1J show an annual production of 82,454.3 million

maximum and average daily consumption of 278.5 and 225.0 MIG per day (MIGD) respectively. The

imperial gallons (MIG), or 375.17x106m3, and *Corresponding author.

average annual consumption increase in the last 5 years is 7.6%. The present installed capacity of desalting units is 286.8 MIGD. This means that the capacity needs to be doubled in 9 years, or at

Presented at the EuroMed 2002 conference on Desalination Strategies in South Mediterranean Countries: Cooperation between Mediterranean Countries of Europe and the Southern Rim of the Mediterranean. Sponsored by the European Desalination Society and Alexandria University Desalination Studies and Technology Center, Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt, May 4-6, 2002. 00 1I-91 64/02/!$- See front matter 0 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved
PII:SOOll-9164(02)01051-2

84

M.A. Danvish et al. /Desalination

152 (2002) 83-92

least 250 MIGD capacity units are to be added before 2 100 [2]. The only method used to desalt seawater in Kuwait is multi stage flash (MSF) system. Besides MSF, other systems can be added to satisfy future needs. One of the main parameters affecting the choice of any desalting system is its consumed energy. The consumed energy can be thermal, or mechanical energy, or both. A rational basis is needed to compare the value of energy used by each system. Steam (at different temperatures and pressures) is used to supply most thermally operated desalting systems. A method to evaluate the applied energy on a single base is to express it in terms of available energy, i.e. maximum theoretical work that can be obtained from that energy, or the energy itself if it is mechanical work. However, specialists in the field prefer to express the applied energy in terms of the specific fuel energy consumed kJ/kg desalted water or equivalent mechanical work in kWh/m3. These methods are used here to compare the consumed energy by different desalting systems and to help decision makers in the choice of systems to be

added. The energy consumed by a desalting system used in Kuwait is presented first. 2. Equivalent work or fuel energy consumed by a desalting system in Kuwait Steam of moderately low pressure (2-3 bar) provides thermal energy to MSF desalting units. The supplied steam is either extracted from steam turbines or directly from a boiler after throttling to the required pressure. All Kuwaiti MSF units, (except 3 units in Shuwaikh plant) are combined with steam turbines to get extracted steam. Power plants producing both electric power and desalted water are called cogeneration power desalting plants (CPDP). The real value of steam supplied to the MSF units lies in its ability to produce work. The flow sheet of steam turbine connected to 2 MSF desalting units is shown in Fig. 1 as an example. The nominal capacity of the turbine is 300 MW electric power, W,and 196 MW thermal, Q, supplied to 2 MSF units. The steam generator consumes 696.23 5 MW fuel energy, Q, when the

m=

mass flow rate, kg/s

Fig. 1. Cogeneration power desalting plant used in Kuwait, W, 225 MW, &= 196 MW. =

t = temperature, C p= pressure, bar

M.A. Danvish et al. /Desalination

152 (2002) 83-92

85

turbine produces W, = 225 MW electric power and Q,= 196 MW th ermal energy to the 2 MSF units by steam extracted from a cross pipe between the low and intermediate pressure turbine cylinders. The 196 MW (Q,) heat produces 14.4 MIGD (758.3 kg/s) of desalted water, or 258.5 kJikg of desalted water when the MSF units operate at 110C top brine temperature. The 77.23 kg/s steam (Msd) supplied to the MSF units would produce 43.295 MW work if it is expanded in the LP cylinder to the condenser instead of being fed to the MSF units. This work, We (= 43.295 MW), is called equivalent work to thermal energy Qd (=196 MW), or the equivalent work loss due to steam extraction. This gives he CPDP efficiency, T,~ defined by turbine work output W,, plus We divided by Q: ,,;;,V, + We)l?,=(225 + 43.295) 1696.235

