Sei sulla pagina 1di 489

Solar Thermal Desalination A

Modelling and Experimental Study

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements


for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Jimmy Leblanc
B.Eng (Mech) / B.AppSc (CompSc)

School of Aerospace, Mechanical & Manufacturing Engineering


Science, Engineering and Technology Portfolio
RMIT University
March 2009

DECLARATION
I, Jimmy Leblanc, hereby submit the thesis titled Solar Thermal Desalination A Modelling
and Experimental Study for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy and certify that except where
due acknowledgement has been made, the work is that of the author alone; the work has not
been submitted previously, in whole or in part, to qualify for any other academic award; the
content of the thesis is the result of work which has been carried out since the official
commencement date of the approved research program; and, any editorial work, paid or
unpaid, carried out by a third party is acknowledged.

Jimmy Leblanc
March 2009

ii

Dedicated to my parents and grandparents for their inspiration, encouragement,


and love throughout my life

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
There are many people whom I would like to thank. The completion of my PhD degree would
not have been possible without their help.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor, Dr John Andrews from RMIT
University, for being such a great supervisor and mentor. His valuable guidance, patience and
ongoing support over the past four years are greatly appreciated. Also, I would like to thank
my co-supervisor, Professor Aliakbar Akbarzadeh from RMIT University, for his advice,
fruitful discussions and constructive comments.
Thanks to Mr John Pain from Hipex for his valuable insights and technical guidance during
the design phase of the solar-MEE and ISCE systems. I would also like to thank Mr Tony
Kitchener from Cash Research, Michael Wilkinson and Peter Hobson from Emtivac for their
involvement in the solar-SSF system. The help and advice of Mr Gavin Privett from Pyramid
Salt, on the practical aspects of the Pyramid Hill solar pond is appreciated.
The technical staff in the School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering at
RMIT University, especially Mr David Goodie and Mr Patrick Wilkins deserve my thanks for
their work.
I am grateful to my fellow researchers within the RMIT Energy CARE group, especially Mr
Yuchun Zhao for being a great friend and for his support during difficult times. Many thanks
to Mr Sura Tundee from Chiang Mai University for his help in monitoring the solar pond.
Thanks to my friends for their encouragement, especially Liz who reminded me to enjoy life
while pursuing my goals. Last, but not least, I would like to thank my parents and other
members of my family for their unconditional love and affection. Thanks to my parents for
providing me with the opportunity to be where I am today. Without them, none of this would
even be possible.
The financial assistance from the Department of Sustainability and Environment, Victoria
through the National Action Plan (NAP) for Salinity and Water Quality is gratefully
acknowledged.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS
DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................. II
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS ..................................................................................................................................... V
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................................................... XII
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................................................XIX
NOMENCLATURE .........................................................................................................................................XXI
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 1
1

INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 10
1.1
THE CLIMATE CHANGE ISSUE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF RENEWABLE ENERGY ................................. 10
1.2
THE GLOBAL NEED FOR DESALINATION ............................................................................................. 12
1.3
SALINITY CRISIS ................................................................................................................................. 15
1.4
CURRENT DESALINATION CHALLENGES ............................................................................................. 17
1.5
OBJECTIVES OF THIS RESEARCH .......................................................................................................... 17
1.6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS........................................................................................................................ 18
1.7
SCOPE ................................................................................................................................................. 19
1.8
METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 19
1.9
OUTCOMES .......................................................................................................................................... 20
1.10
GUIDE TO THIS THESIS ........................................................................................................................ 21
1.11
LIST OF PUBLICATIONS AND AWARDS ................................................................................................. 22
1.11.1
Awards ...................................................................................................................................... 22
1.11.2
Book chapter............................................................................................................................. 23
1.11.3
Journal papers .......................................................................................................................... 23
1.11.4
Conference papers .................................................................................................................... 23

DESALINATION....................................................................................................................................... 24
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.4
2.4.1
2.4.2
2.4.3
2.4.4
2.4.5
2.5
2.5.1
2.5.2
2.5.3
2.5.4
2.6
2.7
2.7.1
2.7.2
2.7.3
2.7.4
2.8
2.8.1
2.8.2

INTRODUCTION TO DESALTING ........................................................................................................... 24


DESALINATION PROCESSES ................................................................................................................. 25
INSTALLED DESALINATION CAPACITY AND MARKET SHARES ............................................................ 26
Global............................................................................................................................................ 26
Australia ........................................................................................................................................ 28
THERMAL PROCESSES ......................................................................................................................... 29
Overview of thermal processes...................................................................................................... 29
Multi-stage flash (MSF)................................................................................................................. 30
Multi-effect evaporation (MEE) .................................................................................................... 33
Vapour compression (VC) ............................................................................................................. 36
Freezing......................................................................................................................................... 38
MEMBRANE PROCESSES ...................................................................................................................... 38
Overview of membrane processes ................................................................................................. 38
Reverse osmosis (RO).................................................................................................................... 39
Electrodialysis (ED) ...................................................................................................................... 42
Ion exchange (IE) .......................................................................................................................... 43
CHARACTERISTICS OF MAIN DESALINATION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................. 43
REVIEW OF CONVENTIONAL DESALINATION TECHNOLOGIES ............................................................. 44
Theoretical minimum energy requirement..................................................................................... 44
Energy requirements in practice ................................................................................................... 44
Economics of desalination technologies........................................................................................ 46
Potential environmental impacts of desalination .......................................................................... 48
REVIEW OF DESALINATION SYSTEMS POWERED BY RENEWABLE ENERGY ......................................... 49
Solar stills...................................................................................................................................... 49
Solar-thermal desalination systems ............................................................................................... 50

2.8.2.1
2.8.2.2
2.8.2.3
2.8.2.4

2.8.3
2.8.4

Previous theoretical analysis of solar pond coupled with MSF ............................................................50


Solar pond coupled with MEMS ..........................................................................................................51
Solar pond coupled with Autoflash MSF...........................................................................................52
Solar desalination using concentrating solar power .............................................................................52

Photovoltaic reverse osmosis ........................................................................................................ 56


Wind-powered reverse osmosis ..................................................................................................... 57

2.8.4.1

Kwinana SWRO plant..........................................................................................................................58

2.8.4.2
2.8.4.3
2.8.4.4
2.8.4.5

2.8.5
2.8.6
3

Tugun SWRO plant..............................................................................................................................59


Kurnell SWRO plant ............................................................................................................................60
Wonthaggi SWRO plant.......................................................................................................................60
Adelaide SWRO plant..........................................................................................................................61

Solar Humidification-Dehumidification (HDH) ............................................................................ 61


Membrane distillation (MD).......................................................................................................... 62

SOLAR-THERMAL DESALINATION .................................................................................................. 63


3.1
COUPLING OPTIONS BETWEEN RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND DESALINATION TECHNOLOGIES 63
3.2
SOLAR DESALINATION SYSTEMS INVESTIGATED IN THIS PROJECT ...................................................... 64
3.3
LOW-TEMPERATURE HEAT SOURCES .................................................................................................. 65
3.3.1
Salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) ............................................................................................. 65
3.3.2
Evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC)........................................................................................ 66
3.3.2.1
3.3.2.2
3.3.2.3
3.3.2.4

Principle of ETSC ................................................................................................................................66


Direct flow (thermosyphon) .................................................................................................................67
U pipe...................................................................................................................................................68
Heat pipe ..............................................................................................................................................68

3.3.3
Geothermal energy ........................................................................................................................ 69
3.3.4
Industrial waste heat ..................................................................................................................... 69
3.4
CRITERIA FOR COMPARING SOLAR DESALINATION SYSTEMS ............................................................. 69
3.4.1
Salinity levels................................................................................................................................. 69
3.4.2
Fresh water production ................................................................................................................. 70
3.4.3
Recovery Ratio............................................................................................................................... 70
3.4.4
Specific thermal energy consumption ............................................................................................ 70
3.4.5
Specific electrical energy consumption ......................................................................................... 70
3.4.6
Cooling water requirements .......................................................................................................... 71
3.4.7
Solar collection area ..................................................................................................................... 71
3.4.8
Unit costs of fresh water produced based on lifecycle analysis..................................................... 71
3.5
RMIT EXPERIMENTAL SOLAR POND ................................................................................................... 71
3.5.1
Description of solar pond .............................................................................................................. 71
3.5.2
Monitoring system and maintenance of clarity.............................................................................. 76
3.5.2.1
3.5.2.2
3.5.2.3
3.5.2.4

3.5.3

Experimental studies on heat extraction from gradient layer........................................................ 81

3.5.3.1
3.5.3.2
3.5.3.3
3.5.3.4
3.5.3.5
3.5.3.6
3.5.3.7
3.5.3.8

Heat extraction and monitoring system ................................................................................................76


Experimental setup...............................................................................................................................78
Clarity maintenance .............................................................................................................................79
Observation of salt precipitation ..........................................................................................................80
Conventional heat extraction methods .................................................................................................81
Theoretical analysis of heat extraction from the gradient layer............................................................82
Heat exchanger theoretical performance calculations ..........................................................................83
Experimental results.............................................................................................................................86
Measurement Profiles...........................................................................................................................90
Modelling validation and comparative analysis ...................................................................................92
Temperature gradient profiles ..............................................................................................................95
Practical implications ...........................................................................................................................97

MODELLING OF SOLAR PONDS AND EVACUATED TUBULAR SOLAR COLLECTORS ..... 98


4.1
THEORETICAL MODEL OF SALINITY-GRADIENT SOLAR POND ............................................................ 98
4.1.1
Modelling of SGSP using finite difference formulation ................................................................. 98
4.1.2
SGSP modelling assumptions ........................................................................................................ 98
4.1.3
Attenuation of solar radiation ....................................................................................................... 99
4.1.4
Thermal properties of sodium chloride solution.......................................................................... 100
4.1.5
Finite difference formulation....................................................................................................... 100
4.1.5.1
4.1.5.2
4.1.5.3
4.1.5.4
4.1.5.5
4.1.5.6
4.1.5.7

General equation ................................................................................................................................100


Sublayer just below UCZ in NCZ ......................................................................................................101
Sublayers in NCZ...............................................................................................................................102
Sublayer just above LCZ in NCZ.......................................................................................................102
Sublayers in LCZ ...............................................................................................................................102
Sublayer just below LCZ in clay ........................................................................................................103
Sublayers in clay ................................................................................................................................103

4.1.6
Simulation input parameters........................................................................................................ 103
4.1.7
Simulation results ........................................................................................................................ 104
4.2
THEORETICAL MODEL OF EVACUATED TUBULAR SOLAR COLLECTORS ........................................... 108
4.2.1
Modelling of ETSC ...................................................................................................................... 108
4.2.2
Simulation results ........................................................................................................................ 109
5

SOLAR MULTI-STAGE FLASH (MSF) SYSTEMS........................................................................... 113

vi

5.1
MODELLING OF SOLAR MULTI-STAGE FLASH (MSF) SYSTEMS ........................................................ 113
5.1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 113
5.1.2
Theoretical model ........................................................................................................................ 115
5.1.2.1
5.1.2.2
5.1.2.3

5.1.3

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash once through (SP-MSF-OT) ................115
Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash conventional (SP-MSF-C) ...................121
Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash mixing (SP-MSF-M)............................127

Technical performance evaluation of SP-MSF-OT ..................................................................... 130

5.1.3.1
5.1.3.2
5.1.3.3
5.1.3.4
5.1.3.5

Simulation input parameters...............................................................................................................130


Specific energy consumption .............................................................................................................130
System temperatures ..........................................................................................................................131
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................132
Optimal feed saltwater flow rate ........................................................................................................133

5.1.4
Solar MSF comparative analysis................................................................................................. 134
5.2
THE SINGLE-STAGE FLASH (SSF) EXPERIMENTAL DESALINATION SYSTEM ..................................... 136
5.2.1
Development of the SSF experimental rig ................................................................................... 136
5.2.2
Vacuum vessel ............................................................................................................................. 137
5.2.3
Flash chamber and spray nozzles................................................................................................ 144
5.2.4
Demister ...................................................................................................................................... 144
5.2.5
Heat exchangers .......................................................................................................................... 146
5.2.6
Pumps and tanks.......................................................................................................................... 151
5.2.7
Instrumentation and data acquisition .......................................................................................... 153
5.2.8
Coupling of SSF with heat source ............................................................................................... 160
5.3
SSF EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 161
5.3.1
Experimental procedures............................................................................................................. 161
5.3.2
Typical results at 85oC and 3 LPM.............................................................................................. 161
5.3.3
SP-SSF at varying heat source temperature and constant feed flow rate.................................... 166
5.3.3.1
5.3.3.2
5.3.3.3
5.3.3.4
5.3.3.5

5.3.4

Procedures..........................................................................................................................................166
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................166
Specific thermal energy consumption ................................................................................................167
Thermodynamic losses.......................................................................................................................168
Heat flow............................................................................................................................................169

SP-SSF at varying feed flow rate and constant heat source temperature.................................... 172

5.3.4.1
5.3.4.2
5.3.4.3
5.3.4.4

Procedures..........................................................................................................................................172
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................172
Specific thermal energy consumption ................................................................................................173
Heat flow............................................................................................................................................174

5.3.5
Parasitic electrical energy........................................................................................................... 177
5.3.6
Quality of distillate ...................................................................................................................... 177
5.3.7
SP-SSF using HDPE heat exchanger .......................................................................................... 178
5.3.8
Comparison with theoretical solar SSF model ............................................................................ 181
5.3.9
Field testing at Pyramid Hill, Northern Victoria......................................................................... 186
5.4
SSF CONCLUSIONS............................................................................................................................ 188
6

SOLAR MULTI-EFFECT EVAPORATION (MEE) SYSTEMS ....................................................... 192


6.1
MODELLING OF SOLAR MULTI-EFFECT EVAPORATION (MEE) SYSTEMS ......................................... 192
6.1.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 192
6.1.2
Theoretical model ........................................................................................................................ 194
6.1.2.1
6.1.2.2

6.1.3

Technical performance evaluation of SP-MEE-P........................................................................ 214

6.1.3.1
6.1.3.2
6.1.3.3
6.1.3.4

6.1.4

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-effect evaporation parallel flow (SP-MEE-P) ........194
Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-effect evaporation forward feed (SP-MEE-FF)......204
Simulation input parameters...............................................................................................................214
System temperatures ..........................................................................................................................215
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................215
Specific thermal energy consumption ................................................................................................217

Technical performance evaluation of SP-MEE-FF ..................................................................... 219

6.1.4.1
6.1.4.2
6.1.4.3
6.1.4.4

Simulation input parameters...............................................................................................................219


System temperatures ..........................................................................................................................219
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................220
Specific thermal energy consumption ................................................................................................220

6.1.5
Solar MEE modelling comparative analysis ............................................................................... 221
6.2
THE 3-EFFECT MEE (3E-MEE) EXPERIMENTAL DESALINATION SYSTEM ........................................ 227
6.2.1
Development of the 3-Effect MEE experimental rig .................................................................... 227
6.2.2
Evaporators ................................................................................................................................. 227
6.2.3
Demister ...................................................................................................................................... 231
6.2.4
Condenser.................................................................................................................................... 232
6.2.5
Heat recovery devices.................................................................................................................. 233

vii

6.2.6
Non-condensable gas vents.......................................................................................................... 234
6.2.7
Pumps and tanks.......................................................................................................................... 235
6.2.8
Instrumentation and data acquisition .......................................................................................... 237
6.2.9
Coupling of 3E-MEE with heat source ........................................................................................ 240
6.2.10
Improving the OHTC by recirculation.................................................................................... 240
6.2.11
Improving the OHTC by using twisted tapes .......................................................................... 241
6.3
3E-MEE EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS .................................................................................................. 245
6.3.1
Experimental procedures............................................................................................................. 245
6.3.2
Improving the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) ............................................................. 245
6.3.2.1
6.3.2.2

6.3.3
6.3.4

Improving the OHTC by recirculation ...............................................................................................245


Improving the OHTC using twisted tapes ..........................................................................................246

Typical results at 86oC and 2.59 LPM......................................................................................... 247


SP-3E-MEE at varying heat source temperature and constant feed flow rate ............................ 254

6.3.4.1
6.3.4.2
6.3.4.3
6.3.4.4
6.3.4.5
6.3.4.6

Procedures..........................................................................................................................................254
Operating temperature........................................................................................................................254
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................255
Specific thermal energy consumption ................................................................................................255
Overall heat transfer coefficients........................................................................................................256
Heat flow............................................................................................................................................257

6.3.5
Parasitic electrical energy........................................................................................................... 260
6.3.6
Demister effectiveness and quality of distillate ........................................................................... 260
6.3.7
Comparison with theoretical solar 3E-MEE model..................................................................... 261
6.3.8
Scaling effect in evaporators ....................................................................................................... 267
6.4
MEE CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................... 268
7

INTEGRATED SOLAR COLLECTOR AND EVAPORATION (ISCE) SYSTEM ......................... 272


7.1
CONVENTIONAL EVACUATED TUBE SOLAR COLLECTORS (ETSC) COUPLED TO AN EVAPORATOR ... 272
7.2
THE INTEGRATED SOLAR COLLECTOR AND EVAPORATION (ISCE) SYSTEM ..................................... 275
7.3
MODELLING OF A SMALL-SCALE ISCE SYSTEM ............................................................................... 276
7.3.1
Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 276
7.3.2
Theoretical model ........................................................................................................................ 277
7.3.3
Technical performance evaluation .............................................................................................. 285
7.3.3.1
7.3.3.2
7.3.3.3
7.3.3.4
7.3.3.5
7.3.3.6
7.3.3.7
7.3.3.8

Simulation input parameters...............................................................................................................285


Efficiency of ETSC ............................................................................................................................285
System temperatures ..........................................................................................................................286
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................287
Specific thermal energy consumption and solar collector efficiency .................................................289
ISCE performance at varying feed flow rates.....................................................................................290
ISCE performance without CPC ........................................................................................................293
Typical daily performance .................................................................................................................293

7.4
THE ISCE EXPERIMENTAL DESALINATION SYSTEM ......................................................................... 296
7.4.1
Development of the ISCE experimental rig ................................................................................. 296
7.4.2
Evaporator................................................................................................................................... 297
7.4.3
Demister ...................................................................................................................................... 299
7.4.4
Evacuated tubes solar collectors ................................................................................................. 299
7.4.5
Reflector ...................................................................................................................................... 300
7.4.6
Manifold and feed tubes .............................................................................................................. 303
7.4.7
Condenser.................................................................................................................................... 303
7.4.8
Heat recovery devices.................................................................................................................. 304
7.4.9
Insulation and support frame....................................................................................................... 304
7.4.10
Vacuum pump and tanks ......................................................................................................... 305
7.4.11
Instrumentation and data acquisition ..................................................................................... 306
7.5
ISCE EXPERIMENTAL FINDINGS ....................................................................................................... 311
7.5.1
Experimental procedures............................................................................................................. 311
7.5.2
Air temperature inside evacuated tubes....................................................................................... 311
7.5.3
Water temperature inside evacuated tubes .................................................................................. 312
7.5.4
Typical results ............................................................................................................................. 313
7.5.4.1
7.5.4.2

7.5.5

Steady-state results at boiling temperature of 49oC and feed flow rate of 6.3 litres per hour..... 316

7.5.5.1
7.5.5.2
7.5.5.3
7.5.5.4

7.5.6

Operating temperatures ......................................................................................................................313


Operating pressure .............................................................................................................................315
Operating temperatures and insolation ...............................................................................................316
Distillate production and recovery ratio .............................................................................................317
Specific thermal energy consumption ................................................................................................318
Heat flow............................................................................................................................................319

