Designing Cost Effective

7/28/2019 Designing Cost Effective

1/18

Proceedings of the International Conference on Renewable Energy for Developing Countries-2006 1

Designing Cost-Effective Sea Water Reverse Osmosis System under

Optimal Energy Options for Developing Countries

Asmerom M. Gilau and Mitchell J. Small

Carnegie Mellon University, Engineering & Public Policy/ H. John Heinz III Professorof Environmental Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Civil & Environmental

Engineering and Engineering & Public Policy

Abstract

Today, three billion people around the world have no access to clean drinking water and about 1.76billion 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 sea water reverse-osmosis (SWRO)system for developing countries. In this paper, we have introduced a new methodology; an energyoptimization model which simulates hourly power production from renewable energy sources. Using the

results of the model, we have computed hourly water production for a two stage SWRO system with acapacity of 35m3/day. According to our results, specific energy consumption is about 2.33kWh/m3, whichis a lower value than that achieved in most of the previous designs. Using a booster pump, energyrecovery turbine and appropriate membrane, specific energy consumption could be decreased by about70%. Furthermore, the energy recovery turbine could reduce water cost by about 41%. Still, power cost isthe major component of the total investment constituting about 80% of the total cost of the SWROsystem. Our results show that, wind powered system is the cheapest and a PV powered system, the mostexpensive, with about 0.50$/m3 and 1.00$/m3, respectively. By international standards, for example, inChina, these values are considered economically feasible. Detailed simulations of RO system design,energy options, power and water costs, and life cycle analysis are discussed._________________________________

Key Words: Reverse osmosis; Energy recovery; Optimal energy options; Energy storage;

Power Cost; Water Cost

1. BackgroundToday, about three billion people around the world have no acess to clean drinking water.According to the World Water Council, by 2020, the world will be about 17 percent short of thewater to feed the world population. Moreover, about 1.76 billion people live in areas alreadyfacing a high degree of water stress (Vrsmarty et. al, 2001). "Water stress" is on the top of theworlds agenda at least as firmly as climate change (Vaknin, 2005).As a result, the need for

desalination is increasing, even in regions where water supply is adequate.

As part of the most affected arid areas of the world, Eritrea has been the victim of recurrentdroughts and water shortage. The problems of water supply vary from place to place and one ofthe most severe problems exists in the coastal areas and islands (MLWE, 1995). Thus, the casestudy will asses the use of renewable energy for sea water reverse osmosis for the coastal villageof Berasoel, located at the Southern Red Sea, Eritrea.


2/18


Sea water desalination is an energy-intensive process (Gaparini, 1985; Carta, et. al 2003). Most of theavailable large scale desalination plants around the world are powered by fuel. Due to the concern ofglobal warming, and increasing fuel costs alternative energy sources has been proposed for desalinationpurposes. For example, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has proposed to use nuclearpower for large scale desalination plants (Carta et. al. 2003), and the use of renewable energy sources forsmall scale desalination plants is emerging. Autonomous wind powered sea water reverse osmosis

potentials has been studied (Feron 1985; Marcos et.al. 2002) and pilot projects are in progress (Carta et.al. 2003). However, the application of renewable energy for desalination has not yet reached sufficientmaturity to be applied widely. Moreover, most of the proposed designs are connected to the conventionalpower grids (Sultan et. al. 2002, Carta et. al. 2003). Thus, the main objective of this research is to designa cost-effective reverse osmosis system, which functions under optimal energy options. This paperintroduces a new methodology of an energy optimization model for the sea water reverse osmosis(SWRO) system.

In the analysis, two major models are applied, namely Reverse Osmosis System Analysis(ROSA)1, a sophisticated reverse osmosis (RO) design program that predicts the performance ofmembranes in user specified systems, and HOMER2, an energy optimization model for hybrid aswell as stand alone power systems. Life cycle analyses are performed to examine theperformance of the system, determine water costs and undertake comparative analysis ofdifferent options.

2. Situation Analysis

2.1 Water Demand: Recent studies conduced by the Swiss Federal Institute for EnvironmentalScience and Technology (2003) indicate that East African countries have renewable freshwaterresources below the calculated threshold of 1500 m3 per capita year. Eritrea is already in waterdeficits. According to the recent studies, in the coastal parts of the country water demand is116m3/household/year (Marie and Pedersen, 2001). Thus, for the Berasoel village of 108households, we are assuming an average water demand of 35m3/day and 13,000m3/year.

2.2. Energy Supply: In Eritrea, there is a strong potential for wind-powered electricitygeneration (Habtesion et. al. , 2001) and sunshine is abundant. The Southeast coast of Eritrea hasas much as 100 - 200 kilometres of 6 and 7 wind classes. At these sites, wind turbines mayoperate at a 40% - 60% capacity factor (Habtetsion and Tsighe, 2002), which implies that thewind potential ranges from excellent to exceptional (African Development Bank, 2004), andcould be potentially used for commercial and industrial purposes as well. The average annualwind speed and solar radiation are about 6.8m/s and 6.8kWh/m2, respectively.