Specific mechanical work = 60.77 x 10001758.3 = 80.14 kJikg = 22.26 kWh/m3 When the MSF units are driven by steam throttled directly from boiler, called boiler driven case (BD), more fuel energy (or equivalent work) is consumed, as compared to the extracted steam case. Fuel charged to produce 14.4 MIGD for BD case is: Fuel energy to produce 196 MW heat to the MSF units =196 / qb = 2 17.78 MW, if (the boiler efficiency) = 0.9. This is almost twice the 112.45 MW for extracted steam case. The total fuel energy would be 263.18 MW when fuel energy for pumping and steam ejector is added. This gives: Specific fuel consumption = 374 kJ/kg (compared to 208.2 kJ/kg in extracted steam case), and Specific equivalent mechanical work = 144 kJ/kg or 40 kWh/m3, (compared to 22.26 kWh/m3 for extracted steam). So, direct supply of steam from boiler should always be avoided, and it is used only when no operating turbine is available for steam extraction. Table 1 gives year 2000 desalted water output by all MSF units operating in 4 CPDP plants (Azzour South, Doha West, Doha East, and Shuwaiba), and Shuwaikh plant (a plant producing desalted water only) in Kuwait. The table gives the hours and desalted water production when the MSF units were supplied with steam directly from the boiler, or boiler driven BD, beside total production, Tin m3 and million imperial gallons, MIG. The table shows that out of 375.167~ 1O6m3 total produced desalted water, 73.367~ 1O6m3 or 19.6% were produced by using throttled steam directly from boiler, and the balance (301.8x 1O6m3 or 80.4%) by extracted steam. Then, the average consumed energy is 240.7 MJ/m3 fuel energy or 25.74 kWh/m3 equivalent work. This is certainly high figure when compared with 5-7.5 kWhlm3 consumed by reverse osmosis seawater desalting system, the main competitor to the MSF system.

This rating method for the CPDP is better than the utilization factor term defined by UF = (W,+ Q41 Qe(,= (225 + 196) 1696.235 = 0.6 The UF overestimates the performance of the CPDP by adding the low availability heat Q, to the work W,. Fuel charged to desalting process should be 43.295 IO.385 = 112.45 MW. More energy is supplied by high-pressure steam to operate the steam ejectors of the MSF units used to reject noncondensable gases from the units (about 16 kJ/kg of desalted water or 17.8 kJ/kg fuel energy based on 0.9 boiler efficiency, n,>;and by pumping energy (about 16.2 kJ/kg desalted water or 4.5 kWh/m3). So, fuel energy charged to produce 14.4 MGD (758.3 kg/s) is 112.45 MW (due to extracted steam) + 13.5 MW (due to steam ejectors) + 3 1.9 MW (due to 12.28 MW pumping work) = 157.85 MW. This gives: Specific fuel consumption = 157.85 x 1000/758.3 = 208.2 kJ/kg Mechanical work charged to desalting = 157.85 x 0.385 = 60.77 MW, or

86

MA.

Danvish

et al. /Desalination

152 (2002)

83-92

Table 1 Kuwait MSF units desalted water production in the year 2000 Unit number T,MTG BD, MIG T, 1000 m3 BD, 1000 m3 BD, no. hours

Azzour South plant, 8 ST x 300 MW and 12 MSF x 7.2 MGD DID2 D3LD4 D5/D6 D7/D8 D9110 DllD12 4783.0 4047.4 4275.6 5169.0 4108.0 4665.8 27048.8 1220.4 1129.1 1193.5 704.4 0.0 66.8 4314.2 21762.7 18415.7 19454.0 23519.0 18691.4 21229.4 123072.0 5552.8 5137.6 5430.4 3205.0 0.0 303.9 19629.8 4088.0 3763.8 3978.2 2348.0 0.0 222.5