Steady-state results at boiling temperature of 34oC and feed flow rate of 4.5 litres per hour..... 321

viii

7.5.7
7.5.8
7.6
7.6.1
7.6.2
7.7
7.8
7.8.1
7.8.2
7.8.3
7.9
8

Parasitic electrical energy........................................................................................................... 325


Comparison with theoretical ISCE model ................................................................................... 325
ISCE COMPARISON WITH OTHER SYSTEMS ........................................................................................ 329
ISCE compared with solar stills .................................................................................................. 329
ISCE compared with PV-RO ....................................................................................................... 330
ISCE COUPLED TO SOLAR MEE........................................................................................................ 331
OTHER ISCE DESIGN CONFIGURATIONS ........................................................................................... 334
ISCE using falling-film principle................................................................................................. 334
ISCE using rising-film principle.................................................................................................. 335
Integrated solar collector membrane distillation (ISCMD) concept ........................................... 336
ISCE CONCLUSIONS.......................................................................................................................... 337

EVALUATION OF DESALINATION SYSTEMS............................................................................... 340


8.1
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................. 340
8.2
COMPARATIVE TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF SOLAR DESALINATION SYSTEMS STUDIED ................. 340
8.2.1
Maximum number of stages in solar-MSF................................................................................... 340
8.2.2
SP-MSF comparative chemical and parasitic electrical energy.................................................. 341
8.2.3
MSF condenser material comparative analysis........................................................................... 342
8.2.4
Maximum number of effects in solar-MEE .................................................................................. 343
8.2.5
Cooling water requirements ........................................................................................................ 343
8.2.6
Recovery ratio comparative analysis........................................................................................... 344
8.2.7
Specific thermal energy requirements ......................................................................................... 344
8.2.8
Preferred thermal desalination technology ................................................................................. 345
8.3
TECHNICAL EVALUATION OF PREFERRED SOLAR DESALINATION SYSTEM ....................................... 346
8.3.1
Low-temperature solar heat sources ........................................................................................... 346
8.3.1.1
8.3.1.2

8.3.2

Estimated performance of small, medium and large-scale solar-MEE desalination systems ..... 353

8.3.2.1
8.3.2.2
8.3.2.3

8.4
8.4.1
8.4.2
8.4.3
8.4.4
8.4.5
8.4.6
8.4.7
8.5
8.5.1
8.5.2
8.5.3
8.6
8.6.1
8.6.2
8.6.3
8.6.4
8.7
8.7.1
8.7.2
8.7.3
8.7.4
8.7.5
8.7.6
9

Salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) ..................................................................................................346


Evacuated tubular solar collector (ETSC) and thermal energy storage (TES)....................................347
Plant capacities...................................................................................................................................353
SGSP-MEE systems...........................................................................................................................354
ETSC-TES-MEE systems ..................................................................................................................354

ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF PREFERRED SOLAR DESALINATION SYSTEM ........................................ 356


Methodology ................................................................................................................................ 356
SGSP costs................................................................................................................................... 357
ETSC and TES costs .................................................................................................................... 358
Heat exchangers and equipment costs......................................................................................... 359
PV Panel and battery costs.......................................................................................................... 361
MEE evaporators costs comparative analysis............................................................................. 365
Fresh water costs......................................................................................................................... 366
PREFERRED LOW-TEMPERATURE HEAT SOURCE .............................................................................. 371
Overall performance for Melbourne............................................................................................ 371
Performance for Alice Springs .................................................................................................... 372
Optimising the SGSP-MEE unit by peak clipping ....................................................................... 375
MODELLING OF REVERSE OSMOSIS (RO) SYSTEM ............................................................................ 377
RO osmotic and operational pressure ......................................................................................... 377
RO energy requirement ............................................................................................................... 379
PV-RO ......................................................................................................................................... 382
Wind-RO ...................................................................................................................................... 384
TRIPLE BOTTOM LINE COMPARISON OF DESALINATION SYSTEMS .................................................... 385
Desalinations systems to be compared ........................................................................................ 385
Comparison methodology............................................................................................................ 385
Financial evaluation.................................................................................................................... 386
Economics uncertainty analysis .................................................................................................. 391
Environmental evaluation............................................................................................................ 393
Social evaluation ......................................................................................................................... 397

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................. 398


9.1
OVERVIEW ........................................................................................................................................ 398
9.2
RESEARCH QUESTIONS...................................................................................................................... 400
9.2.1
How efficient in terms of distillate production rate, recovery ratio and specific energy
consumption are the various forms of MSF and MEE desalination processes with low-temperature heat
input? 400

ix

9.2.2
Which of the thermal desalination processes is preferable for use with a low-temperature heat
source, including salinity-gradient solar pond, in regards to efficiency? ................................................. 401
9.2.3
How do solar ponds compare as a source of heat for desalination with other solar-thermal
technologies such as evacuated tubular solar collectors?......................................................................... 401
9.2.4
How can the solar-thermal desalination plants be optimised? How can the performance of the
desalination process be enhanced with respect to heat exchange tube materials?.................................... 402
9.2.5
How do the preferred solar-thermal distillation systems compare on energy efficiency, economic
and greenhouse impact with conventional desalination systems powered by energy from fossil fuels, and
other renewable energy based systems such as photovoltaic-reverse osmosis (PV-RO) and wind-reverse
osmosis (wind-RO) systems?...................................................................................................................... 403
9.2.6
How can the concentrated brine from inland desalination systems be disposed of without any
environmental impacts? How can these technologies be incorporated into integrated approaches to
salinity and water quality in salt-affected areas and in schemes for salinity reduction? .......................... 405
9.2.7
How does the new concept of an Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation (ISCE) system, as
developed in the course of the research program of this thesis, compare with other systems in regards to
efficiency? .................................................................................................................................................. 406
9.2.8
What are the future trends and challenges of solar-thermal MEE desalination, given the rise of
reverse osmosis as a desalination process?............................................................................................... 407
9.3
RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................................................................................................... 408
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 411
APPENDIX 1 THERMAL PROPERTIES .................................................................................................. 425
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A1.7
A1.8
A1.9
A1.10
A1.11
A1.12
A1.13
A1.14
A1.15
A1.16
A1.17
A1.18

SPECIFIC HEAT CAPACITY OF WATER ............................................................................................... 425


LATENT HEAT OF VAPORISATION ..................................................................................................... 425
SATURATION TEMPERATURE OF WATER VAPOUR............................................................................. 426
SATURATION PRESSURE OF WATER VAPOUR .................................................................................... 426
THERMAL CONDUCTIVITY OF SALTWATER ........................................................................................ 426
DENSITY OF SALTWATER .................................................................................................................. 427
SPECIFIC VOLUME OF SATURATED LIQUID WATER ........................................................................... 427
SPECIFIC VOLUME OF SATURATED WATER VAPOUR......................................................................... 428
DYNAMIC VISCOSITY OF SATURATED LIQUID WATER ...................................................................... 428
DYNAMIC VISCOSITY OF SATURATED WATER VAPOUR ............................................................... 428
ENTHALPY OF SATURATED LIQUID WATER .................................................................................. 429
ENTHALPY OF SATURATED VAPOUR ............................................................................................ 429
PRANDTL NUMBER FOR SATURATED LIQUID WATER ................................................................... 429
BOILING POINT ELEVATION (BPE) OF SALTWATER ..................................................................... 429
NON-EQUILIBRIUM ALLOWANCE (NEA) IN MULTI-STAGE FLASH (MSF) SYSTEMS .................... 430
NON-EQUILIBRIUM ALLOWANCE (NEA) IN MULTI-EFFECT EVAPORATION (MEE) SYSTEMS ...... 430
SURFACE TENSION OF SATURATED LIQUID WATER ..................................................................... 430
OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT FOR FALLING FILM EVAPORATORS................................. 431

APPENDIX 2 MSF CONDENSER HEAT TRANSFER MODEL ............................................................ 432


APPENDIX 3 MEE EVAPORATOR HEAT TRANSFER MODEL ........................................................ 437
A3-1
A3-2
A3-3

EVAPORATOR HEAT TRANSFER MODEL FOR EFFECT 1 ..................................................................... 437


EVAPORATOR HEAT TRANSFER MODEL FOR EFFECTS 2 TO N ........................................................... 439
EVAPORATOR HEAT TRANSFER MODEL FOR DOWN CONDENSER ..................................................... 440

APPENDIX 4 PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN CALCULATIONS ........................................................... 443


APPENDIX 5 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS............................................................................................... 445
A5.1
TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT USING RTD SENSORS AND T-TYPE THERMOCOUPLES...................... 445
A5.2
PRESSURE MEASUREMENT USING PRESSURE TRANSDUCERS ............................................................ 446
A5.3
FLOW RATE MEASUREMENT USING TURBINE FLOW TRANSDUCERS ................................................. 447
A5.4
ERROR PROPAGATION CORRELATIONS.............................................................................................. 448
A5.4.1
General formula...................................................................................................................... 448
A5.4.2
Sum or difference .................................................................................................................... 449
A5.4.3
Product or quotient................................................................................................................. 449
A5.4.4
Logarithmic functions ............................................................................................................. 449
A5.5
ERROR PROPAGATION IN DISTILLATE PRODUCTION .......................................................................... 450
A5.6
ERROR PROPAGATION IN RECOVERY RATIO ...................................................................................... 450
A5.7
ERROR PROPAGATION IN SPECIFIC THERMAL ENERGY CONSUMPTION ............................................. 450
A5.8
ERROR PROPAGATION IN OVERALL HEAT TRANSFER COEFFICIENT FOR SP-3E-MEE ...................... 451

A5.8.1
OHTC in the first effect........................................................................................................... 451
A5.8.2
OHTC in the second effect ...................................................................................................... 452
A5.8.3
OHTC in the third effect ......................................................................................................... 453
A5.8.4
OHTC in the condenser .......................................................................................................... 453
A5.9
ERROR PROPAGATION IN HEAT FLOW ............................................................................................... 454
A5.9.1
Heat flow in the SP-SSF unit .................................................................................................. 454
A5.9.2
Heat flow in the SP-3E-MEE unit ........................................................................................... 455
A5.9.2.1
A5.9.2.2
A5.9.2.3
A5.9.2.4
A5.9.2.5
A5.9.2.6
A5.9.2.7

Feed preheating in the condenser .......................................................................................................455


Feed preheating by the first preheater ................................................................................................455
Feed preheating by the second preheater............................................................................................456
Solar heat input to the first evaporator ...............................................................................................456
Rejected heat with cooling water stream............................................................................................456
Total feed preheating..........................................................................................................................456
Total feed preheating (as a percentage of total heat) ..........................................................................456

APPENDIX 6 ETSC SOLAR RADIATION CALCULATIONS ............................................................... 457


A6-1
A6-2

HOURLY SOLAR RADIATION ............................................................................................................. 457


MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN ETSCS ............................................................................................. 460

xi

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1-1: Primary Energy Supply per Capita (UNEP, 2007)..............................................................11
Figure 1-2: Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over the last 10,000 years (UNEP, 2007) ..................11
Figure 1-3: Water consumption per capita by sector for selected countries (MJA, 2006).....................13
Figure 1-4: Global distribution of the worlds water (UNESCO, 2006)................................................14
Figure 1-5: Total number of plants operating since 1960. Data obtained from GWI (2008).................15
Figure 1-6: Landscape water balance (NLWRA, 2001).........................................................................16
Figure 1-7: Agricultural land affected by salinity ..................................................................................16
Figure 1-8: Basic principle of solar-thermal desalination ......................................................................17
Figure 2-1: Total contracted and online desalination capacity. Data obtained from GWI (2008) .........26
Figure 2-2: Total online desalination capacity per technology (all applications). Data obtained from
GWI (2008) ............................................................................................................................................27
Figure 2-3: Total online desalination capacity per region (all applications). Data obtained from GWI
(2008) .....................................................................................................................................................27
Figure 2-4: Global market share by technology (1998 Inventory). Data obtained from GWI (2008) ...28
Figure 2-5: Global market share by technology (2008 Inventory). Data obtained from GWI (2008) ...28
Figure 2-6: Total online desalination capacity in Australia. Data obtained from GWI (2008)..............29
Figure 2-7: Schematic of a Multi-stage flash process (Buros, 2000) .....................................................31
Figure 2-8: Shoaiba dual purpose plant (Alstom, 2008) ........................................................................33
Figure 2-9: Schematic of a multi-effect evaporation (MEE) process (Buros, 2000) .............................34
Figure 2-10: Schematic of MEE vertical tube arrangements (Swenson, 2002) .....................................34
Figure 2-11: Al Taweelah dual purpose plant (Siemens, 2004).............................................................36
Figure 2-12: Principle of mechanical vapour compression (Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994)...................37
Figure 2-13: Schematic of MEE with TVC (Wangnick, 2006)..............................................................37
Figure 2-14: RO Desalination Process ...................................................................................................39
Figure 2-15: RO PX-260 pressure exchanger (ERI, 2006) ....................................................................40
Figure 2-16: Schematic of PX (HOH, 2007)..........................................................................................40
Figure 2-17: SWRO energy consumption trend. Adapted from Damitz et al. (2006) ...........................41
Figure 2-18: Ashkelon dual purpose desalination plant (WT, 2006a) ...................................................42
Figure 2-19: Electrodialysis principle (Miller, 2003) ............................................................................42
Figure 2-20: Theoretical minimum energy requirement (Miller, 2003).................................................44
Figure 2-21: A simple solar still (Buros, 2000)......................................................................................50
Figure 2-22: Schematic of solar pond coupled with a 31-stages MSF plant (Agha, 2008)....................50
Figure 2-23: Thermal simulation results of solar pond coupled MSF desalination (Agha, 2008) .........51
Figure 2-24: El Paso MEMS desalination unit and solar pond (Lu et al., 2002) ...................................52
Figure 2-25: Schematic of solar MED system (Phase II) (Blanco et al., 2002) .....................................53
Figure 2-26: Schematic of concentrated solar power plant with thermal storage (Quaschning, 2003)..54
Figure 2-27: CSP Technologies .............................................................................................................55
Figure 2-28: Kwinana SWRO plant in Kwinana, Western Australia.....................................................58
Figure 2-29: Schematic of Kwinana SWRO plant (Degrmont, 2005)..................................................59
Figure 2-30: Membrane distillation methods (Evans and Miller, 2002) ................................................62
Figure 3-1: Salinity-Gradient Solar Pond (SGSP) .................................................................................65
Figure 3-2: Experimental and demonstration solar ponds......................................................................66
Figure 3-3: Evacuated solar tube (Linuo, 2002).....................................................................................67
Figure 3-4: Direct flow ETSC at RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia .............................................67
Figure 3-5: U pipe ETSC .......................................................................................................................68
Figure 3-6: Heat pipe ETSC...................................................................................................................68
Figure 3-7: 53 m2 experimental solar pond ............................................................................................72
Figure 3-8: Overflow system..................................................................................................................72
Figure 3-9: Flushing system...................................................................................................................72
Figure 3-10: Salt charger. Floating rings shown ....................................................................................73
Figure 3-11: Glass window for observation ...........................................................................................73
Figure 3-12: Diffuser used to set-up gradient ........................................................................................74
Figure 3-13: Salinity profile development during gradient establishment .............................................75
Figure 3-14: Temperature variation in UCZ and LCZ just after gradient set-up ...................................75
Figure 3-15: In-pond heat exchanger (heat extraction from NCZ and LCZ) .........................................76

xii

Figure 3-16: In-pond heat exchanger (heat extraction from LCZ only).................................................76
Figure 3-17: Location of thermocouples ................................................................................................77
Figure 3-18: DataTaker DT500..............................................................................................................77
Figure 3-19: Schematic view of pond showing location of thermocouples ...........................................77
Figure 3-20: Schematic heat extraction system in solar pond................................................................78
Figure 3-21: Breather tube connected to outlet ......................................................................................78
Figure 3-22: Clear plastic pipe connected to inlet..................................................................................78
Figure 3-23: Acid injection pipes with outlets at different heights in the pond .....................................79
Figure 3-24: Corrosion of metal supports due to low pH.......................................................................80
Figure 3-25: Salt precipitation observation (a) on bottom of pond (b) before adding HCl to saturated
NaCl solution in beaker (c) after adding HCl acid to NaCl ...................................................................81
Figure 3-26: Conventional method of heat extraction............................................................................82
Figure 3-27: Monthly average global solar irradiance ...........................................................................86
Figure 3-28: Daily average temperatures of ambient, UCZ (which is also HX_Inlet), LCZ and outlet of
heat exchanger........................................................................................................................................86
Figure 3-29: Daily average temperatures of ambient, UCZ, LCZ and outlet of heat exchanger during
heat removal only (steady-states also shown) ........................................................................................87
Figure 3-30: Daily average heat fluxes of solar ration, heat removal and energy lost to the surface
(steady-states also shown)......................................................................................................................88
Figure 3-31: Daily average heat fluxes through concrete base and insulation (data analysed for 11
distinct days at two-week intervals) .......................................................................................................89
Figure 3-32: Efficiency of solar pond (ratio of heat removal to incoming solar radiation) ...................90
Figure 3-33: Density profiles in 2008 (three profiles before heat extraction, six during and 11 after)..90
Figure 3-34: Temperature profiles in 2008 (four profiles before heat extraction, one during and 12
after) .......................................................................................................................................................91
Figure 3-35: pH profiles in 2008 (three profiles before heat extraction, seven during and 14 after).....91
Figure 3-36: Temperature profiles at different distances from the heat exchanger pipes (during heat
removal) .................................................................................................................................................92
Figure 3-37: Temperature profiles of surface of heat exchanger pipes and brine in pond.....................93
Figure 3-38: Daily average ambient and UCZ temperature ...................................................................94
Figure 3-39: Overall heat transfer coefficient (based on external surface area) ....................................95
Figure 3-40: Non-dimensional experimental temperature profiles ........................................................96
Figure 3-41: Non-dimensional experimental temperature gradient profiles ..........................................96
Figure 4-1: Horizontal division in a SGSP using the finite difference method....................................101
Figure 4-2: Three-year prediction of temperature variation in SGSP with no load .............................105
Figure 4-3: Three-year prediction of temperature variation in SGSP with heat removal ....................106
Figure 4-4: Three-year prediction of temperature variation in SGSP with thicker NCZ .....................107
Figure 4-5: ETSC performance curve for different insolation. Ambient temperature = 30oC .............110
Figure 4-6: ETSC generalised performance curve. Ambient temperature = 30oC...............................110
Figure 4-7: ETSC generalised performance curve for different ambient temperatures .......................111
Figure 4-8: Linuo U-tube ETSC efficiency (Linuo, 2004) ..................................................................111
Figure 4-9: Comparison of performance for different types of ETSC. Ta = 30oC, H = 800 W/m2 ......112
Figure 5-1: Schematic of a single-stage flash (SSF) system ................................................................114
Figure 5-2: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-stage flash - once through
(SP-MSF-OT) system...........................................................................................................................117
Figure 5-3: Matrix notation for solving equations ...............................................................................118
Figure 5-4: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-stage flash conventional
(SP-MSF-C) system .............................................................................................................................123
Figure 5-5: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-stage flash - mixing (SPMSF-M) system ...................................................................................................................................129
Figure 5-6: Specific thermal energy consumption versus number of stages (for different feed flow
rates).....................................................................................................................................................130
Figure 5-7: System temperatures versus number of stages ..................................................................131
Figure 5-8: Specific volume of water vapour and % change at varying temperatures.........................132
Figure 5-9: Recovery ratio and distillate production versus number of stages ....................................132
Figure 5-10: Recovery ratio versus number of stages (for different supply temperatures)..................133
Figure 5-11: Distillate production versus feed saltwater flow rate (for different number of stages) ...133

xiii

Figure 5-12: Schematic of SP-SSF desalination unit ...........................................................................136