3. Modeling Sea Water Reverse Osmosis Design and Optimal Energy Options3.1 Sea Water Reverse Osmosis Design Considerations

3.1.1 Model Description: ROSA 6.0.1 software is the latest version, used in the analysis in orderto determine the performance of a membrane and energy requirements for desalination. The useof the model is influenced by the need to design a technically feasible RO system. We have

1 ROSA is developed by the DOW chemical company.2 Homer is developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NRWL).


3/18


extended the application of the model in creating an operating window for a RO system thatcould operate under intermittent power supply. This is done by running the model multiple timesunder different water flow and pressures. The main inputs of the model include the amount offeed water and its chemical characteristics, feed water flow rate, feed water and concentrate feedpressures, temperature and pH. Then a configuration of the number of membranes, pressure

vessels, and type of membrane, and feed and booster pumps is determined. After performingcalculations, the model provides the amount of water produced and energy required. The energyrequired to produce an intended amount of drinking water with acceptable water quality is thendetermined by running the model multiple times. Booster pumps and an energy recovery turbineare applied.

3.1.2 RO System Design and Energy Consumption: Using ROSA, we have performed severalRO design options capable of producing 35m3/day potable water. After performing severaldesign alternatives, our preferred design is a two stage design with three membrane elements ineach stage (figure 1). The reasons for choosing a two stage system is in order to increase waterproductivity by applying a booster pump, and recover a significant amount of energy. The type

of the membrane used in the analysis is SW30HRLE-400. The membrane is designed to properlyfunction under intermittent energy supply (Dow, 2005).

High pressurepump (Booster)

Low pressurepump

Producttank

PostTreatment

Product/permeatewater

Pretreatment

1st stagemembranes

2nd stagemembranes

Feed waterfrom Red Sea

Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination System for Beraso'ele Village, Southern Red Sea, Eritrea

EnergyRecoveryTurbine

Pr1

Pr2

Pr3

Pr4

Q1

Q5

Q2

Q3

Q4

Q6

Q7

Pw1

Pw2

Pw3

Figure 1: Schematic double stage RO system for the village of Berasoel, Southeastern Red Sea, Eritrea.

In reverse osmosis desalination systems, energy is a major consideration. Power consumption bythe system which includes power for sea water pumping, high pressure pumping, booster, andchemical treatment could be calculated using equation 1(Darwish et. al. 2002).

n

nn

E

Q Pr

Pw n

(1)

Where, Pwn(kW) = Power consumed by feed, low and high pressure, booster and chemical watertreatment pumps,Qn(m

3/s) = Rates of feed water(Q1), fresh water production (Q5 +Q6), boosted water(Q3),Prn(kPa) = Feed pressure(Pr1), boosted pressure (Pr3), rejection pressure (Pr2 andPr4),andEn (Net efficiency of feed pump) = Ep (pump efficiency) x En(motor efficiency) for high

pressure pump (booster) and energy recovery turbine.


4/18


According to Darwish et. al (2002) the low pressure pump consumes the highest energy(Pw 1),and the rest constitutes about 20% of the LP pump. The power required for the systems LPpump, at 10m3/h feed water flow rate, 45bar pressure, and 0.85 pump efficiency, is about14.71kW. An additional 2.94kW will be needed for booster, feed water, chemical treatment and

other pumps, which is about 20% of the LP power requirement. Thus, the total power requiredfor the RO system design is about 17.64kW. Using ROSA software, we have obtained a similarresult, which is 17.23kW. The specific work done is about 3.92kWh/m3 potable water produced.Without a booster pump, the system requires about 7.87kWh/ m3, and its water qualitydeteriorates from 270 ppm to 800 ppm total dissolved solids. Moreover, if the booster pump isnot applied, water production in the second stage could decrease by about 33% per hour i.e. from2.1 m3/hr to 1.4m3/hr. Thus, in terms of water production, water quality, and energy recovery, atwo stage RO design is a preferable. The system design has an average conversion factor of 55%(relation between product water flow and feed water flow), producing about 4.4m 3/hr of potablewater.

3.1.3 Performance Prediction: In designing the SWRO system that uses intermittent energysources, it is very important to design a RO system that could operate under broad operationalwindows. The main thresholds of the operational window include the maximum feed pressure(determined by the membrane mechanical resistance); maximum brine flow rate (should not beexceeded to avoid membrane deterioration); minimum brine flow rate (should be maintained toavoid precipitation and consequent membrane fouling); and maximum product concentration (ifthe applied pressure is less than a determined value, the permeate concentration will be too high)(Marcos et. al, 2002).

Using chemical characteristics of water of the study area (Thomson et. al., 2001), and varyingthe values of variables of operational window thresholds, we have run the model several times.

According to the results of the analysis, at 250C, the maximum allowable pressure, maximumbrine flow rate, minimum feed flow rate, and minimum pressure of our design are about 50 bar,16m3/h, 7m3/h, and 30 bar, respectively (figure 2a).