Doha West Plant, 8 ST x 300 MW, and 16 MSF x 7.2 MGD Dl/D2 D3lD4 D5fD6 D7iD8 D9/10 Dl l/D12 D13/D14 D15/D16 2864.8 2285.3 4276.0 4363.7 3946.0 4790.0 4720.9 4102.7 3 1349.4 Doha East Plant, 7 ST x 150 MW, and 7 MSF x 6 MGD Dl D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 D7 1673.7 1818.5 1614.1 1893.5 1758.7 2022.0 1954.8 12735.3 Shuaiba Plant, 6 ST x 134 MW, and 6 MSF x 5 MGD Dl D2 D3 D4 D5 D6 1345.7 1004.4 1166.2 1393.7 1273.4 1496.8 7680.2 479.1 171.2 129.1 430.8 126.2 244.3 1580.7 6122.9 4570.0 5306.2 6341.3 5794.0 6810.4 34944.9 2179.9 779.0 587.4 1960.1 574.2 1111.6 7192.2 2487.7 932.0 692.0 2305.2 674.1 1265.4 737.7 503.5 123.3 279.9 202.3 711.7 792.3 3350.7 7615.3 8274.2 7344.2 8615.4 8002.1 9200.1 8894.3 57945.6 3356.5 2290.9 561.0 1273.5 920.5 3238.2 3605.0 15245.7 2842.0 1983.7 467.2 1074.9 781.6 2784.7 3045.2 395.5 53.3 574.2 42.6 610.9 415.3 377.0 765.1 3233.9 13034.8 10398.1 19455.8 19854.8 17954.3 21794.5 21480.1 18667.3 142639.8 1799.5 242.5 2612.6 193.8 2779.6 1889.6 1715.4 3481.2 14714.2 1318.3 147.2 1913.9 142.1 2036.4 1384.3 1256.7 2550.3

MA. Danvish et al. /Desalination 152 (2002) 83-92

87

Table 1, continued Unit number Shuweaikh Plant, 3 MSF x 6 MGD Dl D2 D3 1091.9 1653.8 894.9 3640.6 Overall total Total/d Ratio % 82454.3 225.9 100.0 1091.9 1653.8 894.9 3640.6 16120.1 44.2 19.6 4968.1 7524.8 4071.8 16564.7 375167.1 1027.9 100.0 4968.1 7524.8 4071.8 16564.7 73346.6 200.9 19.6 4317.5 6509.3 3526.8 T,MIG BD, MIG T, 1000 m3 BD, 1000 m3 BD, no. hours

r, MIG: total production in million imperial gallons; BD, MIG: production in MIG when units are supplied directly from boiler; r,lOOO m3: total production in thousands of cubic meters; BD production in IO3m3 when units are supplied directly from boiler.

3. Possible addition of other desalting systems to Kuwait

is the main source of potable water in Kuwait. So, it is vital to the chosen desalting system to be designed for long life with high degree of reliability. Forced outage of large plants, even for short periods, creates serious problems due to the limited storage capacity of desalted water. The MSF system is preferred because of its high availability. The availability here is defined by the annual service hours (hours of unit production) plus reserve shutdown hours (hours of unit shutdown due to no production needs) divided by the number of hours per year, 8760. The availability of the MSF plants worldwide is quite high. For example, it reaches 86% in the year 2000 for Doha West MSF units, although the units were built more than 18 years ago. It is a mature system with proven material selection and no moving parts except pumps of known reliability. Although the MSF system is known for its high energy consumption compared to other systems, more MSF units are still ordered and contracted for in the Middle East especially for large capacity units. Examples of some MSF units ordered or under construction in the UAE within the last 3 years are (given in numbers x capacity in MIGD each): 4 x (10-12.5) in Taweela A2, 5x12.5 in
Desalted water

Umm Al Nar B, 3 x7.5 in Mirfa B, 4x 10 in Jebel Ali K2, and 2x 10 in Jebel Ali Kl [3]. Recently other systems of proven reliability have been used in Gulf countries, such as multi effect boiling (MEB) of conventional and thermal vapor compression (TVC) types, and reverse osmosis desalting systems.