Figure 5-13: Layout of SSF vacuum vessel .........................................................................................138
Figure 5-14: Location of ports on end cover plates of SSF vacuum vessel .........................................139
Figure 5-15: Three-dimensional drawing of SSF vacuum vessel ........................................................140
Figure 5-16: Un-insulated SSF unit .....................................................................................................143
Figure 5-17: Insulated SSF unit ...........................................................................................................143
Figure 5-18: LHS end cover plate ........................................................................................................143
Figure 5-19: RHS end cover plate........................................................................................................143
Figure 5-20: Spray nozzles in flash chamber .......................................................................................144
Figure 5-21: Demister housing in flash chamber .................................................................................145
Figure 5-22: Tellerettes ........................................................................................................................145
Figure 5-23: Cu-Ni 90/10 condenser....................................................................................................148
Figure 5-24: HDPE condenser .............................................................................................................149
Figure 5-25: Schematic of HDPE condenser pipe and fittings.............................................................150
Figure 5-26: Vacuum, extraction and supply pumps ...........................................................................151
Figure 5-27: Resistance temperature detector ......................................................................................153
Figure 5-28: Turbine flow transducer ..................................................................................................153
Figure 5-29: Frequency to analogue converters ...................................................................................154
Figure 5-30: Parker visual flowmeter...................................................................................................154
Figure 5-31: Tanks level switches........................................................................................................155
Figure 5-32: Pressure transducer PMP 1400........................................................................................155
Figure 5-33: Yokogawa MV230 data recorder ....................................................................................156
Figure 5-34: Four ND Multicube power meters fixed to control panel ...............................................157
Figure 5-35: Primo TDS meter.............................................................................................................158
Figure 5-36: Anton Paar density meter ................................................................................................158
Figure 5-37: Schematic showing position of sensors on SP-SSF unit .................................................159
Figure 5-38: SP-SSF operating temperatures at 85oC and 3 LPM .......................................................161
Figure 5-39: SP-SSF operating pressures at 85oC and 3 LPM.............................................................162
Figure 5-40: SP-SSF flow rates and recovery ratios at 85oC and 3 LPM ............................................163
Figure 5-41: SP-SSF heat flow at 85oC and 3 LPM.............................................................................164
Figure 5-42: SP-SSF specific thermal energy consumption at 85oC and 3 LPM.................................165
Figure 5-43: SP-SSF distillate production and recovery ratio at varying heat source temperature (with
error bars shown)..................................................................................................................................166
Figure 5-44: SP-SSF specific thermal energy consumption at varying heat source temperature (with
error bars shown)..................................................................................................................................167
Figure 5-45: SP-SSF thermodynamic losses at varying heat source temperature (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................168
Figure 5-46: SP-SSF heat flow at varying heat source temperature (with error bars shown) ..............169
Figure 5-47: SP-SSF distillate production at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown).............172
Figure 5-48: SP-SSF recovery ratio at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown).......................173
Figure 5-49: SP-SSF specific thermal energy consumption at varying feed flow rate (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................173
Figure 5-50: SP-SSF heat flow at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)..............................174
Figure 5-51: SP-SSF HDPE Operating temperatures at 85oC and 5.0 LPM........................................179
Figure 5-52: SP-SSF comparative distillate production at varying feed flow rate (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................182
Figure 5-53: SP-SSF comparative simulated distillate production (with error bars shown)................182
Figure 5-54: SP-SSF comparative recovery ratio at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown).183
Figure 5-55: SP-SSF comparative specific thermal energy at varying feed flow rate (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................183
Figure 5-56: SP-SSF comparative heat flow at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown) ........184
Figure 5-57: SP-SSF comparative total heat input at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)
..............................................................................................................................................................184
Figure 5-58: Temperature profiles from February to September 2006 (Pyramid Hill Solar
Pond) ...................................................................................................................................................186
Figure 5-59: Field trial of SP-SSF at Pyramid Hill ..............................................................................187
Figure 6-1: Schematic of typical temperature distributions in effects of SP-MEE-P ..........................196

xiv

Figure 6-2: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-effect evaporation parallel
flow (SP-MEE-P) system .....................................................................................................................199
Figure 6-3: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-effect evaporation forward
feed (SP-MEE-FF) system consisting of three effects .........................................................................209
Figure 6-4: Schematic of throttling process of brine before entering effect 2 .....................................213
Figure 6-5: SP-MEE-P System temperatures at varying solar pond supply temperature (4 effects) ...215
Figure 6-6: SP-MEE-P Distillate production and recovery ratio at varying solar pond supply
temperature (4 effects) .........................................................................................................................216
Figure 6-7: SP-MEE-P Distillate production at varying solar pond supply temperature (2, 3 and 4
effects)..................................................................................................................................................216
Figure 6-8: SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (4 effects)....................217
Figure 6-9: SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption for 2, 3 and 4 effects at varying heat
supply temperatures .............................................................................................................................217
Figure 6-10: SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption for 2 to 12 effects (at varying solar
pond supply temperature).....................................................................................................................218
Figure 6-11: SP-MEE-FF System temperatures at varying solar pond supply temperature (3 effects)
..............................................................................................................................................................219
Figure 6-12: SP-MEE-FF Distillate production and recovery ratio at varying solar pond supply
temperature (3 effects) .........................................................................................................................220
Figure 6-13: SP-MEE-FF specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (3 effects) ................221
Figure 6-14: Comparative distillate production at varying solar pond supply temperature (3 effects)223
Figure 6-15: Comparative specific thermal energy consumption at varying solar pond supply
temperature (3 effects) .........................................................................................................................223
Figure 6-16: SP-MEE-FF First effect OHTC at varying hot brine average temperature .....................224
Figure 6-17: Comparative overall heat transfer coefficient at varying condensation temperatures.....225
Figure 6-18: MEE comparative overall heat transfer coefficient at varying condensation temperatures
..............................................................................................................................................................225
Figure 6-19: Effects of 3E-MEE experimental unit .............................................................................230
Figure 6-20: Tube bundles in evaporator .............................................................................................231
Figure 6-21: 3E-MEE evaporators, preheaters, condenser and interconnecting vapour lines .............231
Figure 6-22: 3E-MEE demister ............................................................................................................232
Figure 6-23: 3E-MEE condenser..........................................................................................................233
Figure 6-24: 3E-MEE preheater ...........................................................................................................234
Figure 6-25: 3E-MEE non-condensable gases vent .............................................................................235
Figure 6-26: 3E-MEE supply pump .....................................................................................................236
Figure 6-27: 3E-MEE interim distillate collection tank .......................................................................236
Figure 6-28: Gems turbine flow transducer .........................................................................................237
Figure 6-29: Three-dimensional drawing of 3E-MEE evaporators, condenser and preheaters ...........239
Figure 6-30: 3E-MEE experimental unit (as tested) ............................................................................239
Figure 6-31: Schematic of modified hot water circuit .........................................................................241
Figure 6-32: Twisted tape inserts used in evaporator of first effect.....................................................242
Figure 6-33: Twisted tapes in tubes of evaporator ...............................................................................242
Figure 6-34: Schematic showing position of sensors on SP-3E-MEE unit..........................................243
Figure 6-35: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at 86oC and 2.32 LPM (with recirculation only) ............................246
Figure 6-36: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at 86oC and 2.32 LPM (with twisted tapes only)............................246
Figure 6-37: SP-3E-MEE operating temperatures at 86oC and 2.59 LPM...........................................247
Figure 6-38: SP-3E-MEE operating pressures at 86oC and 2.59 LPM ................................................248
Figure 6-39: SP-3E-MEE distillate production at 86oC and 2.59 LPM ...............................................249
Figure 6-40: SP-3E-MEE total distillate production and recovery ratio at 86oC and 2.59 LPM .........249
Figure 6-41: SP-3E-MEE specific thermal energy consumption at 86oC and 2.59 LPM ....................250
Figure 6-42: SP-3E-MEE heat flow at 86oC and 2.59 LPM ................................................................251
Figure 6-43: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at 86oC and 2.59 LPM ....................................................................252
Figure 6-44: SP-3E-MEE operating temperatures at varying solar hot water temperature (with error
bars shown) ..........................................................................................................................................254
Figure 6-45: SP-3E-MEE total distillate production and recovery ratio at varying solar hot water
temperature (with error bars shown) ....................................................................................................255

xv

Figure 6-46: SP-3E-MEE specific thermal energy consumption at varying solar hot water temperature
(with error bars shown) ........................................................................................................................256
Figure 6-47: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at varying solar hot water temperature (with error bars shown).....256
Figure 6-48: SP-3E-MEE heat flow at varying solar hot water temperature (with error bars shown).257
Figure 6-49: SP-3E-MEE comparative distillate production at varying Tsps (with error bars shown) .262
Figure 6-50: SP-3E-MEE comparative recovery ratio at varying Tsps (with error bars shown) ...........262
Figure 6-51: SP-3E-MEE comparative solar heat input at varying Tsps (with error bars shown).........263
Figure 6-52: SP-3E-MEE comparative specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (with error
bars shown) ..........................................................................................................................................263
Figure 6-53: SP-3E-MEE comparative vapour temperatures (Tvi) at varying Tsps (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................264
Figure 6-54: SP-3E-MEE comparative OHTC in first effect (UE1) at varying Tsps (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................264
Figure 6-55: SP-3E-MEE comparative OHTC in second effect (UE2) at varying Tsps (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................265
Figure 6-56: SP-3E-MEE comparative OHTC in third effect (UE3) at varying Tsps (with error bars
shown) ..................................................................................................................................................265
Figure 6-57: Calcium sulphate solubility and operating temperatures for MEE system. Data for
solubility limits obtained from (El-Dessouky and Ettouney, 1999).....................................................267
Figure 7-1: Conventional solar hot water system.................................................................................272
Figure 7-2: The conventional ETSC and separate evaporator (ETSC-MEE using horizontal falling film
tubes and a forward feed arrangement) ................................................................................................274
Figure 7-3: The Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation (ISCE) system principle........................275
Figure 7-4: Schematic of standalone single-effect ISCE .....................................................................278
Figure 7-5: ISCE solar collector performance curve for different insolation (ambient temperature =
18oC) ....................................................................................................................................................286
Figure 7-6: ISCE system temperatures at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, T = 60oC, mf =
0.1 LPM) ..............................................................................................................................................286
Figure 7-7: ISCE hourly distillate production at varying insolation (ISCE fitted with CPC, mf = 0.1
LPM) ....................................................................................................................................................287
Figure 7-8: ISCE recovery ratio at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM) .......288
Figure 7-9: ISCE solar collector efficiency at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, mf = 0.1
LPM) ....................................................................................................................................................289
Figure 7-10: ISCE specific thermal energy consumption at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with
CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM).............................................................................................................................289
Figure 7-11: ISCE hourly distillate production and recovery ratio at varying feed flow rates (ISCE is
fitted with CPC, T = 60oC, H = 800 W/m2) .........................................................................................290
Figure 7-12: ISCE optimum feed flow rates for different insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, T =
60oC) ....................................................................................................................................................291
Figure 7-13: ISCE reject brine salt concentration and recovery ratio at varying feed flow rates (ISCE is
fitted with CPC, T = 60oC, H = 800 W/m2) .........................................................................................292
Figure 7-14: ISCE specific thermal energy consumption at varying feed flow rates (ISCE is fitted with
CPC, T = 60oC, H = 800 W/m2) ...........................................................................................................292
Figure 7-15: ISCE hourly distillate production at varying insolation (T = 60oC, mf = 0.1 LPM)........293
Figure 7-16: ISCE typical daily performance in summer 5th January in Melbourne, Australia........294
Figure 7-17: ISCE typical daily performance in winter 9th June in Melbourne, Australia................295
Figure 7-18: Experimental ISCE unit (before fitting reflectors and insulation)...................................296
Figure 7-19: ISCE Evaporator (front view) .........................................................................................297
Figure 7-20: ISCE Evaporator (side view)...........................................................................................298
Figure 7-21: Tube connection with silicon rubber ring........................................................................298
Figure 7-22: Demister housing.............................................................................................................299
Figure 7-23: Bottom tube support ........................................................................................................299
Figure 7-24: CPC reflector (IVT, 2008)...............................................................................................300
Figure 7-25: Semi-circular reflector.....................................................................................................301
Figure 7-26: Schematic of semi-circular reflectors and support frame................................................302
Figure 7-27: Manifold and feed tubes ..................................................................................................303
Figure 7-28: Condenser fixed to evaporator.........................................................................................304

xvi

Figure 7-29: Brine heat recovery heat exchanger ................................................................................304


Figure 7-30: ISCE frame tilted at 42o ...................................................................................................305
Figure 7-31: ISCE unit (as tested)........................................................................................................306
Figure 7-32: Key Instruments MR3000 visual flowmeter ...................................................................307
Figure 7-33: Parker S8002 visual flowmeter .......................................................................................308
Figure 7-34: Schematic showing the position of the sensors on the ISCE unit....................................309
Figure 7-35: ISCE air temperature inside evacuated tubes ..................................................................312
Figure 7-36: ISCE water temperature inside evacuated tubes..............................................................312
Figure 7-37: ISCE experimental ambient temperature and insolation .................................................313
Figure 7-38: ISCE experimental temperatures (in tubes).....................................................................314
Figure 7-39: ISCE brine heat recovery exchanger experimental temperatures....................................314
Figure 7-40: ISCE experimental boiling and vapour temperatures......................................................315
Figure 7-41: ISCE experimental operating pressure ............................................................................316
Figure 7-42: ISCE experimental ambient temperature and insolation (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per
hour) .....................................................................................................................................................316
Figure 7-43: ISCE experimental distillate production (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per hour) .................317
Figure 7-44: ISCE experimental recovery ratio (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per hour)...........................318
Figure 7-45: ISCE experimental specific thermal energy consumption (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per
hour) .....................................................................................................................................................318
Figure 7-46: ISCE experimental heat flow (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per hour) ..................................319
Figure 7-47: ISCE experimental temperatures and insolation (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour) .....321
Figure 7-48: ISCE steady-state experimental temperatures and insolation (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per
hour) .....................................................................................................................................................321
Figure 7-49: ISCE experimental temperatures [in tubes] (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour) ............322
Figure 7-50: ISCE brine heat recovery exchanger experimental temperatures (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres
per hour) ...............................................................................................................................................322
Figure 7-51: ISCE experimental distillate production (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour) .................323
Figure 7-52: ISCE experimental heat flow (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour) ..................................323
Figure 7-53: Schematic of solar still coupled with a solar collector ....................................................329
Figure 7-54: Solar still flat plate system fresh water production (Badran and Al-Tahaineh, 2005) .329
Figure 7-55: ISCE coupled to an MEE desalination system concept...................................................332
Figure 7-56: ISCE using falling-film concept......................................................................................334
Figure 7-57: Examples of special distribution device ..........................................................................335
Figure 7-58: ISCE using rising-film concept .......................................................................................335
Figure 7-59: Schematic of the integrated solar collector membrane distillation (ISCMD) concept ....336
Figure 8-1: Relative water cost at varying pre-treatment cost (for different plant capital cost) ..........342
Figure 8-2: Comparative specific thermal energy consumption ..........................................................344
Figure 8-3: SGSP-MEE three-year prediction performance with heat extraction starting on day 485346
Figure 8-4: Volume of TES tank at varying ETSC collection area for the three-effect solar-MEE
system...................................................................................................................................................349
Figure 8-5: Total capital cost at varying ETSC areas (for different TES tank cost percentages) ........350
Figure 8-6: ETSC-TES-MEE three-year prediction performance (ETSC area = 504 m2). The vertical
scale for heat stored in the tank is on the right hand side, and is in kWh, not kWh/day as for the other
curves. ..................................................................................................................................................351
Figure 8-7: ETSC-TES-MEE performance during first year of solar-MEE operation (ETSC area = 504
m2) ........................................................................................................................................................352
Figure 8-8: TES tank thermal energy distribution for different ETSC collection areas (three-effect
MEE system)........................................................................................................................................353
Figure 8-9: Construction cost analysis of a 3,000 m2 SGSP ................................................................357
Figure 8-10: Effect of tube length and diameter on cost of conventional shell-and-tube heat exchangers
(Peters et al., 2003)...............................................................................................................................359
Figure 8-11: Relative costs of heat exchangers (Peters et al., 2003)....................................................359
Figure 8-12: Cost of multiple-pipe and spiral tube heat exchangers (Peters et al., 2003)....................360
Figure 8-13: Purchased cost of single-effect evaporators (Peters et al., 2003) ....................................360
Figure 8-14: Cost of tank vent condensers (Peters et al., 2003)...........................................................360
Figure 8-15: Cost of large field-erected tanks and pipe insulation (Peters et al., 2003) ......................361
Figure 8-16: Cost of centrifugal pumps, including electric motor (Peters et al., 2003) .......................361

xvii

Figure 8-17: PV panels and batteries performance for three-effects solar-MEE (47 PV panels, 240
batteries)...............................................................................................................................................364
Figure 8-18: Water cost for the different cases (for Melbourne) .........................................................368
Figure 8-19: Effect of salt cost on fresh water cost (medium- and large-scale SGSP-MEE units)......369
Figure 8-20: Effect of insulation cost on fresh water cost (medium- and large-scale SGSP-MEE units)
..............................................................................................................................................................369
Figure 8-21: Effect of liner cost on fresh water cost (medium- and large-scale SGSP-MEE units)....370
Figure 8-22: Effect of ETSC cost on fresh water cost (for large-scale ETSC-TES-MEE unit)...........370
Figure 8-23: Effect of batteries cost on fresh water cost (for large-scale SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery
unit) ......................................................................................................................................................371
Figure 8-24: Average yearly global solar radiation levels for Australia. Adapted from Hutchison and
Kesteven (1998) ...................................................................................................................................372
Figure 8-25: Average rainfall and rainfall anomaly (October 20052008) for Australia (BOM, 2009)
..............................................................................................................................................................373
Figure 8-26: Monthly average total global radiation on a surface inclined at latitude angle (for
Melbourne, Alice Springs and Broome) ..............................................................................................373
Figure 8-27: Schematic of typical output from SGSP with wasted energy during summer ................375
Figure 8-28: MEE distillate production and SGSP wasted energy at varying clipping period ............376
Figure 8-29: MEE distillate production and cost parameter at varying clipping period ......................377
Figure 8-30: Schematic of RO system with energy recovery device ...................................................379
Figure 8-31: RO Osmotic pressure at varying feed saltwater concentrations and temperatures..........380
Figure 8-32: RO Operating pressure at varying feed saltwater concentrations and temperatures .......381
Figure 8-33: RO specific electrical energy consumption for different energy recovery devices and
pump efficiencies (Feed saltwater salinity = 32,000 ppm at 20oC, recovery ratio = 45%, pressure drop
across membrane = 5 bars)...................................................................................................................381
Figure 8-34: Power curve of Vestas-V82 wind turbine (Vestas, 2008) ...............................................384
Figure 8-35: Comparative analysis of water costs for Melbourne .......................................................388
Figure 8-36: Comparative analysis of water costs (from published values and this study) .................390
Figure 8-37: Comparative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for Melbourne................................394
Figure 8-38: Schematic of a SGSP-MEE desalination system incorporated into a salinity-mitigation
scheme..................................................................................................................................................396
Figure A2-1: Schematic showing the various resistances to heat transfer .........................................432
Figure A2-2: Temperature distribution with vapour at saturation temperature..................................433
Figure A3-1: Tube banks arrangement in cross flow systems (Cengel, 2003)...................................440
Figure A3-2:Nusselt number correlations for cross flow over tube banks (Cengel, 2003)................442
Figure A3-3: Correction factor to be used with Nusselts number for NL < 16 (Cengel, 2003) ........442
Figure A6-1: Melbourne daily average total global radiation and diffuse radiation on a horizontal
surface (1990 2007).........................................................................................................................459
Figure A6-2: Daily average total global solar radiation (horizontal and tilted surface at 42 degrees)
............................................................................................................................................................460
Figure A6-3: Schematic of rows of ETSCs (with distances and angles notations)............................460