Water quality and flowrate threshholds of the SWRO design

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Feedwater flow rate(m3/h)

W

aterQuality(ppm)

50 bar45 bar40 bar

35 bar

30 bar

Power Thresholds for The SWRO design

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Feed water flow rate(m3/h)

Pum

pingPower(kW)

50 bar

45 bar

40 bar

35bar

30 bar

Figure 2. (a) Water quality and feed water flow rate, (b) power thresholds of the SWRO system.

(a) (b)


5/18


This design allows the production of potable water with an average water quality of about 500ppm total dissolved solids or less, which is the World Health Organization (WHO)s waterquality acceptable standard. Likewise, in order to operate under this operational window, theenergy supply or pumping power should not be less than 7 kW and not exceed 26 kW (figure2b). This means that, without interrupting the operation of the system, it can operate at as low as

7kW and as high as 26kW power supply, which is a wide operating window. This is one of theaspects that could potentially make renewable energy resources for SWRO systems moreattractive.

The average conversion factor of the system, at 250C, is about 55%. Carta et. al.(2003)indicated that for an increase of 10C, water production increases by about 4%. Thus, since theclimatic condition of the study area is very hot, with average monthly temperatures varying from26.50C to 35.50C (Buskirk, 1998), it is expected that, most of the time of the year; the conversionfactor could reach as high as 70%.

3.1.4 Energy recovery: Energy recovery should be considered if brine exits the system at 300

psig or more, and if system recovery is less than 80 % (Amjad, Z. 1993). Since the brinerejection pressure of our design is well above 300 psig, such as 760 psi (52.82 bar), the potentialfor energy recovery is very high. For example, using an energy recovery turbine with anefficiency of 0.85, at a concentrate pressure of 52.82 bar, and concentrate water flow of 5.6m3/hr,about 6.98kW (equation 2) energy could be recovered. Thus, our design can potentially reducepower consumption by half, from 15kW to about 9kW.

` tnn EQ PrPw n ( 2 )

Where, Et is turbine efficiency, Prn(kPa) is the feed pressure, and Qn(m3/s) is rates of the feed brine.

The type of energy recovery turbine under consideration is the pressure exchange (PX) turbine,PX45s (Energy Recovery Inc. Data Sheet, 2005). Using this energy recovery device, net energyconsumption could be reduced from 17.23kW to 10.25kW, and specific energy consumptionfrom 3.92kWh/m3 to 2.33kWh/m3. This is about a 40% energy recovery, and it is a substantialenergy recovery opportunity for a small scale sea water reverse osmosis system. Therefore, usinga boosted pump and energy recovery turbine, energy consumption has decreased from about7.87kWh/ m3 to about 2.33kWh/m3. Darwish (2002) and a RO system in a Caribbean (Curacao)islands have reported a specific energy consumption of 4.52kWh/m3, and 3.15kWh/m3,respectively, for 5700 m3/day desalination water capacity. Compared with these results, ourdesign results are low, though compatible.

Thus, depending on the feed flow rate and pressure exerted, our operating window of the systemcan potentially recover anywhere between 4kW to 12kW. The RO system is expected to operateunder a semi-instantaneous base load of 17kW. Thus, assuming a feed pressure of 45 bar,boosting pressure of 10 bar and feed water flow rate of 10 m3/hr, the system can recover about 4kW to 7 kW per hour (figure 3). Moreover, increasing the feed water flow rate at low pressurecould substantially increase energy recovery and water production. In this regard, within theoperational window of the system, any other points of operation could be selected as an initialpoint of operation.


6/18


Initial energy consumption, potential energy recovery, and net energy

consumtion at 45 bar feed pressure of the RO syetm

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

Feed water(m3/hr)

Energyconsumption/recovery(kW)

Energy recovery(kW)

Initial energy consumption(kW)

Net energy consumption(kW)

Figure 3. Energy recovery potential of the RO system at 45 bar feed pressure

3.2 Modeling Optimal Energy Options

The main objective of this analysis is to determine cost-effective and feasible energy options toproduce the required amount of water using the SWRO design discussed in the previous section.The types of energy options under consideration include stand alone as well as hybrid energysources of wind, PV, and diesel. In determining least cost energy options, we have used anoptimization model, HOMER, developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory(NREL).

3.2.1 Model Description: HOMER evaluates different energy options by simulating hourlyenergy flows for complex hybrid as well as stand alone power systems. The model simulates thepower system configurations, optimizes for lifecycle costs, and generates results. It simulates theoperation of a system by making energy balance calculations for each of the 8,760 hours of theyear. For each hour, the model compares the electric load in the hour to the energy that thesystem can supply in that hour. In the presence of energy storage devices, the model determineswhen to discharge and charge electricity. The model also estimates the lifecycle cost of the sys-tem based on capital, replacement, operation and maintenance, and fuel costs of each componentincluding PV, wind turbines, batteries, generators, and inverters. After simulating the systemconfigurations, the model displays a list of feasible systems, sorted by lifecycle cost, based ontheir net present values (NPVs). Then, based on the results, we have to navigate for the least costand feasible systems. However, all the least cost systems are not necessarily feasible. Thus,reliability and other issues need to be considered in deciding the optimal energy option.