4. Reverse osmosis desalting system and its

energy consumption

RO seawater desalting system is the main competitor of the MSF system. The RO system became more attractive by continuous improvements in membrane materials, raising of both feed pressure and temperature limits [4], production of potable water from high salinity water in the Gulf area in single stage, and using two stage brine to raise conversion ratio [5]. Another concept applied recently is to use two RO passes, the first one is of high permeate flow with less salt rejection to produce permeate of 700-l 100 ppm, which is entirely used as feed to low energy brackish water membranes. The brackish water membrane can produce salinity of 50 ppm [6]. The product pressure of the first stage can be raised to 9 to 15 bar to go through a second product stage without pumping. The main advantages of

88

M.A. Dam&h et al. / Desalination 152 (2002) 83-92

the RO system, over the MSF system are: 1. It consumes less energy, [mechanical energy delivered by motor(s)]. 2. No need to combine to power plant or to interfere with its operation. In fact, it can be operated only during non-peak power demand period. 3. It has simple start/stop operation. 4. It is delivered in modules, no need to shut off the whole plant for emergency or routine maintenance. The energy consumed by the RO system and its comparison with that of the MSF system are presented here through an example of Jeddah-1 RO plant phase II [7].The plant consists of 10 trains to produce 12.5 MIGD. Each train gives a product rate of 5680 m3/d (65.74 kg/s). It has a conversion ratio CR (product/feed) = 0.35 with 43,300 mg/l feed salinity. The power consumption is calculated here for one train of the plant. Since CR is 0.35, then the feed flow rate is 65.74/0.35 = 187.83 kg/s. The plant actual feed pressure is close to 60 bar (maximum allowable pressure is 70 bar). Assuming the net efficiency of the feed pump including its driving motor E,, is 0.76, E,, = E,, x Em where Ep and Emare the pump and the motor efficiency respectively. Then, Feed pump power consumption = @(in m3/s) x P (in kPa) / En= (187.83 / 1000) x (6000) / (0.76) = 1482.87 kW

By considering 20% more energy is consumed by other pumps (e.g. seawater supply, seawater boost, and chemical dosing pumps), then the consumed power = 1.2 x 1633.3 = 1779.44 kW To calculate the energy that can be recovered from the brine by a turbine, the brine flow rate = 187.83 - 65.74 = 122.09 kg/s. Brine pressure = feed pressure - pressure loss in the feed-brine side = 56 bar Recovered energy = brine flow rate (in m3/s) x P (in kPa) x E I where E, is the turbine efficiency. Et is assumed equal to 0.67 when the turbine is reversed centrifugal pump; and 0.84-0.88 when it is an impulse (Pelton) wheel turbine. The recovered energy = (122.09/1000) x 5600 x 0.84 = 574.3 I kW Net energy consumption = 1779.44 - 574.3 1 = 1205.13 kW Specific workdone = 1205.13/65.74 = 18.33 kJ/kg = 5.09 kWh/m3 It may be noticed here that in Al Fujaira plant, using higher feed salinity than Jeddah plant, and reversed centrifugal pump as aturbine, the measured power consumption is 6.54 kWh/m3 [8], but the guaranteed power consumption is 7.5 kWh/m3. This plant is in operation since 199 1. Major advances of spiral wound membranes by raising the feed pressure to 80-100 bar, and the concentration of the rejected brine to 87 mg/l, open the door for two stage brine RO with high recovery ratio [4]. This decreases the energy consumption (operating cost) and capital investment. This point is illustrated by the next example. Consider again one train of Jeddah 11plant as a first brine stage with feed of 187.83 kg/s, conversion ratio, CR, (product/feed) = 0.35 with feed salinity of 43,300 mg/l, feed pressure is around 60 bar, product of 5680 m3/d (65.74 kg/s and the energy pumping power consumption of 1779.44 kW including parasitic power consumption. The flow

Fig. 2. Two brine stage RO system.