xviii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1: Main desalination processes .................................................................................................25
Table 2-2: Summary of typical technical features of main desalination technologies...........................43
Table 2-3: Published desalination energy usage ....................................................................................45
Table 2-4: Published desalination costs .................................................................................................48
Table 3-1: Coupling options between renewable energy and desalination processes............................63
Table 5-1: Input and output parameters in SP-MSF-OT modelling.....................................................120
Table 5-2: Input and output parameters in SP-MSF-C modelling .......................................................126
Table 5-3: Comparison of the SP-MSF configurations for eight stages ..............................................134
Table 5-4: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the SP- MSF configurations................135
Table 5-5: Capacity k factor reproduced from Table 6, pg. 6 (BST-ACS, 1996) ................................145
Table 5-6: Properties of common tube materials used in condensers (De Renzo, 1985; Zaki, 2006) .146
Table 5-7: Description of sensors on SP-SSF unit ...............................................................................160
Table 5-8: SP-SSF average steady-state results (with error range values) for trial at 85oC and 3 LPM
..............................................................................................................................................................166
Table 5-9: SP-SSF average steady-state results (with error range values) at varying heat source
temperature and constant feed flow rate ..............................................................................................171
Table 5-10: SP-SSF average steady-state results (with error range values) at varying feed flow rate and
constant heat source temperature .........................................................................................................176
Table 5-11: SP-SSF average parasitic energy per m3 of distillate product ..........................................177
Table 5-12: SP-SSF assumed physical characteristics .........................................................................178
Table 5-13: SP-SSF heat exchangers performance characteristics ......................................................178
Table 5-14: SP-SSF heat exchangers comparative analysis (TBT = 85oC, flow rate = 5 LPM)..........180
Table 5-15: SP-SSF simulation results at varying feed flow rate and constant heat source temperature
..............................................................................................................................................................185
Table 6-1: Input and output parameters in SP-MEE-P modelling .......................................................203
Table 6-2: SP-MEE-FF modelling unknown variables in equations....................................................210
Table 6-3: SP-MEE-FF modelling solution procedures.......................................................................211
Table 6-4: Input and output parameters in SP-MEE-FF modelling .....................................................213
Table 6-5: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the two SP-MEE models.....................226
Table 6-6: Description of sensors on SP-3E-MEE unit .......................................................................244
Table 6-7: SP-3E-MEE average steady-state results (with error range values) for trial at 86oC and 2.59
LPM .....................................................................................................................................................253
Table 6-8: SP-3E-MEE average steady-state results (with error range values) at varying Tsps ...........259
Table 6-9: SP-3E-MEE average parasitic energy per m3 of distillate product.....................................260
Table 6-10: SP-3E-MEE simulation results at varying Tsps and constant feed flow rate .....................266
Table 7-1: ISCE modelling unknown variables in equations...............................................................282
Table 7-2: ISCE modelling solution procedures ..................................................................................283
Table 7-3: Input and output parameters in ISCE modelling ................................................................284
Table 7-4: Description of sensors on ISCE unit...................................................................................310
Table 7-5: ISCE average steady-state results (with error range values) for T = 49oC and mf = 6.3 litres
per hour ................................................................................................................................................320
Table 7-6: ISCE average steady-state results (with error range values) for T = 34oC and mf = 4.5 litres
per hour ................................................................................................................................................324
Table 7-7: ISCE comparative analysis .................................................................................................328
Table 7-8: Summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of the ISCE compared to conventional
solar-thermal desalination systems.......................................................................................................333
Table 8-1: Summary of the technical and energy advantages and disadvantages of the solar-MSF and
solar-MEE systems...............................................................................................................................345
Table 8-2: Solar-MEE - SGSP average LCZ and supply solar hot water temperatures.......................347
Table 8-3: ETSC-TES-MEE average daily thermal energy demand and supply hot water temperature
(for three-effect solar-MEE system) ....................................................................................................350
Table 8-4: Technical performance of potential commercial SGSP-MEE desalination systems ..........354
Table 8-5: Technical performance of potential commercial ETSC-TES-MEE desalination systems..355
Table 8-6: Technical parameters used in SGSP economic analysis.....................................................357
Table 8-7: Capital and operating costs of SGSP for the three desalination plants...............................358

xix

Table 8-8: BP4175 Specifications at 1000 W/m2 and cell temperature of 25oC (BPSolar, 2008) .......362
Table 8-9: PV panels and batteries requirement for solar-MEE systems.............................................365
Table 8-10: Purchased cost of evaporators in AUD $ (2008) ..............................................................365
Table 8-11: Economic parameters adopted in analysis ........................................................................366
Table 8-12: Water cost evaluation of SGSP-MEE and ETSC-TES-MEE desalination systems .........368
Table 8-13: Comparative analysis of collection areas and water costs of large-scale SGSP-MEE and
ETSC-TES-MEE systems for Melbourne and Alice Springs...............................................................374
Table 8-14: Operational pressure factors (T is in oC)...........................................................................378
Table 8-15: Typical RO energy recovery device efficiencies (NRC, 2008) ........................................380
Table 8-16: PV panels and battery storage requirement for RO-PV systems (Feed salinity = 36,500
ppm, Feed temperature = 20oC) ...........................................................................................................383
Table 8-17: PV panels and battery storage requirement for RO-PV systems (Feed salinity = 45,000
ppm, Feed temperature = 15oC) ...........................................................................................................383
Table 8-18: Yearly average power from Vestas V82 wind turbine for Melbourne wind speed ..........384
Table 8-19: Additional economic parameters adopted in analysis.......................................................386
Table 8-20: Water cost of conventional MEE desalination systems....................................................387
Table 8-21: Water cost of conventional-, PV- and Wind-RO desalination systems (for feed saltwater
salinity of 36,500 ppm and temperature of 20oC) ................................................................................388
Table 8-22: Effect of 50% change in cost parameters on water cost (for medium- and large-scale
systems)................................................................................................................................................393
Table 8-23: Greenhouse emissions for different desalination systems ................................................394
Table A5-1: Flow rate, frequency and voltage ranges of flow transducers........................................447

xx

NOMENCLATURE
The following symbols are commonly used in the text.
List of Symbols

Heat generated per unit volume (W/m3)

Tloss

thermodynamics loss (oC)

Tstage

Stage temperature drop (oC)

T
x

Temperature difference (oC; K)


Thickness of each division in solar pond (m)

Trej

Stage temperature drop in heat rejection section (oC)

Trec

Stage temperature drop in heat recovery section (oC)

Tdemister

Temperature drop in demister (oC)

Tline

Temperature drop in connecting lines and during condensation (oC)

Teffect

Temperature drop per effect (oC)

Thydro

Temperature loss due to hydrostatic pressure depression (oC)

Theat loss

Temperature drop due to heat losses to surroundings

Area (m2)

Heat transfer area of condensers in heat rejection section (m2)

a2

Solar collector performance parameter (W/m2.oC)

a3

Solar collector performance parameter (W/m2.oC2)

Ai

Total heat exchange area of evaporator in effect i [where i = 1 to n] (m2)

Gap width of diffuser (m)

Bi

Mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine from effect i [where i = 1 to n] (kg/s)

Heat capacity rate (W/oC)

Cp

Specific heat of heat transfer fluid at constant pressure (J/kg.oC)

d, D

Diameter (m; mm)

Di

Mass flow rate of vapour formed in flashing box i [where i = 2 to n] (kg/s)

Di

Mass flow rate of vapour produced in effect i [where i = 1 to n] (kg/s)

di

Mass flow rate of vapour produced by flashing in effect i [where i = 2 to n] (kg/s)

Dt

Diameter of twisted tape (mm; m)

Young modulus of shell at design temperature (MPa)

Eth

Heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of total distillate produced (kJ/kg)
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater to be desalinated in effect i [where i = 1 to n]
(kg/s)
Acceleration due to gravity (m/s2)

Solar radiation (W/m2)

Fi

xxi

Convective heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.oC) or solar hour angle (o)

Solar radiation (W/m2; MJ/m2-day)

hboil

Boiling heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.oC)

hcond

Condensation heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.oC)

hE1

Enthalpy of fluid at exit of valve, before entering effect 2 (kJ/kg)

hE2

Enthalpy of fluid at exit of valve, before entering effect 3 (kJ/kg)

hf

Enthalpy of saturated liquid (kJ/kg)

hfg

Latent heat of vaporisation (kJ/kg) [= ]

hfg*

Modified latent heat of vaporisation (kJ/kg)

hg

Enthalpy of saturated vapour (kJ/kg)

Angle of incidence (o)

K, k

Thermal conductivity (W/m.oC)

kCLAY

Thermal conductivity of clay (W/m.oC)

kLCZ

Effective thermal conductivity of LCZ (W/m.oC)

kT
kUCZ

Thermal diffusivity (m2/s)


Effective thermal conductivity of UCZ (W/m.oC)

Length (m) or Local latitude (o)

Ld

Length of the day (hours)

LMTD

Log Mean Temperature Difference (oC)

Lp

Pitch length of twisted tape (mm; m)

Molarity (Number of moles per Litres of solution) (mol/L)

m, M

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

Pressure (kPa; MPa)

Pe

Theoretical pressure required to cause elastic buckling of shell (MPa)

Py

Theoretical pressure required to cause plastic yielding of shell (MPa)

Rate of heat transfer (W)

Heat flux (W/m2)

Thermal Resistance (oC/W)

Angle of refraction (o)

Salt concentration (kg/m3; gm/kg)

SD

Diagonal pitch (m)

SL

Longitudinal pitch (m)

ST

Transverse pitch (m)

T, t

Temperature (oC; K)

Tci

Temperature of condensing vapour in effect i [where i = 1 to n] (oC)

TEi

Temperature of flashing brine in effect i [where i = 1 and 2] (oC)


xxii

Tx2

Temperature of feed saltwater [where i = 0 to n] (oC)


Temperature of sub-cooled liquid after passing through the second preheater
(oC)
Temperature of sub-cooled liquid after passing through the first preheater (oC)

Txi

Outlet temperature of flashing box distillate in effect i [where i = 2 to n] (oC)

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m2.oC)

Overall heat transfer coefficient in heat rejection section (W/m2.oC)


Overall heat transfer coefficient of evaporator in effect i [where i = 1 to n]
(W/m2.oC)
Velocity (m/s)

Volume (m3)

Vd

Design vapour velocity (in ft/sec)

Depth variable (m)

Tfi
Tx1

Ui

xclay

Thickness of clay layer (m)

xlcz

Thickness of lower convective zone (m)

xncz

Thickness of non-convective zone (m)

xucz

Thickness of top convective zone (m)

Path length of sunlight in the pond (m)

Specified minimum yield strength at design temperature (MPa)

List of Dimensionless Symbols


a1

Solar collector performance parameter

Aa

Circumferential strain of shell

Capacity ratio

Csf

Experimental constant that depends on surface-liquid combination

Friction factor

LMTD correction factor

Fr

Froude number

capacity factor

Ksp

Solubility product constant

Number of the day [January 1 is 1]

Number of stages or number of the day or number of clipping days

NL

Number of rows in tube banks

NR

Number of tubes in a vertical row

Nt

Number of evacuated tubes

NTU
Nu

Number of transfer units


Nusselt number
xxiii

Pr

Prandtl number

R2

Correlation coefficient

Ra

Rayleigh number

Re

Reynolds number

Quality of fluid

List of Greek Letters

Thermal expansion coefficient (1/oC) or Solar altitude (o)

Tilt angle (o)

Angle of declination (o)

Heat transfer effectiveness

Efficiency

Non-dimensional temperature

Latent heat of vaporisation (kJ/kg) [= hfg]


Dynamic viscosity (kg/m.s)

Kinematic viscosity (m2/s)

Density difference (kg/m3)

surface tension of saturated liquid water (N/m)

Time (s)

Time increment (s)

Specific volume (m3/kg)

Local latitude (o)

Solar hour angle (o)

Osmotic pressure (kPa)

Density (kg/m3)

Transmission coefficient

List of Subscripts

Surrounding

Brine entering the first stage

Ambient

Reject concentrated brine

Condenser/preheater

cw
d
E1

Cooling water
Distillate or fresh water product
First effect
xxiv

E2

Second effect

E3

Third effect

Feed saltwater or liquid

fi, FI

Fouling on the inside

fo, FO

Fouling on the outside

Vapour

Brine heat exchanger

hx

Heat exchanger

Internal or inlet

icr

Internal cross-sectional

Mean

Node in horizontal divisions of solar pond or last stage of desalination system

External or outlet

Brine in pond

P1

First preheater

P2

Second preheater

Recycle brine

rec

Heat recovery section

rej

Heat rejection section

Surface

sat

Saturation

sp

Solar pond

spr

Return from solar pond

sps

Supply to solar pond

surf

Surface

Vapour

WT
x

Wall tube
Feed saltwater after brine mixer

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms


3E-MEE

Three-effect multi-effect evaporation

abs

absolute

AC

Alternating current

AUD

Australian dollars

BPE

Boiling point elevation

BSM

British standard milk


xxv

BSP

British standard pipe

BWRO

Brackish water reverse osmosis

CCGT

Combined-cycle gas turbine

Cl

Chloride

CPC

Compound parabolic concentrators

CPT

Concentrating parabolic-trough

CSP

Concentrating solar power

DC

Direct current

ED

Electrodialysis

EDR

Electrodialysis reversal

ER

Energy recovery

ETSC
ETSC-TESMEE
ETSC-TESMEE + PVBattery
GL

Evacuated tube solar collectors


Evacuated tube solar collectors with thermal energy storage coupled to an
MEE

HCl

Hydrochloric acid

HCPV

Heliostat concentrator photovoltaic

HDH

Humidification-dehumidification

HDPE

High-density polyethylene

HTF

Heat transfer fluid

HTFF

Horizontal tube falling film

ID

Inside diameter

IE

Ion Exchange

IEA

International energy agency

IPCC

Intergovernmental panel on climate change

ISCE

Integrated solar collector and evaporation

KL

Kilolitres (1 KL = 1 m3 = 1000 litres)

kWh

Kilowatt Hour

LCZ

Lower convective zone or storage zone of a solar pond

LDPE

Low-density polyethylene

LF

Linear Fresnel

LHS

Left hand side

LPM

Litres per minute

MD

Membrane distillation

MED

Multi-effect distillation

Evacuated tube solar collectors with thermal energy storage coupled to an


MEE with Photovoltaic and battery storage
Gigalitres (1 GL = 1,000 ML = 1 million m3

xxvi

MEE

Multi-effect evaporation

MEH

Multi-effect humidification

ME-MVC

Multi-effect mechanical-vapour compression

ME-TVC

Multi-effect thermal-vapour compression

ML

Megalitres (1 ML = 1,000 m3)

MSF

Multi-stage flash

MtCO2-e

Million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent

Mtoe

Million tonnes oil equivalent

MVC

Mechanical vapour compression

Na

Sodium

NCG

Non-condensable gases

NCZ

Non-convective zone or gradient layer of a solar pond

NEA

Non-equilibrium allowance

NPSH

Net positive suction head

NTU

Nepthalometric turbidity units

OD

Outside diameter

OHTC

Overall heat transfer coefficient

PCD

Pitch circle diameter

PF

Power factor

ppm

Parts per million

PR

Performance Ratio

PSA

Plataforma Solar de Almeria

PV

Photovoltaic

PVC

Polyvinyl Chloride

PX

Pressure exchanger

RHS

Right hand side

RMIT

Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

RO

Reverse osmosis

RR

Recovery ratio

RTD

Resistance temperature detectors

SGSP

Salinity-gradient solar pond

SGSP-MEE
SGSP-MEE
+ PV-Battery
SMCEC

Salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to an MEE


Salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to an MEE with Photovoltaic and
battery storage
Solar multistage condensation evaporation cycle

SP

Solar pond

SP-MEE-FF

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-effect evaporation forward


xxvii

feed

SP-MSF-C

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-effect evaporation parallel


flow
Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash - conventional

SP-MSF-M

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash - mixing

SP-MSF-OT

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash - once through

SSF

Single-stage flash

SWRO

Seawater reverse osmosis

TBT

Top brine temperature

TDS

Total dissolved solids

TES

Thermal energy storage

TVC

Thermal vapour compression

UCZ

Upper convective zone or surface zone of a solar pond

UNEP

United nations environment programme

VC

Vapour compression

VTFF

Vertical tube falling film

VTRF

Vertical tube rising film

WHO

World Health Organisation

WMO

World Meteorological Organisation

ZLD

Zero liquid discharge

SP-MEE-P

xxviii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Shortages of freshwater partly caused by changing weather patterns are truly a global
problem, and are particularly felt today in arid regions. The way water is used, often
inefficiently and wastefully, requires urgent attention to ensure sustainability. Development of
new clean water supply alternatives, such as desalination, will increasingly be required to
meet the growing demands for fresh water. While desalination systems using electricity or
heat obtained from fossil fuel sources are already used extensively throughout the world, the
continued and additional use of these systems will have the highly undesirable side effect of
increasing global greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore the challenge, if desalination is to be
conducted more widely to meet fresh water needs and treat saline waters, is to focus on truly
sustainable desalination technologies that rely on renewable energy sources with low or zero
greenhouse gas emissions.
The aim of this research project is to investigate the feasibility of producing potable water
from seawater or brackish water using desalination systems powered by renewable energy in
the form of low-temperature (less than 90oC) solar thermal sources, including salinitygradient solar ponds and evacuated tubular solar collectors. The research work presented in
this thesis enhances understanding (through the theoretical and experimental studies) of the
performance of low-temperature solar-thermal desalination systems perform under a range of
different conditions and makes a significant contribution to the advancement of knowledge in
this area.
The main research questions addressed in this thesis are the following:
1. How efficient in terms of distillate production rate, recovery ratio and specific energy

consumption are the various forms of multi-stage flash (MSF) and multi-effect evaporation
(MEE) desalination processes with low-temperature heat input?
2. Which of the thermal desalination processes is preferable for use with a low-temperature

heat source, including salinity-gradient solar pond, in regards to efficiency?


3. How do solar ponds compare as a source of heat for desalination with other solar-thermal

technologies such as evacuated tubular solar collectors?


4. How can the solar-thermal desalination plants be optimised? How can the performance of

the desalination process be enhanced with respect to heat exchange tube materials?

5. How do the preferred solar-thermal distillation systems compare on energy efficiency,

economic and greenhouse impact with conventional desalination systems powered by


energy from fossil fuels, and other renewable energy based systems such as photovoltaicreverse osmosis (PV-RO) and wind-reverse osmosis (wind-RO) systems?
6. How can the concentrated brine from inland desalination systems be disposed of without

any environmental impacts? How can these technologies be incorporated into integrated
approaches to salinity and water quality in salt-affected areas and in schemes for salinity
reduction?
7. How does the new concept of an Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation (ISCE)

system, as developed in the course of the research program of this thesis, compare with
other systems in regards to efficiency?
8. What are the future trends and challenges of solar-thermal MEE desalination, given the rise

of reverse osmosis as a desalination process?