3.2.2 Determining SWRO Base Load: In reverse osmosis desalination systems, energy is amajor consideration. Depending on the capacity of the RO systems, estimates of energy useranges from 2 to 10 kWh/m3 of water produced (Hafez, 2002). The average base load for our ROsystem is 17 kW/h with a specific work done of about 2.33 kWh/m3. In order to make theassumptions of SWRO energy demands more realistic, 5% and 2% noise are added in the modelfor daily and hourly loads, respectively (figure 4). The challenge is optimizing the constant loadunder highly variable power supply systems.


7/18


Figure 4: SWRO system design monthly primary average loads.

In order to solve the challenge, we have designed the SWRO system to operate anywhere

between 7kW and 27kW, which are the allowed operating power thresholds. Any power belowand above about 7kW and 27kW, could ultimately be considered as excess power. Thus, we aretrying to optimize the regular SWRO power load under an irregular power supply, which makesthe analysis complex, especially when wind energy is considered. Based on the base load powerrequirement, different energy models are simulated with different based load configurations,with and without energy storage devices. An energy dispatch strategy is designed to fulfill thebase load of the RO system depending on the type of energy option selected.

3.2.3 Wind Power

3.2.3.1.Implications ofWind Speed Variations: The average wind speed of the study area is 6.8

m/s (GoE, 2004). Wind speed distributions can typically be described in terms of the Weibulldistribution (Feron, 1985). According to Rosen (1998), the shape parameter for the Southern RedSea area, particularly Port Assab, is 2.4. The standard Weibull shape parameter is 2.5. Using theDanish Industry Wind Association power calculator, at 250C, 10m above sea level, 101.21 kPaatmospheric pressure, 1.22 kg/m3 air density and 2.4 shape parameter, the scale parameter is7.67. Thus, using equation 3, the probability of the wind speed distribution is computed.

k

k

vc

vc

v

c

kvf exp)(

1

( 3 )

Where, v is wind speed in m/sk is shape parameter(Beta),c is scale parameter(Alpha)

kV

11

V

is average wind speed,

is the gamma function.


8/18


However, wind speeds throughout the seasons are irregular, and the average wind speed has highseasonal variations. According to the U.S. Navy Climatic Study of the Red Sea report conductedin1982 (Rosan, 1998), for 7 months (October through April), mean wind speeds are between 6m/s and 10 m/s, and the remaining months (May through September), mean wind speeds arebetween 3 m/s and 5 m/s. Assuming an average wind speed of 8 m/s for season 1(October

through April ) and 4 m/s for season 2 (May through September), the scale parameters are 9 and4.5, respectively. The density and cumulative Weibull distributions of the two seasons are shownin figure 5. A very high wind speed in one season and a very low wind speed in the other seasonmakes the modeling process more complex. That is, the irregularity of seasonal wind speedmakes the system more complex to optimize without expecting very high excess electricityduring the high wind speed season, and employing energy storage systems during the low windspeed season. Most studies indicate that to overcome power shortages during the low wind speedseasons a large number of wind turbines should be installed (Cavalllo,1997 and De Carlos andKeth, 2002, Denhom et.al, 2005). This is one of the issues that we need to address in thisanalysis.

3.2.3.2. Model Input: In this analysis, we assume that the RO system will be powered by a standalone wind turbine. In this model, a 17kW base load is considered in order to produce potablewater at about 2.33 kWh/m3. This approach allows capturing all wind energy outputs, producedwhenever the wind is blowing. Taking in to consideration the above mentioned seasonal windspeed and energy variations, we have considered monthly average wind speeds, with an annualaverage wind speed of 6.8 m/s. The monthly average wind speeds are then simulated to hourlywind speeds for 8750 hours of a year. Using a FL3 30kW wind turbine the result of thesimulation are shown in figure 6.

Seasonal variation of wind speed

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20

Wind speed (m/s)

Probability

Season 1(Oct. to April)Season 2 (May to September)Total

Figure 5: Seasonal variations of wind speed Weibull Figure 6. Daily wind power outputs and SWROload distribution of the study area of FL 30kW wind turbines

According to the model, the effective annual number of hours is more than 4000 hours. Thus, thewind turbine seems to be a good candidate for the analysis. However, in doing so, excesselectricity is expected, especially during the high wind speed season. Thus, using FL 30 windturbine with a lifetime of 20 years (Manwell 2002), capital cost of $130,000, and operation and

3Fuhrlnder(FL) 30kW is a type of 30kW wind turbine developed by Fuhrlnder AG. http://www.fuhrlaender.de/start.php


9/18


maintenance costs of $3900 (2.5% of capital cost) (DuPont, 2004) and replacement cost (85% ofthe capital cost), an analysis has been conducted and its performance determined.

3.2.3.3. Results of the Analysis: According to the optimization results, the least cost and feasiblewind energy option consist of one FL 30kW wind turbine, 10 batteries, and 10 converters. The

cost of this option is about $0.17/kWh with a capacity shortage of about 51%. This means thatour RO system will be functional at full capacity for about 4000 hours of the year, producingabout 30,000m3/year. Since most of the high wind speeds are during the day, the system canoperate for more than 8 to 12 hours per day for the whole year totaling 4000 hours of a year. Inorder to deal with water production increase during high temperature and wind speed seasons,there might be a need to build a water storage tank in order to store water to be used during thelow-wind-speed season of the year.