M.A. Darwish et al. /Desalination

152 (2002) 83-92

89

rate of rejection from this stage is 122.09 kg/s with salinityof4.43/(1 -0.35)=6.815g/l,andpressure of 59 bar. When this brine is introduced to brine second stage by using a booster pump that raises its pressure to 72 bar, and conversion rate of 15%, the product of this stage is 18.3 14 kg/s, and the rejection flow rate is 103.78 kg/s with salinity of 8.02 g/l. The energy consumed by the booster pump that raises the feed to this stage from 59 bar to 73 bar (i.e. 1300 kPa pressure difference) can be calculated as before: Booster pump power consumption = (122.09 / 1000) x 1300) / 0.76 = 208.84 kW The energy of the second stage brine, say at 7 1 bar, can be recovered by turbine as mentioned early to give: Turbine energy recovered = (103.78/l 000) x (7100) x 0.84 = 618.94 kW The net energy consumption = 1779.44 + 208.84 618.94 = 1369.34 kW The total product of the 2 stages = 65.74 + 18.3 14 = 84.054 kg/s Specific power consumption = 1369.34 / 84.054 = 16.29 kJ/kg = 4.52 kWh/m3 This is 10% less than the case when a single stage was used. The conversion rate is 84.054 / 187.83 = 44.75%. It is noticed here the efficiencies used for pumps and turbine are conservative values. Pump efficiency reported by Martinho [9] is in the range of 80-86 %, and turbine is in the range 84-88%, usually Pelton wheel turbines. The above calculation is conservative and optimization of the system can lead to higher conversion ratio and lower energy consumption. The specific fuel consumed is 4.52 x 3.610.38 = 42.87 kJ/kg. These calculations indicate clearly that the RO is much more efficient energy wise than the MSF system where its least equivalent energy consumption in Kuwait is 22.5 kWh/m3. The reported energy consumption for 5700 m3/d SWRO in the

Caribbean (Curacao) came down to 3.15 kWh/m3 (when energy for pretreatment was not taken into account [5]. 5. Conventional and thermal vapor compression
multi effect boiling desalting system

Conventional multi effect boiling (MEB) system was the predominantly used method to desalt seawater before 1960 when the MSF system emerged and practically terminated its use for units of high capacity. In that period, submerged tubes evaporators were used with no feed preheaters. These evaporators have limited movement of boiling water covering the heating tubes. This causes low heat transfer coefficient and high scaling rate. Forward feed system was used where feed water and heating vapor to the effects flow in the same direction to insure low salt concentration at high temperature effects. This gives low performance ratio since good fraction of supplied steam is used to raise the temperature of the first effect feed to its boiling point. These problems were solved in recent years by using falling film evaporators, and regenerative feed heaters to raise the first effect feed temperature close to boiling point. Recently, the MEB system became dominant with unit capacity up to 5 MIGD, which was previously the domain of MSF technology in the last 4 decades [9]. These units can work either as conventional or thermal vapor compression (TVC) mode. Examples of some MEB units ordered or under construction in the UAE within the last 3 years are (given in numbers x capacity in MIGD each): 14x3.7 in Taweela Al, 2x3.5 in Umm AI Nar 9 and 10, and 2x5 in Layyah. The striking feature of these MEB is its low top brine temperature, in the range of 60C. When combined with turbines to extract steam of low pressure at saturation temperature close to 70C the units operate as conventional MEB. When the extracted steam is available at a 3-bar

90

MA. Danvish et al. /Desalination

152 (2002) 83-92

pressure, they can operate as a TVC system. When operated directly by a boiler, and not combined to turbine, they wok as a TVC system with steam pressure of 20-30 bar. In the early 1990, Sidem Company, France built 4 TVC units of one MIGD each in United Arab Emirates with gain ratio of 8 [7]. Another plant of 12000 m3/d was reported by Temstet and Laborie in 1995 [lo] with a gain ratio of 13.4 when operated as a TVC plant with 2.5 bar motive steam. The company claims that the unit can operate as conventional multi effect boiling MEB desalting unit with steam supplied at 0.32 bar, and has a gain ratio equal to 9.8. This plant is taken here as a reference to be considered for combination with Azzour West plant with layout shown in Fig. 1. 6. Energy consumed
system by conventional MEB