The outcomes of this research are:

Useful new mathematical and computational models based on Excel and Visual Basic for
design and analysis of solar-thermal desalination systems;

A number of working small-scale experimental desalination units suitable for use with
low-temperature solar-thermal heat sources (less than 90oC), namely:
o

A solar-thermal multi-effect evaporation system with three effects (3E-MEE) and a


daily fresh water production capacity of 2,300 litres;

A single stage flash (SSF) unit with a daily production capacity of 500 litres; and

A novel integrated solar collector and evaporation (ISCE) unit with a daily
production capacity of 20 litres.

Experimental results on the technical performance of these solar-thermal desalination


systems and simulation models validated against experimental data;

Enhanced understanding (from computer simulation and experimental results) of how


MSF and MEE systems perform under a range of different conditions when coupled with
salinity-gradient solar ponds (SGSPs) and evacuated tubular solar collectors (ETSCs);

Optimisation of the preferred system and evaluation of improvements to minimise energy


consumption;

Technical and triple bottom line (economic, environmental and social) evaluation of the
systems;
2

A comparison of technological options investigated with other conventional fossil-fuel


based desalination systems and renewable energy-based systems;

Identification of preferred solar-thermal desalination option(s) for future possible industry


development;

Simulation and preliminary experimental results of the novel ISCE system; and

A number of recommendations for future research, development and commercialisation.

A review of the different existing desalination systems and the worlds desalination capacity
showed that reverse osmosis (RO) (with the use of energy recovery devices) is nowadays the
preferred desalination technology due to the low energy requirements. From the review of
renewable energy sources, salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) and evacuated tubular solar
collectors (ETSC) were found to be the most suitable technologies for low-temperature
thermal desalination processes.
A number of new computer simulation models of the different solar-MSF and solar-MEE
configurations have been developed (based on the basic laws of mass conservation and energy
conservation coupled with heat and mass flow rate coefficients) to investigate the effect of the
different parameters on the fresh water production, recovery ratio and specific thermal energy
consumption. In addition, transient modelling of the SGSP and ETSC have been conducted in
order to determine the required collection area and the overall performance of the solarthermal desalination systems.
Three small-scale experimental desalination units a solar - single stage flash system, a solarthermal multi-effect evaporation system with three effects, and a novel integrated solar
collector and evaporation system) have been designed and constructed for performance
measurement and evaluation.
The technical and economic comparative analysis of the condenser material used in the solar single-stage flash experimental unit showed that High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) was 25%
cheaper than Cu-Ni 90/10 for the same heat transfer performance. HDPE tubes require
support since they are flexible and tend to soften at high temperature. However, unlike Cu-Ni,
HDPE heat exchangers are not subject to corrosion, oxidation or chemical attacks and have a
longer life. The HDPE condenser may thus have an advantage over the more expensive metal
condensers provided the required space is available.

The theoretical analysis of the solar-MEE systems showed that the falling-film evaporators
outperformed the submerged-tubes evaporators. The maximum empirical recovery ratio was
about (72.7 2.7)% while the specific thermal energy consumption was 810 kJ/kg.
The theoretical analysis of the solar-thermal desalination models indicates that the recovery
ratio of the solar-MSF systems can be up to 45-48% depending on the feed saltwater and
recycle brine flow rates while solar-MEE systems give a recovery ratio of up to 62-70%. A
comparative analysis of the specific thermal energy consumption of solar-MSF and solarMEE systems for up to 18 stages/effects showed that the solar-MEE system uses up to 55%
less energy than the solar-MSF for the same number of stages/effects (141 kJ/kg versus 311
kJ/kg for 18 stages/effects). For instance, a solar-MEE system consisting of seven effects
would give the same performance as a 12 stage solar-MSF system. The savings in the specific
thermal energy consumption result in a lower number of required effects, thereby reducing the
capital cost.
The maximum number of stages for a solarMSF system operating at a low top-brine
temperature (TBT) of 60oC in winter while keeping the flashing brine temperature in the last
stage to 30oC has been found to be 15. Similarly, the maximum number of effects in a solarMEE system has been found to be 12. Based on the theoretical and experimental studies
conducted in this research project; it is clear that solar-MEE system is the preferred thermal
desalination process for use with a low-temperature heat source (less than 90oC). Solar-MSF
would only be favourable if the feed concentration salinity and operating temperature are high
since solar-MEE systems are prone to scaling if they are not operated within the solubility
limits of calcium sulphate.
The theoretical and experimental investigation of a novel desalination system, namely the
integrated solar collector and evaporation (ISCE), is reported. One application of the ISCE is
a design for a standalone single-effect solar thermal desalination system where the salt-free
vapour produced is condensed directly into fresh water. Another application is where the saltfree vapour is used as a heat source in a solar-thermal multi-effect evaporation (MEE)
desalination system and then condensed. The main advantages of this integrated arrangement
are very low losses in the transfer of heat from the solar collector surface to the saltwater to be
heated; avoidance of the need for a pump and secondary circuit of water to transfer heat from
the solar collector to the saltwater to be heated, with consequent cost savings and lowered
parasitic electricity demand; phase separation and production of vapour are done in the same
apparatus as the collection of solar heat, avoiding the need for a separate evacuated cylinder
4

with associated internal heat exchanger. The experimental single-effect ISCE desalination
system, with a total absorber area of 1.92 m2, produced up to (1.39 0.16) litres of fresh
water per hour, which resulted in a recovery ratio of (22.1 2.6)%. The theoretical and
empirical studies have demonstrated the feasibility and promise of the concept.
Overall, the comparative analysis of the solar-MSF, solar-MEE and ISCE showed that the
simulated results were within the error ranges (uncertainty range representing the limits of
measurement errors) of the empirical data. The models developed can therefore be used with
confidence for further analysis and performance evaluation of solar-thermal desalination
systems.
The solar desalination systems studied in this research have been compared with conventional
desalination systems powered by energy from fossil fuels, and other renewable-energy based
systems, using a technical and triple bottom line evaluation. Four zero-emission desalination
technologies have been investigated: SGSP coupled with an MEE system, with PV panels and
battery storage providing the electrical energy by the pumps; ETSC coupled with an MEE
system and thermal energy storage (TES) tank, with PV panels and battery storage; PV-RO
and Wind-RO system.
The evaluated water costs exclude distribution costs. From the preliminary financial analysis,
the water cost from the ETSC-TES-MEE system has been found to be more expensive (by ~
AUD $0.30 / m3 of fresh water) than the SGSP-MEE for large-scale units (based on
Melbourne insolation) due to the higher capital cost incurred. If a SGSP is located in an area
where there is underground brackish water and salt production facilities are already
established, the brine needed to setup and maintain the SGSP could be provided at very lowor no-cost. The cost of water from the ETSC-TES-MEE system (based on Alice Springs
which has a higher insolation and lower summer-winter insolation ratio) was found to be
cheaper (by ~ AUD $0.1 / m3) than the SGSP-MEE system. The analysis showed that the
preferred choice of heat source is dependent on the location and existing facilities, and further
detailed study is warranted to make a firm decision at a particular location.
On the basis of the assumptions made in this analysis, the cheapest technology for large-scale
desalination units is the conventional Electric-RO with a water cost of AUD $1.43 / m3,
followed by Wind-RO with a water cost of AUD $1.69 / m3 . Among the MEE technologies,
SGSP-MEE produced the lowest water cost of AUD $2.38 / m3, followed by the conventional
Gas-Thermal MEE with AUD $2.73 / m3. If only zero emissions technologies are considered,
5

Wind-RO produced the lowest water cost followed by SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery, ETSC-TESMEE + PV-Battery and PV-RO as shown in the following figure. SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery
system was found to be AUD $1.84 / m3 less expensive than PV-RO.
Comparative analysis of water costs for zero-emission desalination technologies
$6.0
$5.5

$5.15

Water Cost (AUD $ / m )

$5.0
$4.5
$4.0
$3.5

$3.60
$3.31

$3.0
$2.5
$2.0

$1.69

$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery ETSC-TES-MEE + PVBattery

PV-RO

Wind-RO

Comparative analysis of water costs for zero-emission desalination technologies for large-scale
systems (for Melbourne)

In interpreting these results, it is important to be aware that the relatively small differences in
the water costs between some of the options may be offset if not reversed by changing the key
assumptions made about the cost parameters. The financial evaluation presented is based on
best estimates for each parameter with the information available currently. Many uncertainties
remain in the evaluation. Some cost parameters (such as salt cost) are site-specific while
others are generalised (such as conventional electricity cost and assumed unit capital costs of
the main components). A brief sensitivity cost analysis for all the options showed to what
extent a 50% change in the main cost parameters affect the water cost for medium- and
large-scale desalination systems. The analysis showed that assuming different values for the
main cost parameters can change the water cost differences between the options, and hence
the ranking order of the options according to the unit water cost.
This financial analysis was based on Melbourne insolation. The water costs are likely to be
less in a location with high solar radiation, as was shown for Alice Springs. The indications
are thus that the cost range for solar-thermal MEE desalination systems is competitive with
the other main zero-emission desalination options (PV-RO and Wind-RO). The solar-thermal
6

MEE option may thus have an economic advantage over PV-RO in areas of high insolation,
but further modelling and experimental work is needed to confirm this conclusion.
The idea of coupling a SGSP-MEE system into salinity mitigation schemes was investigated
conceptually. Solar ponds can easily be integrated into salt works. If a SGSP-MEE system is
integrated into salinity mitigation schemes associated with salt production, less evaporation
ponds are needed to produce commercial salt since the concentration of the saltwater input to
the ponds is higher (coming from the reject brine outlet of the desalination unit). The
commercial salt can also be used to construct additional solar pond capacity, thus supporting
more energy for increased desalting.
The main challenge in future research and development of solar-thermal MEE desalination is
to reduce the capital cost by making use of alternative material. For instance, the use of plastic
material (which can withstand high temperature) can allow much higher boiling temperatures,
thereby increasing the productivity. In addition, incorporation of the ISCE concept may lead
to further improvements in cost competitiveness. Another opportunity is to employ MEE
systems in recovering low- to medium-grade industrial waste heat (provided the industry is
located close to a saltwater source).
The solar-thermal desalination systems developed have potential application in areas of high
solar radiation such as:

Northern and north-western Victoria where there is brackish groundwater

Coastal Western Australia and South Australia

Central Australia (Western Australia, South Australia, southern Northern Territory,


western New South Wales) where there is brackish groundwater

The Pacific islands

Rural areas in developing countries, for instance; Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and
Vietnam.

The following recommendations are made on the basis of the work conducted in this research
project:

An experimental study on the salinity-gradient solar pond using an external heat


exchanger for brine extraction and re-injection at different levels needs to be conducted to
determine the effect of the substantial heat extraction from the NCZ at different levels on
7

the stability of the salinity gradient. The practical implications of using this method of
heat extraction in medium- to large-scale ponds also need to be investigated. Furthermore,
an economic analysis needs to be conducted to evaluate if the economic gains from
increased thermal efficiency can help to recoup the additional capital and operating costs
of the gradient layer heat extraction system.

The design of the HDPE condenser used in the experimental solar-SSF system should be
further developed and improved with the aims of reducing the vapour flow impediment
and the pressure drop. The use of Polytethefluoroethylene (PTFE) as a material for plate
heat exchangers should also be investigated.

In regards to the solar-MEE system:


o the computer models should be extended to cover more complex cases (such as a
mixture of preheaters and flash boxes).
o the system needs to be improved further by making use of the wasted heat in the
rejected cooling water; for instance by using an absorption heat pump.
o the system should be tested continuously with saltwater to investigate the effect of
scale on the heat transfer performance due to the limited movement of the boiling
saltwater around the submerged tubes.
o it is recommended to install automatic inter-effect flow control valves if the system is
designed to work at less than 60oC

In regards to the ISCE system:


o further work is needed to compare the concept of the ISCE coupled with an MEE unit
with alternative conventional solar-thermal desalination systems.
o the three alternative design variations identified, namely the ISCE using falling-film
principle, ISCE using rising-film principle and the integrated solar collector membrane
distillation (ISCMD) system should be further investigated in order to prove the
feasibility of the new designs.

The economic evaluation presented in this study was based on best estimates for each
parameter that could be made at this time. Many uncertainties remain in the evaluation as
8

was shown by the SGSP sensitivity cost analysis. In order to investigate the magnitude of
the effect of each cost parameter on the water cost, each variable can be varied around the
best estimate (used as a central value). If the change has a significant effect on the water
cost, a more accurate and reliable value for the cost parameter is necessary for a
meaningful comparison. It is noteworthy that some cost parameters (such as salt cost) are
site-specific while others are generalised (such as conventional electricity cost and
assumed unit capital costs of the main components). Further work is required in order to
investigate the effect of each cost parameter (and the different combination effect) and
hence revised the assumed value in this preliminary analysis. The comparison between
SGSP-MEE and ETSC-TES-MEE options, and between these thermal options and PVRO, would be particularly deserving of further investigation.

The simulation models should extended to compare the energy storage capacity with water
storage capacity, with the aim of finding the most economical storage system (either
storing fresh water in tanks by having a larger desalination system or storing solar thermal
energy to use during non-solar periods) to meet a specific water demand.

Opportunities for the development of pre-commercial prototype of both conventional


solar-MEE systems and systems employing the ISCE concept in conjunction with industry
partners should be sought and investigated.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

This introductory chapter presents the scientific evidence of global warming


and the growing need for desalination to reduce shortages of fresh water. The
objectives, scope, research questions and planned outcomes of this PhD
research project are outlined, and a guide to the overall thesis presented.

1.1

The Climate Change Issue and the Importance of Renewable Energy

During the last decade, the observed gradual global warming has captured community
attention and concern both internationally and in Australia, bringing into sharp focus the
extent to which human use of the earths resources is straining natural systems. Since the
dawn of the industrial age, the levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere have been
steadily increasing because of human activities, particularly burning fossil fuels like coal, oil
and natural gas, and expansion of agriculture, mainly land clearing. Global demand for energy
keeps growing, placing an ever-increasing burden on natural resources and the environment.
Figure 1-1 shows the trends in primary energy supply per capita over the period 1987 to 2004.
The International Energy Agency (2006) reported that world primary energy demand grew by
2.1% annually during the last three decades, rising from 5566 million tonnes oil equivalent
(Mtoe) in 1971 to 11,204 Mtoe in 2004. Global increases in greenhouse gases emissions are
primarily due to consumption of fossil fuel, which met 82% of the worlds energy demand in
2004 (IPCC, 2007). Australias net greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors totalled 576
million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (MtCO2-e) in 2006 under the accounting
provisions applying to Australias 108% Kyoto Protocol emissions target. These emissions in
2006 were 4.2% above 1990 levels (DCC, 2008).

10

Chapter 1

Figure 1-1: Primary Energy Supply per Capita (UNEP, 2007)

Figure 1-2 shows the atmospheric concentration of CO2 over the past 10,000 years. According
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body set up by the
World Meteorological Organisation (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme
(UNEP), the global atmospheric concentration of CO2 has increased from the pre-industrial
(18th century) value of 280 parts per million (ppm) to about 380 ppm in 2005, resulting in an
increase of 36% (IPCC, 2007).

Figure 1-2: Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over the last 10,000 years (UNEP, 2007)

Climate change is now evident worldwide from observations of increases in global average air
and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow, and rising global average sea level.
There have been changes in the rainfall, and in the frequency and severity of extreme weather
events such as heat waves, droughts and floods. Eleven of the twelve years between 1995 and
11

Chapter 1

2006 ranked among the 12 warmest years since 1850, and observations since 1961 showed
that the average global ocean temperatures has increased to depths of at least 3000 m. Such
warming causes the seawater to expand, contributing to sea level rise (IPCC, 2007).
With rising oil prices and increasing supply instability, together with international
requirements for greenhouse gas emission reduction, lowering traditional energy requirements
for desalination by making use of renewable sources is becoming a necessity. Mills and
Morgans (2008) modelling of solar thermal power systems shows that such systems could
replace most fossil-fuelled electricity generation and petroleum-based transportation in the US
as well as overseas. They argue that renewable energy systems of this kind are not only
technically, but economically feasible in the US. Based on the 2005-2006 US national grid
generating capacity of 1067 GW and the current solar thermal technology, the land
requirement would be around 23,418 km2.
The IPCC (2007) warns that: Continued greenhouse gas emissions at or above current rates
would cause further warming and induce many changes in the global climate system during
the 21st century that would very likely be larger than those observed during the 20th century
and possibly irreversible.

1.2

The Global Need for Desalination

Fresh water is one of the most precious resources on earth. It is essential for the survival of all
living organisms, including humans. The past 20 years have seen increasing water use for
food and energy production to meet the demands of a growing population, and the latter is a
continuing global trend (WWAP, 2006). The demands for fresh water supplies are therefore
increasing. Shortages of freshwater partly caused by changing weather patterns are truly a
global problem, and are particularly felt today in arid regions. Over a quarter of the worlds
population today are suffering from an inadequate fresh water supply, and population growth
will make the situation even more critical in the future (Fiorenza et al., 2003). The way water
is used, often inefficiently and wastefully, requires urgent attention to ensure sustainability.
The World Health Organisation (2000) in their global assessment of water supply
recommends a minimum of 20 litres per person per day of safe water for domestic hygiene
purposes from a public water point located within one km of the persons dwelling. Gleick
(1996) however argues that at least 50 litres per person per day are necessary to meet human
12

Chapter 1

and ecological needs, namely: five litres per person per day for drinking in moderate climatic
conditions, 20 litres per person per day for sanitation services, 15 litres per person per day for
bathing and 10 litres per person per day for food preparation.
The distinguishing feature of Australias water consumption is not the high level of use for
industrial or residential purposes, but rather, the high level of use in agriculture. The water
usage per capita for domestic purposes in Australia is higher than European countries but less
than in the USA, Canada or New Zealand as shown in Figure 1-3. Among the Australian
capital cities, the total consumption per capita for urban (industrial and residential) water use
(excluding garden bores usage) for the period 2004-2005 varies from a low of around 120 kL
per year for Melbourne to a substantial 350 kL per year for Darwin (MJA, 2006).

Figure 1-3: Water consumption per capita by sector for selected countries (MJA, 2006)

The total amount of global water reserves is about 1.4 billion cubic kilometres. 97.5% of the
total reserve of water on the earth is salty, and only 2.5% (35.2 million cubic kilometres) is
fresh water. The greater portion of the fresh water (68.7%) is in the form of ice and permanent
snow cover in the Antarctic, the Arctic, and mountainous regions. The next highest portion,
30.1%, is in the form of fresh ground waters, as shown on the global water distribution chart
in Figure 1-4. Resources of effective drinking water amount to only 0.014% of the total
reserve of water (Shiklomanov and Rodda, 2003). This means that, while water may be
abundant on earth, only a small fraction is usable in its present form. As water shortage
13

Chapter 1

becomes one of the major problems worldwide, development of new clean water supply
alternatives, such as desalination, will increasingly be required to meet the growing demands
for fresh water.

Figure 1-4: Global distribution of the worlds water (UNESCO, 2006)

Desalination is a process that removes dissolved minerals from feedwater sources such as
seawater, brackish water and wastewater. The first industrial-scale desalination system was
built in 1957 and over the years the techniques employed have evolved substantially to meet
the increased demands for fresh water. This increase is primarily to support urban and
industrial developments in arid, semi-arid, or remote areas of the world (MacLaughlin, 2000;
NRC, 2004). Currently, there are 13,830 desalination plants (Figure 1-5) operating around the
world amounting to a total installed capacity of 63 million m3/day.