It should be noted that the use of a battery as an energy storage device is not solely meant toincrease energy production. The primary objective is to keep the power supply at a semi-instantaneous condition (fig. 7) so that the RO system could produce water continuously. When

wind power is starting to decrease, electricity is dispatched accordingly to meet the demand. Thiscould also potentially minimize the deterioration of membranes. According to the results of themodel, the lowest wind speeds occur from mid night up to early in the morning. Thus, there is apossibility of putting off the RO system or adjusting it to function with battery power during thistime interval. Annual wind power output, base load, and water production scenarios are shown infigure 8.

RO Baseload, Wind Power and Water Production

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Time(hr)

Power(kW)andWaterProduction(m3/h)

Figure 7:Base load, wind power production, battery power dispatched, and water production for

the first two weeks of the month of January.


10/18


RO Base load, wind power and water Production

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Time for one year (hr)

Power(kW)andWaterProduction

(m3/hr)

Figure 8: Annual wind power, base load, and water production scenarios.

3.2.4 Photovoltaic (PV) Power

3.2.4.1 Model Input: This analysis assumes simulating a stand alone PV power without applyinga sunshine tracking system. Using a 17kW base load for about 8 hours/day of a year, daily solarradiation at Berasoel (13030 N and 42043E), the performance of a PV powered system hasbeen analyzed. In the analysis, we have assumed a 25 years lifetime of PV, $7000/kW capitalcost, and $6500 replacement cost.

It is important to realize that the assumptions of RO base load in the wind powered system,

which is continuous for 24 hours (figure 8) is different from the PV powered RO system, whichis configured to operate during the day only. The main reason is, unlike sunshine dailypredictions, in wind power it is very difficult to predict when the wind will be blowing.Therefore, in the case of the wind powered configuration, we have considered a continuouspower demand in order to capture all available wind energy whenever the wind is blowing. In thecase of a PV powered system, the optimal load is configured to operate during the day assumingthat the energy load is only required for 8 to 10 hours of the day. Thus, this configurationassumes operation during the day only, producing the intended amount of water.

3.2.4.2 Results of the Analysis: The analysis considers a PV power system with and withoutbattery energy storage. The result of the analysis shows that unmet load is substantiallydecreased when battery energy storage is applied. Using energy storage, unmet capacity shortageis decreased from 36% to 17%. Thus, in terms of attaining a steady power supply for about eighthours per day, the PV with battery energy storage might be a good candidate compared with thePV model without battery. Compared with the cost of electricity using wind power (0.17$/kWh),using the PV system with battery energy storage, the cost of electricity is about 0.39 $/kWh.

The RO system base load, PV power produced and battery power dispatched for the first twoweeks (330 hrs) of January are shown in figure 9. According to the simulated results, most of the


11/18


time the PV power is above or equal to the base load. Since the RO system can operate at up to27 kW, all the electricity could be used producing as high as 8 m3/hr. Under this scenario, onaverage water production is about 5 m3/hr. Without battery storage, annual water production isabout 11,600 m3 and with battery storage, about 14, 000 m3. Thus, PV power with batterystorage increases water production by about 20%. Figure 10 shows the annual load, power and

water produced. From this analysis, it can be concluded that the PV-battery configuration is anappropriate configuration option, enough to achieve daily water needs without substantiallyinvesting in a big water storage tank.

Baseload of RO, PV Power, Battey Power Storage and Dispatch and Water Production

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

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

Time (hr)

Poweroutput(kW)and

WaterProduction(m3/hr)

Figure 9: The first two weeks of the month of Januarys simulated RO base load, PVpower produced, battery power dispatched/stored in kW, and water produced (m3/hr).

RO Base load, PV Pow er Produced and Water Produced for one year

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Time(hr)

BaseloadandPVPower(kW),andWater

Produced(m3/hr)

RO Baseload kW

PV Power k W

Water Produced

Figure 10: Annual RO base load, PV power and water production

3.2.5 Diesel Power

3.2.5.1 Model Input: In this model a 50 kW diesel generator is considered. The estimatedcapital and replacement costs are $14000, and $10000, respectively, the O&M cost is $1.5/hour,and the diesel cost in Eritrea is assumed to be $0.60/liter. The lifetime of the generator is 20,000


12/18


hours. In Eritrea, the cost of electricity produced by the gensets is at least twice as expensive asgrid electricity (Habtesion and Tsighe, 2005). This is mainly due to the high diesel transportingcost to remote areas, high maintenance costs and high fuel consumption. Despite such high costs,users tend to give high value to the power generated by gensets as it is flexible to meet theenergy 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 dieselgenerator is enough to meet the intended water demand, operating for about 8 hours per day. Thecheapest electricity cost and feasible option of diesel generator is about 0.29 $/kWh.