2580 kJ/kg enthalpy), and at the condenser inlet (2346.5 kJikg). So, the work loss due to the extraction of 1 kg of steam extracted to the conventional MEB is 233.5 (= 2580 - 2346.5)kJ/kg steam. Since the gain ratio is 10.6, then the specific equivalent mechanical work is 22.03 kJ/kg. By adding 7.2 kJ/kg pumping energy, the specific total equivalent work is 29.23 kJ/kg distillate (8.14 kWh/m3). This is comparable the very efficient reverse osmosis system that consumes on the average 6.5 kWh/m3 (23.4 kJ/kg product). 7. Energy consumed by a TVC desalting plant The flow sheet of the plant when operated in a TVC mode is given in Fig. 3. The plant has 12 effects with maximum and minimum brine temperatures of 63 and 37.5C respectively. Saturation temperatures, ST, of vapor generated in the first effect and last effects are 62.2 and 36.5C respectively. This gives ST difference between heating and generated vapor DT equal to 2.3-2.4C in each effect. By taking an average boiling point elevation E equal to lC, then the heat transfer temperature difference in each effect is AT= DT-E = 1.3C This is a really low value, showing that large and costly heat transfer area is used. The equivalent work consumed by this system can be calculated as before. There are two cases here. The first is the conditions of steam supply given by the manufacturer, and the second is the condition applied when combined with AzzourSouth plant. The calculations with the later case were done before [2], and are reported here. When the unit is combined with Azzour plant, it receives a motive steam at P, = 3.5 bar (higher than Ps used by manufacturer). The last effect pressure is Pe= 6.45 kPa (ST = 37.5Q and the steam ejector delivery pressure is P,= 24.5 kPa (ST = 64.5C). So the compression ratio is PJPr = 3.8, and the expansion ratio P/P,= 54.3. This gives y/Dr (motive steam to compressed vapor

The conventional multi effect system is very well known. The reference plant (see Figs. 3a,b) is used here to show how the energy consumed is calculated by the same method used for the MSF system. The plant capacity is 2.64 MIGD, and when combined with Azzour-South plant, shown in Fig. 1, the steam can be extracted at the same condition of the lowest feed heater. The thermal energy con-sumed by the system according to the design is 5 1 t/h (14.1667 kg/s) steam of 2498 kJikg enthalpy and 0.3 bar and leaving condensate of 366.8 kJ/kg enthalpy. The distillate output is 500 t/h (138.89 kg/s). This gives specific thermal energy of 2 17.4 kJ/kg distillate. When combined to Azzour-South plant, the extracted steam is at 0.416 bar, 2850 kJ/kg enthalpy and the enthalpy of the leaving condensate is 270 kJ/kg. The specific thermal energy of 2 17.4 kJ/kg gives a gain ratio of 10.6, and extracted steam flow rate of 13.1 kg/s. The pumping energy is almost the same as a TVC system, and is equal to 7.2 kJ/kg. The equivalent mechanical energy is calculated by the enthalpy difference of steam extracted to the unit (at the condition to the lowest pressure feed heater of

M.A. Danvish et al. / Desalination lS2 (2002) 83-92

91

P=6.0 BAR G T=230.0 OC F=2.5 T/H

MAKE UP F=1644.0 T/H T=35.0 OC S=36.0 G/KG F= 137.0 T/H T=62.0 C HEATING STEAM P=O.31 BAR F=51 .O T/H H=2496.0 KJlKG CONDENSATE RETURN F=51 T/H T=64C F=137.0 T/H T=56.2 C F=l37.0 T=35.0 T/H OC F=l37.0 T=35.0 T/H C

REJECT F=3106.0

T/H

SEA WATER F=4750.0 T/H T=29.5 C S=36.0 G/KG

HIGA PUIRTY F=O.O T/H TO 20 T/H

BRAIN BLOWDOWN F=1144.0 T/H T=36.5 C S=51.73 G/KG

OUTPUT F=500.0 T/H (if high purity 0 T/H) Tc=36.0 OC

Fig. 3a. Multi effect boiling MEB operating with thermal vapor compression mode.