14

Chapter 1
Total number of online plants (all Applications)

15,000
14,000
13,000
12,000

Number of Plants

11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984
Year

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Figure 1-5: Total number of plants operating since 1960. Data obtained from GWI (2008)

Australia is the driest continent on earth battling both drought and land salinity, and yet has
abundant access to seawater and brackish ground water. As far back as 1970, there were 13
desalination plants using many different processes, located primarily in Western and South
Australia (Herbert and Moffatt, 1970). Nowadays, some 196 desalination plants operate
around Australia (GWI, 2008). The first commercial seawater desalination plant in Australian
opened in November 2006. The 144 ML/day seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) plant in
Kwinana, Western Australia is the largest SWRO plant in the southern hemisphere. Electricity
for the desalination plant comes from the Emu Downs Wind Farm. Plans to build a
desalination plant, capable of producing 450 ML/day of fresh water, at Wonthaggi in Victoria,
Australia, were announced in June 2007. The plant, estimated to use about 90 MW of power
from the grid, is expected to come online by the end of 2011. Like the SWRO plant in Perth,
the greenhouse gas emissions will be offset by the purchase of renewable energy.

1.3

Salinity Crisis

The rise of the salty water table in many parts of the world including in northern Victoria,
Australia, a particular focus of the present study is threatening large areas of agricultural
land. This rise has been mainly caused by clearing tall trees from the land and extending
irrigated agriculture. Together these practices have resulted in a mismatch between the water
going into the ground and the water coming out of the ground (Figure 1-6), leading in many
places to a rise in the water table and hence in salt concentrations in the soil (Figure 1-7).
15

Chapter 1

(a) Landscape in equilibrium

(b) Landscape out of equilibrium

Figure 1-6: Landscape water balance (NLWRA, 2001)

(a) Pyramid Hill, Northern Victoria, Australia

(b) Colorado, US (NRCS, 2004)

Figure 1-7: Agricultural land affected by salinity

Worldwide, some 20% of irrigated land (450,000 km2) is salt-affected, with 2500 to 5000 km2
lost from production every year as a result of salinity (UNEP, 2007). In Australia, the
National Land and Water Resources Audit (NLWRA, 2001) estimated 57,000 km2 of land to
be at risk of salinity, and projected three times as much in 50 years time. Some 20,000 km of
major roads and 1600 km of railways are already at risk - estimated to increase to 52,000 km
and 3600 km, respectively by 2050.
So far the most successful method of overcoming this problem has been pumping saline
groundwater out, channelling it into a number of successive evaporation ponds, and allowing
the brine solution to crystallise into sodium chloride salt. The application of this method has
resulted in the creation of several salt production facilities in salt-affected areas in Australia,
including, Wakool and Mourquong in southern New South Wales; and Hattah and Pyramid
Hill in northern Victoria. However, bittern the liquid remaining after crystallising out
sodium chloride containing mainly magnesium chloride remains as a waste product.
Moreover, through the process of evaporation fresh water is lost to the atmosphere.

16

Chapter 1

1.4

Current Desalination Challenges

While desalination systems using electricity or heat obtained from fossil fuel sources are
already used extensively throughout the world, the continued and additional use of these
systems will have the highly undesirable side effect of increasing global greenhouse gas
emissions. Both in Australia and internationally there will be increasing need for fresh water,
and for a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to avoid irreversible and potentially
catastrophic climate change. Therefore the challenge, if desalination is to be conducted more
widely to meet fresh water needs and treat saline waters, is to focus on truly sustainable
desalination technologies that rely on renewable energy sources (in particular solar energy)
with low or zero greenhouse gas emissions.
Solar energy has attractive characteristics. It is cheap and renewable. It is available all over
the earth and can be harnessed with minimum detrimental effects on the environment. Using
solar thermal energy as the heat input will allow significant reduction in the consumption of
primary energy source and in emissions of greenhouse gases responsible for climate change.
Solar-thermal desalination technologies (Figure 1-8) offer a potentially attractive alternative
to electrically-driven desalination systems, with very low net greenhouse gas emissions.

Figure 1-8: Basic principle of solar-thermal desalination

1.5

Objectives of this Research

The aim of this research project is to investigate the feasibility of producing potable water
from seawater or brackish water using desalination systems powered by renewable energy in
the form of low-temperature solar thermal sources.
17

Chapter 1

The objectives of this research are to:

Develop a mathematical and computational model of the two main thermal desalination
processes, multi-stage flash (MSF) and multiple-effect evaporation (MEE) coupled to a
low-temperature heat source, including solar ponds, to evaluate their feasibility;

Design and construct laboratory-scale experimental solar-thermal desalination systems for


performance measurement and evaluation;

Determine the effects of the operating variables on the parameters controlling the cost of
fresh water;

Determine the optimal desalination process for use with low-temperature heat input in
regards to efficiency, economics and net greenhouse impact;

Investigate innovative design improvements such as plastic heat exchangers and


additional heat recovery devices;

Compare the preferred low-temperature solar-thermal desalination system with other


desalination systems from the perspective of technical performance (rate of distillate
production, recovery ratio and specific energy), economics and environmental impacts;
and

1.6

Identify new emerging technologies for further research and development.

Research Questions

The main research questions addressed in this thesis are the following:
1.

How efficient in terms of distillate production rate, recovery ratio and specific energy
consumption are the various forms of MSF and MEE desalination processes with lowtemperature heat input?

2.

Which of the thermal desalination processes is preferable for use with a low-temperature
heat source, including salinity-gradient solar pond, in regards to efficiency?

3.

How do solar ponds compare as a source of heat for desalination with other solar-thermal
technologies such as evacuated tubular solar collectors?

4.

How can the solar-thermal desalination plants be optimised? How can the performance of
the desalination process be enhanced with respect to heat exchange tube materials?

5.

How do the preferred solar-thermal distillation systems compare on energy efficiency,


economic and greenhouse impact with conventional desalination systems powered by

18

Chapter 1

energy from fossil fuels, and other renewable energy based systems such as photovoltaicreverse osmosis (PV-RO) and wind-reverse osmosis (wind-RO) systems?
During the course of this research, further relevant questions have arisen as follows:
6.

How can the concentrated brine from inland desalination systems be disposed of without
any environmental impacts? How can these technologies be incorporated into integrated
approaches to salinity and water quality in salt-affected areas and in schemes for salinity
reduction?

7.

How does the new concept of an Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation (ISCE)
system, as developed in the course of the research program of this thesis, compare with
other systems in regards to efficiency?

8.

What are the future trends and challenges of solar-thermal MEE desalination, given the
rise of reverse osmosis as a desalination process?

1.7

Scope

This thesis covers the computer simulation and experimental studies of thermal desalination
technologies coupled with low temperature heat sources. The main desalination systems
investigated are Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) and Multi-Effect Evaporation (MEE). Two lowtemperature solar collectors have been considered: Salinity-Gradient Solar Ponds (SGSP) and
Evacuated Tubular Solar Collectors (ETSC). This study does not explore in detail the
performance of other desalination systems such as Vapour Compression (VC) and Reverse
Osmosis (RO) or high-temperature solar collectors such as concentrating Parabolic Troughs
(CPT), but rather will be confined to comparing the techno-economic performance of the two
solar thermal systems, MSF and MEE coupled with SGSP or ETSC, with published
information on other renewable energy based desalination systems.

1.8

Methodology

In order to answer these research questions and contribute to improving the understanding of
solar-thermal desalination, both theoretical and experimental studies have been conducted.
This research work has involved the following tasks:

Identification of the range of possible thermal desalination configurations for use with a
low temperature heat source, including salinity-gradient solar pond;
19

Chapter 1

Derivation of mathematical thermodynamic models of the various thermal desalination


configurations; based on mass balances, heat energy balances and heat transfer equations
making assumptions where necessary and develop steady-state computer simulation
models by solving the set of equations;

Development of a computer simulation model describing the transient thermal behaviour


of a salinity-gradient solar pond;

Evaluation of the important design and operating variables (recovery ratio, thermal
energy, parasitic electrical energy, distillate production and solar collection area),
controlling the cost of fresh water, on the performance of the solar-thermal desalination
systems;

Use of the simulation models to design and build laboratory-scale experimental thermal
desalination systems for performance measurement;

Conduct of experimental studies on thermal desalination systems for:


o

Performance testing;

Data collection by measuring temperatures, pressures, flow rates, salinities, parasitic


electrical energy consumption;

Validation of the simulation model using the experimental data and attempting to
explain any differences between the results; and

Refinement of the simulation model as needed.

Re-test of the systems under a variety of conditions (different temperatures, pressures,


flow rates and salinities) and perform optimisation;

Performance of a triple bottom line analysis of the systems investigated;

Comparison of the best solar-thermal desalination system with other desalination


technologies (conventional desalination systems powered by energy from fossil fuels and
other renewable energy based systems); and

Based on the findings, identification of the most promising thermal desalination


configurations and analyse the results to answer specific questions.

1.9

Outcomes

The main deliverables of this research that contribute to the advancement of knowledge in
solar-thermal desalination are:

Useful new mathematical and computational models based on Excel and Visual Basic for
design and analysis of solar-thermal desalination systems;
20

Chapter 1

A number of working small-scale experimental desalination units suitable for use with
low-temperature solar-thermal heat sources (less than 90oC), namely:
o

A solar-thermal multi-effect evaporation system with three effects (3E-MEE) and a


daily production capacity of 2,300 litres using heat input at 85C;

A single stage flash (SSF) unit with a daily production capacity of 500 litres; and

A novel integrated solar collector and evaporation (ISCE) unit with a daily
production capacity of 20 litres (over 8 hours of sunshine).

Experimental results on the technical performance of these solar-thermal desalination


systems and simulation models validated against experimental data;

Enhanced understanding (from computer simulation and experimental results) of how


MSF and MEE systems perform under a range of different conditions when coupled with
SGSP and ETSC;

Optimisation of the preferred system and evaluation of improvements to minimise energy


consumption;

Technical and triple bottom line (economic, environmental and social) evaluation of the
systems;

A comparison of technological options investigated with other conventional fossil-fuel


based desalination systems and renewable energy-based systems;

Identification of preferred solar-thermal desalination option(s) for future possible industry


development; and

Simulation and preliminary experimental results of the novel ISCE system.

1.10

Guide to this Thesis

This chapter has outlined the importance of renewable energy and desalination; objectives for
this thesis, research questions and methodology. The remainder of this thesis is divided into
nine additional chapters. Chapter 2 (Desalination) gives a background on current desalination
technologies and reviews conventional systems as well as systems powered by renewable
energy in regards to energy requirements and efficiency. In Chapter 3 (Solar-Thermal
Desalination), the existing desalination technologies that are suitable for use with renewable
energy sources in the form of low-temperature heat sources are explored. The criteria to be
used for comparing the solar desalination systems are also outlined; the results from the
experimental studies conducted on the solar pond to improve its thermal performance are
presented. Chapter 4 (Modelling of Solar Ponds and Evacuated Tubular Solar Collectors)
21

Chapter 1

details the modelling techniques used to simulate the salinity-gradient solar pond and the
evacuated tubular solar collectors. Chapter 5 (Solar Multi-Stage Flash Systems) describes and
derives the computer simulation model of the three different solar multi-stage flash systems,
based on Excel and Visual Basic, that has been developed. The theoretical analysis is first
presented. The experimental SSF apparatus that has been designed, constructed and tested is
described. The experimental results on performance are then compared with the simulation,
and differences found between them discussed. In Chapter 6 (Solar Multi-Effect Evaporation
Systems) the MEE system is examined in the same manner as the SSF by describing the
simulation model, experimental apparatus designed and the results. Chapter 7 (Integrated
Solar Collector and Evaporation System) introduces a novel system in which the ISCE
becomes at one and the same time both the solar absorber and the first effect of the MEE
system. This chapter also presents the computer simulation developed and the experimental
studies conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept. In Chapter 8 (Evaluation of
Desalination Systems), the solar desalination systems studied in this research are compared
using a triple bottom line methodology with conventional desalination systems powered by
energy from fossil fuels, and other renewable-energy based systems. Chapter 9 (Conclusions
and Recommendations) presents the main findings of the thesis and suggests some future
research directions. Finally, appendices which contain additional supporting material are
presented at the end of the thesis.

1.11

List of Publications and Awards

The outcomes from this research have been presented at a number of national and
international conferences and seminars. This research has led to the following publications:
1.11.1

Awards

First Prize winner in the category Energy Doing More with Less for the project
Solar-Thermal Desalination: A Modelling and Experimental Study at the Australian
Institute of Energy (AIE) 2008 National Postgraduate Student Energy Awards, Sydney,
Australia, November 18, 2008.

Winner of Best Postgraduate Energy Project Runner up award for the project SolarThermal Desalination: A Modelling & Experimental Study at the Australian Institute of
Energy (AIE) 2008 Postgraduate Student Energy Award, Melbourne, Australia,
September 4, 2008.

22

Chapter 1

1.11.2

Book chapter

Leblanc, J., Akbarzadeh, A., Andrews, J., Golding, P. and Lu, H. 2009, Heat Extraction
Methods from Salinity-Gradient Solar Pond and Introduction of a Novel System of Heat
Extraction for Improved Efficiency, in Advances in Solar Energy: An Annual Review of
Research and Development, London: Earthscan, (to be published in 2009).

1.11.3

Journal papers

Leblanc, J. and Andrews, J. 2009, Solar-Thermal Multi-Effect Evaporation Desalination


Systems, Desalination, (to be published in 2009).

Leblanc, J., Andrews, J. and Akbarzadeh, A. 2009, Low-Temperature Solar-Thermal


Multi-Effect Evaporation Desalination Systems, The International Journal of Energy

Research, (to be published in 2009).


1.11.4

Conference papers

Leblanc, J., Andrews, J. and Akbarzadeh, A. 2008, Low-Temperature Solar-Thermal


Multi-Effect Evaporation Desalination Systems, in proceedings of 7th International
Conference on Sustainable Energy Technologies (SET 2008), Seoul, Korea, August 2427, 2008, pp. 764-771.

Leblanc, J. and Andrews, J. 2007, Low-Temperature Multi-Effect Evaporation


Desalination Systems Coupled With Salinity-Gradient Solar Ponds, in proceedings of
the International Solar Energy Society (ISES) 2007 Conference - Solar Energy and
Human Settlement, vol. 5, Beijing, China, September 18-21, 2007, pp. 2151-2157.

Leblanc, J. and Andrews, J. 2007, Solar-Powered Desalination: A Modelling and


Experimental Study, in the American Institute of Physics (AIP) proceedings 941 of the
World Renewable Energy (WREN) 2007 Conference - Renewable Energy for
Sustainable Development in the Asia Pacific Region, Perth, Australia, February 4-8,
2007, pp. 249-263.

Leblanc, J. and Andrews, J. 2006, A Modelling and Experimental Study of a Smallscale Solar-Thermal Multi-Stage Flash Desalination System, in proceedings of the
Australian Institute of Energy 2006 National Conference Energy at the Crossroad,
Melbourne, Australia, November 27-29, 2006.

Leblanc, J., Akbarzadeh, A. and Andrews, J. 2005, Modelling Solar-Thermal


Desalination Systems, in proceedings of the Australian and New Zealand Solar Energy
Society (ANZSES) 2005 Solar Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand, November 28-30,
2005.
23

Chapter 2

DESALINATION

This chapter gives a background on current desalination technologies and


reviews conventional systems as well as systems powered by renewable energy
in regards to energy requirements and efficiency.

2.1

Introduction to Desalting

The possibility of obtaining fresh water from seawater has been known to mankind for
thousands of years. The earliest reference is found in the Bible. Aristotle (384-322 BC)
mentioned that pure water is made by the evaporation of seawater. Pliny the Elder (AD 23-79)
described a primitive method of condensation in which the oil obtained by heating rosin is
collected on wool placed in the upper part of an apparatus known as a still (Britannica, 2007).
Up to the 1800s, desalination was practiced on board ships using single stage stills operated in
batch mode. The energy was supplied from furnaces without recovering the heat of
condensation.
The first industrial attempts to produce fresh water from salty water by distillation began early
in the 20th century. A six-effect evaporation desalination plant with a daily production
capacity of 75 m3 was constructed in Egypt in 1912. The first industrial-scale desalination
system, a four-stage flash distillation plant built by Westinghouse, became operational in
Kuwait in 1957. By the late 1960s, commercial thermal approaches to desalting water were
common place. For instance, the 19-stage Shuwaikh Multi-stage flash (MSF) plant in Kuwait
and the 40-stage Guernsey MSF plant in the Channel Islands with daily production capacities
of 4550 m3 and 2775 m3, respectively (Al-Shuaib et al., 1999). Other thermal processes with
capacities of up to 8000 m3 per day were achievable (Buros, 2000). In the 1970s, other
desalination technologies like the membrane processes such as reverse osmosis (RO) were
introduced and became increasingly popular (Fiorenza et al., 2003). With technological
progress and operational experiences over the last 30 years, the cost of construction and
operation has reduced significantly. Nowadays, much larger thermal and membrane plants
operate around the world.

24

Chapter 2

2.2

Desalination Processes

Though there are many processes for desalting saltwater, only a few have been developed to a
stage where they may be commercially used. The applicability of any process depends on the
salinity of the feedwater, the source of heat or electricity and the process economics. The
main desalination processes (Khan, 1986) can be classified into two categories as shown in
Table 2-1.
Distillation processes

Membrane processes

Multi-stage flash (MSF)


Multi-effect evaporation (MEE)
Vapour compression (VC)

Reverse osmosis (RO)


Electrodialysis (ED)

Table 2-1: Main desalination processes

Distillation is one of the oldest known methods of desalination and also the most developed.
In distillation processes, fresh water is produced by evaporation and successive condensation
of the feed water. Vaporisation can be produced from a liquid that is at its boiling point, either
by heat addition (boiling) or by pressure reduction (flashing). Distillation processes include
solar stills, Multi-Stage Flash (MSF), Multi-Effect Evaporation (MEE), Vapour Compression
(VC) and humidification-dehumidification (HDH). Another thermal process where phase
change takes place is freezing, which involves freezing followed by melting of the formed
water ice crystals.
Membrane processes, on the other hand, do not involve phase change. Fresh water is
produced by separation of salt from the feedwater using filtration via membranes. The main
processes include Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Electrodialysis (ED). Ion Exchange (IE) is a
process based on chemical bonds. It is used to produce extremely high quality water for
industrial applications and is not suited for seawater or brackish water desalination.
It is noteworthy that there are a number of variations of the above technologies and hybrid
processes, which have not been listed and will not be reviewed in this study.

25

Chapter 2

2.3

Installed Desalination Capacity and Market Shares

2.3.1

Global

The most recent audit of worldwide desalting capacity from the International Desalination
Association (IDA) and published by the Global Water Intelligence (GWI, 2008) states a total
contracted figure of approximately 87 GL/day. The total desalination plants operating
worldwide amount to a total installed capacity of 63 GL/day (Figure 2-1). Currently, the
desalination industry is experiencing vast expansion around the globe because of increases in
water demand and the rising cost of fresh water from natural resources. It can be seen from
the figure that the total installed capacity has doubled during the last seven years.

Capacity (millions of m /day)

Total desalination capacity (all Applications)


95
90
85
80
75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1960

Online
Contracted

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984
Year

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Figure 2-1: Total contracted and online desalination capacity. Data obtained from GWI (2008)

Figure 2-2 illustrates the total online desalination capacity of the various technologies for all
applications. It is clear that the worlds installed capacity consists mainly of MSF and RO
processes. MSF has been the leading technology until about 2001. The progress of MSF over
the last couple of years has been rather slow, while RO has gained significant market share,
due to its modular structure designs and use of pressure exchangers (PX). The current total
installed capacities of MSF and RO are 20 and 31 GL/day, respectively. MEE capacity
statistics include processes with or without thermal vapour compressions (TVC).