3.2.6 Integrated Power System

This option simulates the combination of the three options such as wind, PV and diesel energysources with battery as energy storage. In this scenario, the challenge is the assumptions of baseload configurations. In the case of stand alone power systems, it is possible to configure the baseload according the behavior of energy sources. In an integrated case, we will assume that the

base load will be the same as the wind energy configuration 24 hours per day and 8750 hours peryear. Then, based on the simulation results, in addition to least cost options, we will determinethe most feasible options.

In an integrated approach, whenever wind energy is available it is the cheapest option. Underthis scenario, the cost of electricity of the feasible options ranges from 0.17 $/kWh to 0.22$/kWh, for stand alone wind turbine with battery, and wind turbine and PV with diesel(W_PV_D), respectively. A 5 kW PV, 30 kW wind turbine, and 5 kW battery are one of the leastcost ($0.190/kWh) choices. However, it seems that whenever wind speed is very high, PVenergy is also very high. Thus, there is no point to incorporate PV power in our system. Windenergy with a battery is the cheapest option ($0.170/kWh), and it is a feasible choice with thelowest capacity shortage of about 55%. Thus, for SWRO system an integrated system might notbe feasible option.

4. Discussion

4.1. Energy Options: Based on the renewable energy potential of the study area, both wind andPV energy resources are feasible. With respect to power cost,the optimization modeldoesntincorporate price uncertainty. All costs are simulated based on the net present value. Accordingto the optimization model, at about a 6% interest rate, the PV powered RO system is moreexpensive than the wind powered RO system, with the costs about 0.39 $/kWh and 0.17 $/kWh,respectively (table 1). However, the results of our sensitivity analysis shows that PV could be

competitive with wind energy as the interest rate increases. As a result of changes in interestrates, production, and other factors, energy prices are volatile4, especially for diesel. Thus,assuming about 25% error, we have calculated the maximum and minimum power costs (figure11). According to the results, the minimum and maximum wind power costs are about 0.13$/kWh and 0.22 $/kWh, respectively. Likewise, for PV power, the minimum and maximumcosts are about 0.30 $/kWh and 0.50 $/kWh, respectively. In either case, wind power is cheaper

4 The research will be further extended (not discussed in this paper) to incorporate energy prices volatility using stochasticprocess.


13/18


than PV power. In terms of reliability, for this particular area of study, it seems that PV is morereliable than wind. This is due to the fact that the duration of the availability of sunshine is morepredictable than the wind speed. As a result, it is easier to schedule the operation of PV poweredRO systems than a wind powered system.

4.2 Water cost: In the last 20 years, the water cost from SWRO has dramatically decreased fromabout $2.8/m3 to $1.5/m3. This has been attributed to the use of energy recovery devices, andefficient membranes that allow rejection of salt at low pressure (Meyer-Steele and Gottberg,2005). Water costs are analyzed based on the overall life cycle of the RO system, which includesthe capital costs of the initial membrane, pressure vessel, pumps, energy recovery turbine, andoperational and maintenance for membrane replacement and electricity costs. The power costs(table 1) are the results of an optimization model for selected energy options. Assuming the lifetime of the RO system is 10 years, at 10% interest rate, water costs are computed (table 1).According to the results of the analysis, energy expenses per cubic meter water produced rangefrom 0.520 $/m3 for wind powered, and 1.06 $/m3 for the PV powered RO system. PV poweredwater cost is more expensive than wind powered by about a factor of two. Recent studies

indicated that today a cost of $1/m

3

for seawater desalination would be feasible (Zhou and Tol ,2005). With an estimated 25% water cost error, water costs for each option are shown in figure12.

Table 1: Summary of power and water costs for different energy options

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Energy Options* W_B W_PV_B W_D W_D_B W_PV_D_B W_PV_D D PV_B PV

Power cost ($/kWh)** 0.170 0.190 0.197 0.200 0.217 0.222 0.286 0.394 0.402

Water cost($/m3)** 0.522 0.569 0.585 0.592 0.631 0.643 0.791 1.042 1.061

(1). W_B= Wind and battery; (2). W_PV_B= Wind, Photovoltaic, and Battery; (3). W_D= Wind and diesel; (4) W_D_B= Wind,diesel, and battery; (5). W_PV_D_B= Wind, Photovoltaic, Diesel, and Battery; (6). W_PV_D= Wind, Photovoltaic, and Diesel; (7).

D= Diesel Only;

(8). PV_B= Photovoltaic and Battery; and (9). PV= Photovoltaic.

Power Costs of Different Energy Options

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

0.45

0.50

0.55

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Energy Options

Powercost($/kWh)

Water Costs at different Energy Options

0.00

0.25

0.50

0.75

1.00

1.25

1.50

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Energy Options

Watercosts($/m3)

Figure 11: Power costs with 25% error. Figure 12: Water costs with 25% error

(Note: the number of energy options corresponds with the types of energy options shown in table 2).