STEAM P=l.5 BAR G T=155.5C F=37.3 T/H

STEAM P=6.0 BAR G T=230.0 C F =2.5 T/H

MAKE UP F=l644.0 T/H _ T=34.5 C S=36.0 G/KG F=l37.0 T/H T=34.5 =C F=137.0 T/-l T= 34.5 C

REJECT

SEA WATER F=4100.0 T/H T=29.5 OC S=36.0 G/KG

RETURN F=46.5 TM T=64.5 C

HIGH PUIRTY F=O.O TM TO 20 T/H

BRAIN BLOW F=1144.0T/H T=37.5 C S=51.7 GIKG

DOWN

OUTPUT F=490.6 T/H (if hiah ~uritv 0 T/H) ic=36.6 OC-

Fig. 3b. Multi effect boiling MEB operating with conventional mode.

92

M.A. Danvish et al. /Desalination

152 (2002) 83-92

ratio) equal to 2.4. The motive steam is extracted between the IP and LP cylinders. The supplied steam MS required to produce the same capacity (138.89 kg/s distillate) is 32.82 t/h (9.117 kg/s), and the gain ratio would be 14.9. Then the thermal energy consumption is Q,= 9.117 (2944.2 - 270) = 24,38 1 kW, and specific thermal energy is 178.8 kJ/kg. This motive steam would give 560.5 kJ/kg work if it was expanded in the LP turbine to the condenser. Then the specific mechanical equivalent work (for thermal energy) is 560.5/14.9 = 37.6 kJ/kg. By adding 7.2 kJ/kg pumping energy, the specific total equivalent work is 44.8 kJ/kg (or 12.44 kWh/m3).

be crucial to Kuwait where the present installed desalting capacity is almost equal the consumption and the demand continues to increase. The RO and MEB systems should be considered seriously by the Ministry of Electricity and Water
in their decision to install new units.

References
111 Statistical Year Book on electric energy, Ministry of Electricity and Water, State of Kuwait, 200 1. PI M.A. Darwish, On electric power and desalted water production in Kuwait, Desalination, 138 (200 1) 183190. [31 C. Sommariva and V.S.N. Syambabu, Increase in water production in UAE, Desalination, 138 (2001) 173-179. [41 M. Kurihara, H. Yamamura,T. Nakanishi and S. Jinno, Operation ad reliability of high recovery seawater desalination technologies by brine conversion two stages RO desalination system, Desalination, 138 (2001) 191-199. PI A. Grundisch and B.P. Schneider, Optimizing energy consumption in SWRO systems with brine concentrators, Desalination, 138 (2001) 223-229. PI J.A. Redondo and IV. Lanzarote, A new concept for two pass SWRO at low O&M cost using the new FILMTEC SW30-380, Desalination, 138 (2001) 23 l236. [71 A. Al-Badawi, Operation and analysis of Jeddah I, phase II plant. Proc. IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Science, Abu Dhabi, 3 (1995) 4153. PI M. Shierach, Seawater plant in Al Fujirah, UAE. Proc. IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Science, Abu Dhabi, 3 (1995) 99-107. A. Martinho, The high pressure pump train on reverse [91 osmosis plants. Experience and current trends. Desalination, 138 (2001) 219-222. PO1 C. Temstet and J. Laborie, Dual purpose desalination plant - high efficiency multi effect evaporator operating with turbine for power production. Proc. IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water Science, Abu Dhabi, 3 (1995) 297-308.

8. Conclusions More desalting units are urgently needed for Kuwait to satisfy the growing consumption of potable water. The only used system to desalt seawater is MSF desalting system. The energy consumed by the MSF system in Kuwait, based on operation records, reached more than 25 kWh/m3. It was noticed that in the year 2000, 19.6% of desalted water was produced by steam supplied directly from boilers with consumed equivalent work of 40 kWh/m3, while for the balance 83.4% production, the steam was extracted from turbines with consumed work equivalent of 22.26 kWh/m3. The RO and MEB with conventional or TVC operations are much more efficient, energy-wise than the presently used MSF system. The new developments in RO membranes and brine staging can bring the consumed work to 5 kWh/m3. The steam supplied to the MEB has lower availability, and its pumping work is half that consumed by the MSF system. Moreover, the capital cost and delivery time of both RO and MEB are less than those of the MSF system. The delivery time may