26

Chapter 2
Total online desalination capacity per technology (all Applications)

35

MED (Multi-effect distillation)

30

MSF (Multi-stage flash)

ED (Electrodialysis)
NF (Nanofiltration)

Capacity (millions of m /day)

RO (Reverse osmosis)

25

20

15

10

0
1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984
Year

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Figure 2-2: Total online desalination capacity per technology (all applications). Data
obtained from GWI (2008)

According to the latest statistics from the International Desalination Association (2008), about
17% of the global desalination takes place in Saudi Arabia, followed by United Arab Emirates
(13%), USA (13%), Spain (8%), Kuwait (5%), Algeria (4%), China (4%), Qatar (3%), Japan
(2%) and Australia (2%). Some 110 other countries account for the remaining 29% of the
global desalination capacity. It is evident from Figure 2-3 that 43% of the worlds desalination
production occurs in the Gulf region. The market in the Gulf region is dominated by largescale MSF plants powered by power stations (Al-Shuaib et al., 1999), due to the significant
temperature variations between seasons (up to 23oC temperature difference) and high salinity
(average of 42,000 ppm TDS and up to 64,000 ppm TDS).
Total online desalination capacity per region (all Applications)
20
Mediterranean

18

Caribbean
Europe

14

Capacity (millions of m /day)

16

Former USSR
Gulf
Northern Africa

12

Southern Africa

10

South America

North America

8
6
4
2
0
1960

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984
Year

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Figure 2-3: Total online desalination capacity per region (all applications). Data
obtained from GWI (2008)

27

Chapter 2

The global market share of total production of the various desalination technologies from
brackish water, seawater and all applications (which include brine water, pure water, river
water and waste water) are shown in Figure 2-4 and Figure 2-5, for the years 1998 and 2008,
respectively. It can be seen that in 1998, MSF was the predominant technology with 47.2% of
total production, followed by RO at 37.8%. However, if just seawater desalination is
considered, the global market share contribution from the different technologies changes
radically. In this case, MSF rose to 73.8% and RO has only a market share of 15.3%. RO had
a significant market share when only brackish water was taken into account.

(a) Brackish water

(b) Seawater

(c) All applications

Figure 2-4: Global market share by technology (1998 Inventory). Data obtained from GWI (2008)

From the latest statistics in October 2008, it can be observed that MSF and RO processes still
cover most of the overall worldwide production when all applications are considered (31.7%
and 49.9%, respectively). However, RO is now the leading technology. When just seawater is
considered, MSF still has the lead, with 49.1% of the total market share.

(a) Brackish water

(b) Seawater

(c) All applications

Figure 2-5: Global market share by technology (2008 Inventory). Data obtained from GWI (2008)

2.3.2

Australia

The total installed desalination capacity in Australia as of October 2008 was 900 ML/day
(Figure 2-6). A significant number of power stations and mines in Australia use desalination
for the production of process water, boiler feedwater or to process effluent to comply with
environmental regulations. Seawater and brackish water desalination account for 41.8% and
28

Chapter 2

21.5% of the total installed capacity, respectively. The substantial growth in seawater
desalination plants during the last three years is due to the large-scale desalination plants built
recently in Perth (144 ML/day) and Tugun, South East Queensland (125 ML/day) for public
water supplies. The plant in Tugun is due to come online in January 2009.

Capacity (thousands of m /day)

Total online desalination capacity in Australia


950
900
850
800
750
700
650
600
550
500
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
1960

All Applications
Brackish Water
Seawater

1964

1968

1972

1976

1980

1984
Year

1988

1992

1996

2000

2004

2008

Figure 2-6: Total online desalination capacity in Australia. Data obtained


from GWI (2008)

From recent data obtained from GWI (2008), it was found that RO desalination processes
dominate the market in Australia with 82.2% (742 ML/day) of total installed capacity. MEE
(with or without thermal vapour compression), and MSF processes account for only 3.9% (35
ML/day) and 0.4% (3.4 ML/day) of the market, respectively. The remaining 13.5% is
distributed among other desalination processes such as Mechanical Vapour Compression
(MVC), Electrodialysis (ED) and Ion Exchange (IE).

2.4

Thermal Processes

2.4.1

Overview of thermal processes

The main distillation processes are multi-stage flash (MSF), multi-effect evaporation (MEE)
and vapour compression (VC). Nowadays, almost all MEE processes are integrated with VC
technologies, especially thermal vapour compression (TVC) as will be discussed later. These
processes mimic the natural water cycle. Saltwater is heated producing water vapour and is
then condensed to form fresh water. Salt and other contaminants are left behind in a more
concentrated brine solution. The brine solution is considered a waste and requires proper
disposal. Distillation processes use mainly thermal energy as the energy input, usually in the
29

Chapter 2

form of steam, and a small amount of electrical energy for pumping. They generally require
high amounts of thermal energy to desalinate water regardless of the level of salt
concentration; hence brackish water desalination with a very low salinity input is usually not a
viable option. The salinity of the distillate produced is typically less than 10 ppm TDS. Water
with less than 50 ppm TDS tends to be slightly acidic in nature due to the absence of calcium
carbonate in the water (Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994) making it potentially corrosive. This can
cause problems with the supply pipe work. Also, there is a general agreement that drinking
water should contain a certain quantity of minerals. Hence, blending is often required with
fresh water from distillation processes. Distillation systems are frequently affected by scaling,
which occurs when substances like carbonates and sulphates found in saltwater precipitate
out. There are three main culprits in distillation processes: calcium sulphate (CaSO4),
magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) and calcium carbonate (CaCO3). Scaling reduces the
effectiveness of the plants by restricting flows inside tubes (and hence increasing pressure
drop and pumping power) and increasing the thermal resistance (therefore reducing the heat
transfer). To reduce the formation of scale, the boiling temperature is normally kept low.

2.4.2

Multi-stage flash (MSF)

The operating principle of the most basic MSF system without a heat rejection stage, the MSF
once-through process as illustrated in Figure 2-7, is to evaporate hot brine in a succession of
previously evacuated chambers and recover heat from the condensing vapour to preheat the
input brine before it enters the main brine heater where the main external energy input is
required. The system includes a number of stages and the brine heater.
The temperature of the feed seawater (or other saline water to be desalinated) is increased as it
flows through the condenser/preheater tubes of each stage, from the low temperature to the
high temperature chamber. The saltwater leaving the last condenser/preheater enters the brine
heater, where its temperature is increased further by an external heat source (usually steam,
but in this study it will be heat from a solar pond or evacuated tubular collectors). The hot
brine enters the first flashing chamber where a small amount of vapour is produced. This
vapour flows through a demister to remove any entrained droplets of unevaporated brine, and
is then condensed on contact with the condenser/preheater tubes through which the incoming
brine is flowing on its way the brine heater. The condensed vapour collects in distillate trays
beneath the condenser tubes from which it is eventually withdrawn as final product fresh

30

Chapter 2

water after the final flash chamber. It is noteworthy that this process generates and condenses
its vapour in the same stage.
The flashing process in the first flash chamber reduces the temperature of the hot brine below
the top brine temperature until it is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the pressure in that
stage. Hot brine from the first chamber also enters the second chamber at the bottom where it
again flashes and produces more vapour. Again the temperature of the brine is lowered and
accordingly the pressure in the second chamber is lower than that in the first. The temperature
of the condenser tubes at the top of the second chamber is also lower than that in the first
since the incoming brine passing through the tubes has not been heated so much. Hence the
temperature difference between the hot brine and the condenser is maintained approximately
the same. In addition, the pressure in each successive flash chamber is lower, so that brine
flows from chamber to chamber without the need for a pump. This combined process of
flashing, condensation, collection of distillate, and preheating of incoming brine is repeated
from stage to stage moving to the right in Figure 2-7 until the final stage of the heat recovery
section is reached.

Figure 2-7: Schematic of a Multi-stage flash process (Buros, 2000)

There are two other variants of the multi-stage flash process MSF-conventional and MSFmixing, which improve the energy recovery and hence the recovery ratio. MSF-conventional,
as will later be discussed in detail and modelled also, incorporates a heat rejection section as
well as a heat recovery section to extract heat from the exit brine stream and recycle some of
this brine back into the main heat recovery section. The MSF mixing configuration, includes
a novel multi-stage flash process proposed by El-Dessouky et al. (1999), in which the heat
rejection section in the conventional configuration is replaced by a single brine mixing box in
which part of the hot brine issuing from the final stage of the heat recovery section is mixed

31

Chapter 2

with incoming feed brine to be desalinated before the mixture enters the preheating condenser
section.
The condenser / preheater tubes in an MSF process can be arranged as a long tube or cross
tube configuration. In the long tube design, the tubes are parallel to the concentrate flow in the
stage whereas in the cross tube configuration, the tubes are perpendicular to the flow (Khan,
1986). Helal and Odeh (2004) compared the two configurations. They found that in some
cases, long tube configurations can result in reduction of heat transfer areas as compared to
cross-tube designs. However, due to many problems (principally corrosion and erosion) over
the last 30 years, the majority of MSF plants are built nowadays with the cross tube as the
preferred arrangement.
MSF plants typically contain 20 36 stages and can produce high-quality fresh water with
very low salt concentrations from feedwater with salt concentrations as high as 60,000 to
70,000 ppm TDS. The top brine temperature is usually in the range 97oC 117oC (ElDessouky et al., 1999). Modern MSF systems can recover approximately 20 to 50% of the
feed as distillate.
One of the advantages of MSF plants is their reliability over the operating life. This is partly
due to the design and operational experiences accumulated over the last century. In MSF,
flashing occurs from the bulk liquid. Scaling effects are minimised since boiling does not
occur on the heat-exchange surface, like in MEE. However, MSF processes are energy
intensive and require large capital investment due to the use of high-grade stainless steel and
alloys to prevent corrosion. MSF may have operating costs advantages when low cost thermal
energy is available. The specific energy consumption of MSF is typically 216 - 432 KJ/kg or
60 - 120 kWh / m3 (Sharma et al., 2006).
The largest MSF plant in operation, as of October 2008, is the 880 ML/day Shoaiba - Phase 3
seawater desalination plant (Figure 2-8) located near the Red Sea in Saudi Arabia. Phase 3 of
the dual purpose plant (900 MW electrical capacity) started operation in January 2008 and
cost approximately US $2.5 billion. The salinity of the feed water is around 39,000 ppm TDS
(GWI, 2008). The energy required by the desalination facility is supplied in the form of steam
by the Shoaiba oil-fired combined-cycle gas turbine (CCGT) power plant, which now can
generate a total of 4400 MW of electricity (PT, 2007).

32

Chapter 2

(a) MSF desalination plant

(b) Shoaiba power plant

Figure 2-8: Shoaiba dual purpose plant (Alstom, 2008)

2.4.3

Multi-effect evaporation (MEE)

A schematic of the basic multi-effect evaporation is shown in Figure 2-9. MEE processes,
also called Multi-Effect Distillation (MED), use the same principles of heating and
evaporation as MSF units, but in MEE the majority of the evaporation is achieved by boiling
as opposed to flashing. MEE works on the principle of reducing the ambient pressure in each
successive effect and allowing the feed saltwater to undergo multiple boiling, as it moves
from one effect to another, without having to supply additional heat after the first effect. In an
MEE system, the saltwater to be desalinated is preheated and then introduced into the top of
each of the evaporation chambers. A spray or film of brine is produced that falls under gravity
onto heated tubes, which evaporates some of water leaving the remaining brine to settle at the
bottom of the chamber. In the first effect of the process, the brine droplets are heated by an
external heat source passing through a heat exchanger in the chamber. MEE systems typically
get their energy from low-pressure steam generators or industrial process steam, but in the
present study it will be heat from a solar pond or evacuated tubular collectors. In the second
and subsequent effects, the falling brine is evaporated by heat recovered from the vapour
produced in the preceding effect. Therefore, the heat of vaporisation in each effect is partially
recovered and used to provide the energy necessary to evaporate the brine in the next effect.
The vapour produced in the final effect passes into a condenser where it preheats the
incoming feed saltwater as it is condensed to product fresh water. In an MEE process, most of
the feed saltwater is used for cooling and is returned to the sea (in conventional systems).
Only a small portion of the feed is used for desalination.

33

Chapter 2

Figure 2-9: Schematic of a multi-effect evaporation (MEE) process (Buros, 2000)

It is essential for the operation of MEE (or MSF) processes that the evaporators are vented.
Non-condensable gases (NCG) need to be removed so that heat transfer rates are not
adversely affected. Conventional MEE and MSF systems have an ejector system to remove
air and NCG. The MEE process can have several different configurations according to the
type of heat transfer surface used: vertical tube falling film (VTFF), vertical tube rising film
(VTRF) or horizontal tube falling film (HTFF) and the direction of the brine flow relative to
the vapour flow (forward, backward, or parallel feed). The configuration shown in Figure 2-9
is a parallel flow horizontal tube falling film (HTFF), where the feed saltwater is sprayed on
the outside surfaces of the tubing while the heat source flows inside the tubes.

(a) Falling film (VTFF)

(b) Rising film (VTRF)

Figure 2-10: Schematic of MEE vertical tube arrangements (Swenson, 2002)

34

Chapter 2

In a vertical tube falling film (VTFF) arrangement, as illustrated in Figure 2-10a, the feed
saltwater enters at the top of the effect and flows downwards on the inside surface of the tubes
while the heat source flows on the outside of the tubes. As compared to HTFF arrangement,
this results in higher heat transfer rates, due to the thin film. One drawback however is the
difficulty involved in the design of the header to ensure a uniform flow distribution in each
tube. The vertical tube rising film (VTRF) process (Figure 2-10b) is similar to the VTFF,
except that the feed saltwater is introduced at the bottom of the first effect tube bundle. In this
arrangement, the brine is vaporised in the lower part of the tube bundle and a mixture of
vapour and brine rise to the top of the tubes. When the operating temperature is above 80oC,
the difference in brine and vapour densities allow good heat transfer rates based on natural
convection. If the operating temperature is less than 80oC, VTFF would be the preferred
choice over VTRF since forced circulation would be required to maintain good heat transfer
rates (Khan, 1986).
In a parallel arrangement, as depicted in Figure 2-9, the feed saltwater is divided into a set of
parallel streams which are introduced in the effects at the same salinity. One of the advantages
of the parallel configuration is the simplicity of its design in comparison with the other two
arrangements. In a backward feed, the saltwater is first introduced in the last effect, which has
the lowest temperature and hence pressure. The brine flows through successive effects
towards the first effect. The drawback for using the backward feed system is that the brine
with the highest salinity works at the highest temperature. Therefore, this technique is more
prone to scaling and is not used for seawater desalination (El-Dessouky and Ettouney, 1999).
The forward feed system has the advantage of being able to operate at a high top brine
temperature. The feed saltwater is introduced in the first effect. Therefore, the brine at the
lowest salinity is subjected to the highest temperature.
A typical MEE system will comprise between 8 to 16 effects (Buros, 2000) and usually tend
to be smaller in physical size than MSF. A well-designed commercial MEE system can
recover approximately 40 to 65% of the feed as distillate. Most plants operate at a top brine
temperature of 70oC to minimise scaling (Fisher et al., 1985; Temstet et al., 1996). Since it
operates at low temperatures, the MEE process is well suited to use low-temperature heat
sources, including solar ponds and evacuated tube solar collectors.
The MSF process has been the preferred choice over MEE due to its lower costs and less
tendency to scale. However, in the past few years, with better scaling treatment, there has
35

Chapter 2

been renewed interest in the MEE process and MEE appears to be gaining market share. The
power consumption of MEE plants, which is typically 162 324 kJ/kg (or 45 - 90 kWh / m3),
is lower than MSF plants partly due to the higher recovery ratio (Sharma et al., 2006).
The largest MEE plant in operation today is the 240 ML/day Al Taweelah - Phase 2 dual
purpose seawater desalination (Figure 2-11) plant situated near Abu Dhabi in the UAE. The
plant came online in January 2002 and cost approximately US $376 million. Phase 1 of the
project consisted of four MSF units. The facility now consists of 14 MEE units and the
salinity of the feed water is 42,000 ppm TDS (GWI, 2008). The process steam for the
desalination units is extracted from the steam turbine provided by the combined cycle gas
turbine (CCGT) power plant, which has a capacity of 780 MW (Siemens, 2004).

(a) Phase 1 plant with four MSF units

(b) Phase 2 plant with 14 MEE units

Figure 2-11: Al Taweelah dual purpose plant (Siemens, 2004)

2.4.4

Vapour compression (VC)

While the primary heat source in MSF and MEE processes is an external supply such as steam
in conventional units, Vapour Compression (VC) uses literally its own steam, by continuously
recycling the latent heat exchanged in the evaporation-condensation process. In VC, the
vapour temperature can be increased by thermal compression (termed TVC) using high
pressure steam or mechanically using an electrically-driven compressor (termed MVC).
Thermal Vapour Compression (TVC) and Mechanical Vapour Compression (MVC) can be
operated as a single or multi-effect configuration. In a single-effect mechanical vapour
compression unit (Figure 2-12), the vapour produced is compressed by a mechanical driven
compressor and sent back to condense inside the tubes providing the heat necessary for the
boiling process. An electric heater (or supply of steam) is initially needed to start the system.
36

Chapter 2

In a multi-effect thermal-vapour compression (ME-TVC), as shown in Figure 2-13, not all of


the vapour produced in the last effect is condensed in a separate condenser. Some of the
vapour is compressed by a steam jet thermo-compressor to the desired pressure and
temperature and returned to the steam side of the evaporator. A multi-effect mechanicalvapour compression (ME-MVC) process does not have a down condenser since all the vapour
from the last effect is sent to the compressor where it is superheated to the desired
temperature. Vapour compression can recovery approximately 50% of the saltwater feed as
product water (Wangnick, 2006). The energy requirements are generally lower than MSF and
standalone MEE units. Since this study is focussed on low-temperature heat sources (in liquid
form) as the primary energy, TVC or MVC will not be investigated.

Figure 2-12: Principle of mechanical vapour compression (Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994)

Figure 2-13: Schematic of MEE with TVC (Wangnick, 2006)

37

Chapter 2

The largest ME-TVC plant in operation, as of October 2008, is the 273 ML/day Al Hidd
Phase 2 dual purpose seawater desalination plant located in Al Manamah, Bahrain. The plant
came online in October 2007 and cost approximately US $1.2 billion. The quality of the feed
water is around 46,000 ppm TDS and the temperature varies between 16 and 38oC (GWI,
2008). The facility consists of ten ME-TVC units, each with seven effects, using the
horizontal falling film tube arrangement and thermal vapour compression (TVC) design. The
energy required by the desalination is provided by a gas turbine power plant.

2.4.5

Freezing

The freezing process for desalination is based on phase separation. It involves cooling a salt
solution to its freezing point. At the freezing temperature, it deposits crystals of pure water.
The ice crystals then need to be physically removed from the saline solution and washed
before being melted to yield the product water. Freezing processes use refrigeration
equipment adapted to saltwater purification. The water itself can be used as a refrigerant
(direct freezing) but most designs employ a secondary refrigerant (indirect freezing). The
latent heat of freezing is approximately 334 kJ/kg. This is relatively small compared to 2334
kJ/kg for evaporation at 70oC (Incropera and DeWitt, 2002). Freezing has some theoretical
advantages over distillation, including a lower minimum energy requirement and significant
reduction in scale and corrosion problems (Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994). Despite the fact that
freezing processes can be very efficient, they have not been commercialised due to practical
problems, including problems with the refrigeration compressors (Miller, 2003), and the
added complexity of handling and processing ice and water mixtures.