14/18


According to the results, power cost constitutes the highest proportion (fig. 13). Regardless ofthe type of energy option chosen, the fraction of energy expenses per cubic water produced isabout 80% of the total expenses. The proportion of expense per cubic water produced for otherexpenses constitutes less than 20%, which includes the initial membrane and pressure vessel(3%), the capital cost of the energy recovery turbine, pumps and miscellaneous (8%), and the

membrane replacement cost (3%).4.3 Water productivity: According to the model, wind powered (option 1) and PV powered(Option 2) RO systems could produce about 30,000 m3 and 15,000 m3 per year, respectively. PVproduces about the exact demand at high price and wind produces more than double of therequired amount at the cheapest price. Wind powered water production for the months ofNovember through March is about 4000 m3/month and for the months of April through October,about 1600m3/month (figure 14). The PV powered RO system produces a constant amount ofwater, 1,200 m3/month. Based on the potential of water productivity and water cost, the windpowered RO system is indicated to be the best option.

4.4Implications of battery storage: We have tried to compare the implications of energystorage in wind and PV powered systems. For wind and PV systems with energy storage, theaverage water production increases by about 11% and 6%, respectively (figure 15). This impliesthat, using our model, the use of battery storage in a RO system is more pronounced or importantfor the PV than the wind powered RO system. Moreover, in addition to increasing waterproduction at a minimum incremental cost of about 6% for battery in wind and 2% for battery inPV, it helps to decrease the intermittency of the electricity flow.

4.5Implication of Energy Recovery: An attempt has also been made to compare the impact ofenergy cost with and without the energy recovery system (figure 16). The results show thatusing a pressure exchange (PX) 45s energy recovery turbine, the energy expenses for the windpowered option for example could be reduced by about 41% from 0.67 $/m3 to 0.40 $/m3. Thecapital cost of a PX 45s energy recovery turbine, which is about $12,000, could be paid backwithin a year.

Cost breakdown of the syatem under different energy options

$0.0

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

$1.1

W_B W_PV_B W_D W_D_B W_PV_D_B W_PV_D D PV_B PV

Energy options

$p

erm3ofwater

Energy expenses with ER ($/m3)

Capital cost(turbine,pumps,misl.)/m3

Memb Repl

Init Memb + PV Capital

Figure 13: Cost breakdown for all energy options

PV and Wind Powered RO Systems' Monthly Water Production

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

5000

January

Febr

auary

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septembe

r

Octobe

r

Novembe

r

Decemeber

Months

WaterProduction(m3/month)

PV Powered Wind Powered

Figure 14: Monthly PV and wind powered water

production


15/18


Percentage of water production Increase using battery storage system

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

January

Febr

auary

March

April

May

June

July

August

Septembe

r

Octobe

r

Novembe

r

Decemeber

Months

WaterProductionPerc

entageIncrease

PV Powered Wind Powered

Figure 15. Water productivity and energy storage

Energy Expense with and without energy re covery(ER) the system under different e nergy options

$0.0

$0.1

$0.2

$0.3

$0.4

$0.5

$0.6

$0.7

$0.8

$0.9

$1.0

$1.1

$1.2

$1.3

$1.4

$1.5

$1.6

W_B W_PV_B W_D W_D_B W_PV_D_B W_PV_D D PV_B PV

Energy options

$perm3ofwat

er

Energy expenses with ER ($/m3)

Energy expenses without ER($/m3)

Figure 16: Energy cost with and without energy

recovery

5. Conclusion

This paper has analyzed the performance of a renewable energy powered small scale sea waterreverse osmosis system particularly in terms of water productivity and energy cost. The ROsystem has been designed with a wide operating system capable of operating under intermittentenergy supply. Results of our analysis show that the contribution of the booster pump and energyrecovery are not negligible in increasing water productivity and decreasing energy consumptionper cubic meter of water produced. Our results show that using the available technologies, it ispossible now to produce water at about 2.33 kWh/m3, which for a long time seemed unattainable.Using a booster pump and energy recovery turbine, energy consumption can be decreased fromabout 7.87 kWh/m3 to about 2.33 kWh/m3. The results indicate that wind powered water

production (0.50 $/m

3

) seems economically feasible. According to Zhou and Tol (2004), inChina, 1.0 $/m3 desalinated water is considered as economically feasible. This implies that evena PV powered system could be competitive, and most of the world could benefit. Generally, inEritrea water production and tariff costs are about 0.30/m3 and $0.43/ m3, respectively. Thisimplies that wind powered system might be competitive.

Our energy optimization model for reverse osmosis desalination system is the first step towardfacilitating its widely used application. Moreover the energy optimization model, which has notbeen used before for such purpose, provides a useful and easy model, particularly in simulatinghourly renewable energy production and consequently synchronizing with the energy load inorder to operate under the wide operating system of the RO plant. However, in order todetermine the robustness of the methodology, we should point out that the model needs to betested. We recommend that since the availability of energy recovery systems capable ofoperating under wide operating system are limited, for higher water productivity and continuousenergy recovery, it is important to operate above 10m3/hr feed water at low pressures between 30to 45 bars. The lower the pressure the lower the energy required to produce water.


16/18


6. Further Research

In this paper, energy options are selected primarily based on the Net Present Values (NPVs). Theresearch will be further extended to look at the impact of optimal investment options underuncertainties in energy prices under clean development mechanism (CDM) of the United NationsFramework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). We believe that stochastic process as a

result of energy price and demand volatility could give a valuable incentive in determiningenergy options under CDM beyond the SWRO system.

References:

African Development Bank, 2004. Strategic Study of Wind Energy Deployment in Africa,Hlimax nergie inc. March, 2004. http://www.afdb.org

Buskirk, R, Garbesi, K & Karen Rosen. South Red Sea Wind and Solar Radiation Maps.http://www.punchdown.org/rvb

Carta,J. Gonzalez,J and Subiela, V.(2003). Operational Analysis of an innovative wind poweredreverse osmosis system installed in the Canary Islands. Solar Energy 75(2003) 153-168.

Chen JZ, Li GH ,2005.Marine Reverse Osmosis Desalination Plant - A case study. APR 202005

Darwish, M, Asfour, N and Al-Najem(2002).Energy Consumption in equivalent work bydifferent desalinating methods: case study for Kuwait. Desalination 152 (2002) 83-92.

Danish Industry Wind Association (2005). http://www.windpower.org

DeCarolis J; Keith, D.W.Is the Answer to Climate Change Blowing in the Wind ? Proceedingsof the first International Doctoral Consortium on Technology, Policy, andManagement, DelftUniversity, Delft, 2002.

DOW (2005). FILMTEC Membrane, System Design: Membrane System Design Guidelines,Form No. 609-02054-604. (2005).

DOW (2005).ROSA 6.0.1 Software.http://www.dow.com (2005).

DuPont, H (2004). Wind Diesel Workshop, Lorax Energy Systems LLC. Block Island, RI.

September 29, 2004. http://www.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/windpoweringamerica/pdfs/Energy Recovery Inc.Data Sheet (2005),Performance Curves PX-45s Pressure Exchanger.http://www.energy-recovery.com/pdf(2005)

Feron, P. 1985. The Use of Wind power in Autonomous Reverse Osmosis sea WaterDesalination. Wind Energy Group, the Netherlands. Wind Engineering, Vol. 9. No.3. 1985


17/18


Habtetsion, S. Ghebrehiwet, D. Buskirk,R. Lebassi, B. 2001. The Potentials of Wind Energy,Applications in Eritrea. http://www.punchdown.org/rvb

Habtetsion S., Tsighe, Z. and Anebrhan(2001). SustainableEnergy in Eritrea, Proceedings of aNational Policy Seminar(October 31, 2001, Asmara, Eritrea)

Hafez, A. and El-Manharawy (2002).Economics of seawater RO desalination in the Red Searegion, Egypt. Part 1. A case study. Desalination 153 (2002) 335347. February, 2002.

Lorax Energy Systems, LLC.Fuhrlnder Wind Turbines. http://www.lorax-energy.com(2005).

Marcos S. Miranda, Infield, D. (2002).A wind-powered seawater reverse-osmosis systemwithout Batteries. April 2002.

Marie, A. and Pedersen,J. (2001). Urban Households and Urban Economy in Eritrea. AnalyticalReport from the Urban Eritrean Household Income and Expenditure Survey 1996/97. Statistics

and Evaluation Office. (May 2001).Manwell, J. McGowan,J. and Rogers,A.(2002). Wind Energy Explained: Theory, Design andApplication. University of Massachusetts, USA. 2002.

Meyer-Steele, S. and Gottberg, A.(2005).New Sea Waater Reverse Osmosis Plants for theCaribbean Energy Recovery, Brine Recovery and Cost Reduction. Ionics Incorporated, USA.

Ministry of Land, Water and Environment (MLWE), 1995.National EnvironmentalManagement Plan for Eritrea, (NEMP-E) February, 1995, Asmara, Eritrea.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), HOMER, http://www.nrel.gov/homer/ (2005)Rosen, K. (1999).An Assessment of the Potential for Utility-Scale Wind Power Generation inEritrea. Masters Thesis in Environmental Studies (August 1999).

Sultan, A. Rheinlander, J. and Gabler, H.(2002). Seawater reverse osmosis powered fromrenewable energy sourceshybrid wind/photovoltaic/grid power supply for small-scale

desalination in Libya. April 2002.

Thomson, M. Miranda,M., Gwillinm, J. and Draisely,I.(2001). Batteryless Phtovoltic ReverseOsmosis Desalination. CREST and Dulas Ltd.(2001).

Vaknin, S. (Dec. 29, 2005). The Emerging Water Wars. The Progress Reporthttp://www.progress.org/2005/water27.htm (Dec. 29, 2005).

Vrsmarty, C.J.; Green, P.; Salisbury, J.; Lammers,R.B. (2001). Water Stress in to Todays andTomorrows World. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and populationgrowth. Water. Vol.3, No.1, (January 2001) and Science 289: 284-288.


18/18


Zhou, Y. and Tol, R.(2005).Evaluating the costs of desalination and water transport. WaterResources Research. VOL. 41. March 2005.

Zhou, Y. and Tol, R.(2004).Implications of desalination for water resources in China--aneconomic perspective. Desalination 164(2004) 225-240. November, 2004.

Designing Cost Effective

Documents

Transcript of Designing Cost Effective