2.5

Membrane Processes

2.5.1

Overview of membrane processes

Membrane processes use thin, semi-permeable membranes to separate the feed saltwater into
two streams of differing concentration, a product and concentrate stream. The membrane
technologies include the Reverse Osmosis (RO), which is a pressure driven process and
Electrodialysis (ED), which uses an electrochemical separation process. Nan filtration (NF) is
also a membrane process that is most commonly used for water softening and other nondesalting applications such as organics removal.

38

Chapter 2

2.5.2

Reverse osmosis (RO)

Reverse osmosis (RO) processes operate in the reverse direction to osmosis. Osmosis is a
natural process whereby pure water flows through a membrane from a less concentrated to a
more concentrated solution. If a saline solution in contact with a semipermeable membrane is
placed under pressure in excess of its osmotic pressure, water from the solution will flow
through the membrane. Water flow will continue till the pressure created by the osmotic head
equals the osmotic pressure of the salt solution. Osmotic pressure for seawater varies from 23
to 27 bars. In RO, the saline solution is pressurised using electrically-powered high-pressure
pumps to enable the water to pass through the membrane while rejecting the salts. Two
membrane configurations are commonly used nowadays: spiral wound (Figure 2-14b) and
hollow fine fibre. The pressure ranges from 15 to 25 bar for brackish water and from 54 to 80
bars for seawater (Miller, 2003). The energy required to operate the process varies with the
osmotic pressure of the solution, which increases with salinity. This imposes some constraints
on membrane life (which usually needs replacement every 3-5 years) and performance. The
osmotic pressure and operating pressure at varying feed saltwater salinity and temperatures
will be derived later in Section 8.6.2 (Chapter 8).

(a) Schematic of RO process (SW, 2007)

(b) Spiral-wound element (Pyrocrystal, 2006)

Figure 2-14: RO Desalination Process

RO has become relatively mature and is experiencing rapid growth (see Figure 2-2). The pretreatment processes have been improved over the last few years to reduce the use of chemicals
(including those to reduce bio-fouling that causes membrane failure) that end up in the
concentrated brine and cause disposal issues. In addition, the energy requirements for RO
systems have been significantly reduced partly due to the use of energy recovery devices,
such as a Pelton wheel, work exchanger, pressure exchanger or hydraulic turbocharger. These
energy recovery devices work by regaining part of the pressure energy in the concentrated

39

Chapter 2

brine waste stream (Nemeth and Tomkins, 2001; Oklejas, 1996). Figure 2-15 and Figure 2-16
show a pressure exchanger (PX) recovery device.

Figure 2-15: RO PX-260 pressure exchanger (ERI, 2006)

Figure 2-16: Schematic of PX (HOH, 2007)

The amount of fresh water that can be obtained from RO ranges between 30% and 85% of the
feed saltwater, depending on the feedwater salinity, membrane technology used, stage
configuration and number of passes. The product water usually has a salinity of less than 500
ppm TDS when a single-pass RO is used.

40

Chapter 2
SWRO Energy consumption trend
34

source: Mubeen
source: Mubeen
source: Andrews (DWEER)
source: Childs (Vari-RO)
source: ERI (Pt. Hueneme)

32

Energy Consumption (kWh/m )

30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1975

1977

1979

1981

1983

1985

1987

1989

1991

1993

1995

1997

1999

2001

2003

2005

Year

Figure 2-17: SWRO energy consumption trend. Adapted from Damitz et al. (2006)

The energy consumption of SWRO has decreased from over 30 kWh / m3 in 1979 to less than
4 kWh / m3 in 2002 (Figure 2-17). The energy requirements for SWRO are now typically less
than 3 kWh per m3 (with the use of energy recovery devices), sometimes approaching 2 kWh
per m3 while BWRO consumes between 0.5 to 2 kWh per m3 (Cruz, 2008).
As of October 2008, the largest RO plant in operation is the 375 ML/day Sulaibiya
wastewater desalination plant in Kuwait. The plant was opened in January 2005 and cost
approximately US $390 million. The quality of the feed water is around 12,800 ppm TDS and
the temperature varies between 15 and 36oC. The product water, with a salinity of
approximately 100 ppm TDS is used for irrigation purposes. The RO plant uses a single-pass
system with energy recovery. 85% of the feed water is converted to fresh water (GWI, 2008;
WT, 2006b).
The second largest plant is the 326 ML/day Ashkelon dual purpose SWRO desalination plant
(Figure 2-18) in Israel, opened in January 2005. The estimated project cost is US $(2002) 250
million. The feed water is 40,680 ppm TDS with temperatures between 15 and 30oC. The
product water from the two-pass system is 300 ppm TDS. The electrical energy is provided by
a dedicated 80 MW gas turbine. The electrical power consumption of the SWRO is estimated
to be 3.9 kWh per m3 of product water (WT, 2006a) .

41

Chapter 2

(a) SWRO membranes


(b) Gas turbine power station
Figure 2-18: Ashkelon dual purpose desalination plant (WT, 2006a)

2.5.3

Electrodialysis (ED)

Dialysis is the diffusion of dissolved salts through a membrane system. Electrodialysis uses
electrical currents to move salt ions selectively through the membrane, leaving fresh water
behind. An electrodialysis cell (Figure 2-19) consists of a large number of narrow
compartments separated by membranes that are permeable to either positive ions (cations) or
negative ions (anions). The cations and anions migrate through the appropriate membranes by
the influence of the electrical field. The process was commercially introduced in the mid
1950s, providing a cost-effective way to desalinate brackish water. Generally, ED needs fewer
pre-treatment chemicals as compared to RO. A variation to ED is the electrodialysis reversal
(EDR), which can operate on highly turbid feedwater and hence is less prone to bio-fouling
than RO systems (Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994). ED is generally only economically viable for
low salinity feedwater.

Figure 2-19: Electrodialysis principle (Miller, 2003)

42

Chapter 2

2.5.4

Ion exchange (IE)

Ion exchange can be described as the removal of one type of ion from a solution and its
replacement by an equivalent quantity of another ion of the same charge. IE methods use
resins to remove undesirable ions in water. However, the greater the concentrations of TDS,
the more often the expensive resins have to be replaced. This has made IE processes
economically unattractive when compared with other membrane systems like RO and ED
(Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994).

2.6

Characteristics of Main Desalination Technologies

The typical technical features of the three main desalination technologies discussed earlier are
summarised in Table 2-2 below.

Parameter

BWRO

SWRO

MSF

MEE

Feedwater salinity (ppm TDS)

< 32, 000

< 45,000

> 30,000

> 30,000

Operating temperature (oC)

< 45

< 45

< 120

< 100

Number of stages / effects

20 - 36

8 - 16

Main form of energy

Mechanica
l

Mechanical

Heat
(usually steam)

Heat
(usually steam)

Electrical energy required


(kWh / m3)

0.5 - 2

3-7

3-4

1-2

Thermal energy required (kWh / m3)

60 - 120

45 - 90

Product water (ppm TDS)

< 200

< 500

< 10

< 10

Recovery ratio (%)

60 - 85

30 - 60

20 - 50

40 65

Table 2-2: Summary of typical technical features of main desalination technologies

It is noteworthy that the classification of high and low temperature desalination processes is
dictated by the top brine temperature (TBT). Low temperature processes are typically less
than 90oC and high temperature processes are greater than 90oC (Al-Shammiri and Safar,
1999).

43

Chapter 2

2.7

Review of Conventional Desalination Technologies

2.7.1

Theoretical minimum energy requirement

The theoretical minimum energy for desalination of seawater as a function of fresh water
recovery is shown in Figure 2-20. The graph derived by Miller (2003) uses the equations from
Spiegler and El-Sayed (1994) . The calculations assume infinite solubility of salt in water. It
can be seen that the theoretical minimum energy required is approximately 3 kJ per kg (that
is, 3000 kJ / kL or 0.83 kWh / m3) of fresh water at a recovery rate of 30%. As the recovery
rate increases, the energy required to perform the operation also increases. In practice, these
values are impossible to attain since the desalination processes cannot operate with perfect
energy efficiency. As reported earlier, some RO plants operate with as little as 2 kWh per m3.

Figure 2-20: Theoretical minimum energy requirement (Miller, 2003)

2.7.2

Energy requirements in practice

The energy consumption for different desalination processes from a number of published
sources is presented in Table 2-3 below for comparison. It is noteworthy that the energy
required by thermal processes such as MSF, MEE and VC are independent of the feedwater
salinity, whereas the energy requirements for membrane processes are dependent on the feed
concentration. Also, for the same technology, the energy requirements vary due to different
plant arrangements, plant size, operating temperatures and recovery ratios. The mechanical
power inputs (usually in kWh / m3) of VC, SWRO and BWRO processes in the table below
were converted to kJ/kg using the conversion factor 1 kWh / m3 = 3.6 kJ / kg. The conversion
efficiency of electricity generation from primary energy sources (around 30%) for these
processes was not taken into consideration.
44

Chapter 2

Desalination
Technology

Plant Specifications (Location,


size, year commissioned)

Energy
Input
(KJ/kg)
*
185 252
*
216 288
*
216 - 432

MSF
MSF
MSF

Typical values
Typical values
Typical values

MSF

Unknown, 30000 m3/day

230

MSF

Typical value for 20-stages plant

290

MSF

Typical value

299

MEE

Typical values

95 275

MEE
MEE
MEE

Typical values
8760 m3/day
Typical values

107 - 132
*
152
*
162 - 324

VC
VC

Typical values
Typical values

14 29
22 29

VC

Typical values

22 58

VC
VC
VC
VC
VC

Typical values (< 3000 m3/day)


Typical value
Typical values
Typical values
Las Palmas, 500 m3/day, 1987

25 43
26
29 - 50
29 39
37 40

VC

Typical values for small units

90 - 108

*
*
*
*
*

SWRO

Typical value for SWRO with ER

10.8

SWRO

Eilat, 20000 m3/day, 1997

14.4

SWRO
SWRO
SWRO

Typical values
Typical values
Typical values

SWRO

Al Jubail, 90920 m3/day

SWRO

Santa Barbara, California, 25000


m3/day, 1992

19.4

SWRO

Jeddah 1 - Phase II, 5680 m3/day

23

SWRO

Typical value

61

BWRO

Typical values

3.8 7.2

BWRO

Eilat, 38000 m3/day, 1996

7.2

BWRO

Typical value

11

14 20
15 - 28
18 22
18

Reference
(Ettouney et al., 1999)
(Thomas, 1997)
(Sharma et al., 2006)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
2000)
(Spiegler and El-Sayed,
1994)
(Wahlgren, 2001)
(Al-Shammiri and Safar,
1999)
(Ettouney et al., 1999)
(Dvornikov, 2000)
(Sharma et al., 2006)
(Mandania et al., 2000)
(Ettouney et al., 1999)
(Al-Juwayhel et al.,
1997)
(Buros, 2000)
(Aly, 1999)
(Sharma et al., 2006)
(Awerbuch, 1997a)
(Vesa, 1995)
(Spiegler and El-Sayed,
1994)
(Cruz, 2008)
(Glueckstern et al.,
2001)
(Wilf and Klinko, 2001)
(Awerbuch, 1997b)
(Thomas, 1997)
(Rautenbach and
Vosenkaul, 2001)
(Spiegler and El-Sayed,
1994)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
2000)
(Wahlgren, 2001)

Table 2-3: Published desalination energy usage


*

Note: : value does not include electrical energy used to power pumps.
45

(Cruz, 2008)
(Glueckstern et al.,
2001)
(Thomas, 1997)

Chapter 2

It can be deduced from Table 2-3 that among the thermal processes, MSF consumes the most
energy. The energy consumption of MSF is at least 60 times the theoretical minimum (see
Figure 2-20 for the latter). MSF is followed by MEE system, which uses at least 95 kJ per kg
(that is, 32 times the theoretical minimum) and then VC with 14 kJ per kg (equivalent to 5
times the theoretical minimum). RO processes have become very efficient with the
improvements of energy recovery devices. A SWRO process for example consumes only 10.8
kJ per kg (or 3 kWh per m3). This is only four times the theoretical minimum.
However, RO systems consume energy in the form of electricity as compared to MSF or MEE
which uses the heat more directly thereby eliminating the losses of energy conversion. For
example, in an electric steam power plant, the chemical energy is first converted to thermal
energy (that is steam) in a boiler; thermal energy is then converted to mechanical energy in a
turbine. Finally the mechanical energy is converted to electricity in the generator. MSF and
MEE systems would use the thermal energy from the boiler whereas RO processes would use
the electricity from the generator. Therefore, on a fuel comparison; if the typical efficiency of
coal-to-electricity generation is around 33%, RO consumes at least 11 times the theoretical
energy requirement.

2.7.3

Economics of desalination technologies

The actual water costs from desalination plants in operation are difficult to assess and
compare because the ways they have been computed are most of the time unknown. For
instance, in some literature, the costs of desalinated water include delivery costs while others
present the costs prior to distribution. Energy costs vary over time and geography; and the
energy consumption of membrane processes is affected by the feedwater salinity. All of these
factors make the cost figures very variable. It is important that published cost estimates
include economic variables such as year, interest rate, energy costs, subsidies and distribution
costs. Nevertheless, Table 2-4 below summarises the published costs of water from major
desalination plants worldwide. It is noteworthy that these costs should only be used as rough
guides only. Where necessary, the currencies have been converted to US dollars (2008).

46

Chapter 2

Desalination
Technology

Plant Specifications (Location,


size, year commissioned)

Water
costs
(US $ / m3)
0.62 1.97

MSF

Typical values

MSF

27000 m3/day (dual-purpose plant)

0.77

MSF
MSF
MSF
MSF
MSF

Typical value
Typical values
Typical values
32000 m3/day (gas turbine plant)
27000 m3/day (steam turbine plant)
27000 m3/day (single-purpose
plant)

0.89
1.10 - 1.25
1.31 5.36
1.44
1.57

MEE
MEE
MEE

Typical value
Typical values
Typical values

0.27 0.56
0.60 1.17
0.75 - 0.85

MEE

22730 m3/day (dual-purpose plant)

0.87

MEE
MEE
MEE

Typical value
37850 m3/day (gas turbine plant)
Typical value
22730 m3/day (single-purpose
plant)

1.17
1.31
1.35

MSF

MEE

1.84

1.95

(Wittholz et al., 2008)


(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)
(Kronenberg, 1995)
(Semiat, 2000)
(Wahlgren, 2001)
(Wade, 1993)
(Wade, 1993)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)
(Kronenberg, 1995)
(Wittholz et al., 2008)
(Semiat, 2000)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)
(Dvornikov, 2000)
(Wade, 1993)
(Al-Juwayhel et al., 1997)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)

VC

Typical values

VC

750 m3/day plant

VC

Typical values

0.99 1.21

(Semiat, 2000)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)
(El-Sayed, 1999)

0.45 - 0.92
0.45 0.95

(Semiat, 2000)
(Wittholz et al., 2008)

0.53

(NAS, 2004)

0.55

(Glueckstern et al., 2001)

0.62

(Herring, 2005)

0.68

(Kronenberg, 1995)

0.72

(Glueckstern et al., 2001)

0.74
0.74

(Wilf and Bartels, 2005)


(NAS, 2004)

0.83

(Glueckstern et al., 2001)

0.85

SWRO

Typical values
Typical values
Ashkelon (Sub-phase 1), Israel,
165000 m3/day, 2004
Tampa Bay, Florida, 94600
m3/day, 2001, RR = 60%
Ashkelon (Sub-phase 2), Israel,
223400 m3/day, 2005
Typical value
Eilat, Israel, 20000 m3/day, 1997,
RR = 50%
Eilat, Israel, 20000 m3/day, 1997
Trinidad, 2003
Larnace, Cyprus, 40000 m3/day,
2001, RR= 50%
Lamaca, Cyprus, 2003
Santa Barbara, California, 25000
m3/day, 1992
Typical values

1.54 6.56

(NAS, 2004)
(Spiegler and El-Sayed,
1994)
(Wahlgren, 2001)

BWRO

Typical values

0.14 0.38

(Wittholz et al., 2008)

SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO
SWRO

0.87 - 0.95

Reference

0.89

47

1.54

Chapter 2

0.2 - 0.35
0.25 0.28

BWRO
BWRO

Typical values
Typical values

BWRO

20000 m3/day (single-stage plant)

0.64

BWRO

20000 m3/day (two-stages plant)

0.76

(Semiat, 2000)
(Redondo, 2001)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)
(Darwish and Al-Najem,
1987)

Table 2-4: Published desalination costs

Table 2-4 clearly shows that BWRO is the least costly of all the desalination processes but
this is due to the fact that BWRO processes desalinate brackish water, which is at a low
salinity and hence use very little energy as compared to the other desalination processes.
According to Fiorenza et al. (2003), the electrical energy input of an RO process increases
roughly linearly with the salinity of the feedwater (approximately 1 kWh / m3 for each 10,000
ppm increase). When seawater is concerned, SWRO has an economic advantage over MSF.
However, it is not clearly obvious whether SWRO has an advantage over MEE. In some
installations, MEE has produced water at a cost of US $0.27 / m3 (Kronenberg, 1995) but it is
likely that these installations include the thermal vapour compression (TVC) design. SWRO
systems are more common than MEE plants but MEE is gaining new acceptance, especially
with the possibility of utilising waste heat sources.
It is noteworthy for comparative purposes that the price of water for domestic residential
consumption in Victoria, Australia is AUD $(2006) 0.8 - 1.4 per m3 while the price for
agricultural water usage is around AUD $(2006) 1.0 per m3 (YVW, 2006). MJA (2006) report
estimates that the price of urban water supply in Australia is between AUD $0.63 and AUD
$1.59 per m3, depending on the city.

2.7.4

Potential environmental impacts of desalination

Most of the desalination processes generate a highly concentrate stream. The concentrate from
a SWRO, for example, can be as high as 75,000 to 80,000 ppm TDS. Disposal of the
concentrated brine is the most significant environmental consideration for desalination
systems. Chemicals used throughout the desalination process (the majority during pretreatment) may be discharged with the brine. The waste brine may contain corrosion or
erosion metals products from the plant, such as copper, lead and iron (Lattemann and Hopner,
2003). Also, in the case of distillation processes, the discharge temperature may be higher
than the ambient temperature, which could impact on the environment. Several methods are
used to dispose of the concentrate streams. Surface water is the most frequent disposal method
48

Chapter 2

used. In some installations, waste brine blending (for example, by dilution with the cooling
water in the case of an MSF process) is necessary to reduce the salinity and solve the problem
of residual chemicals. Other methods include deep well injection, evaporation ponds and
brine concentrate concentrators for zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems (AWWA, 2007).

2.8

Review of Desalination Systems Powered by Renewable Energy

2.8.1

Solar stills

The most basic solar still is shown in Figure 2-21. Solar radiation enters the still through the
sloping clear glass or plastic panel and heats the saltwater in the basin. The basin is generally
black and can sometimes contain a dye to absorb energy more efficiently. Part of the saltwater
will evaporate and then condense on the cooler top sloping panels. The condensate then run
down the panels and is collected. The intensity of solar energy falling on the still is the most
important parameter affecting production followed by the ambient temperature. In 1963,
CSIRO developed the bay-type, glass covered solar still, lined with black polyethylene sheet.
The length of the stills was divided into a series of dams to produce shallow pools of saline
water. The prototype still was used as a basis to build the various Australian solar still
desalination plants. One example is the Coober Pedy glass solar still built in 1966 to produce
up to 130 kL of pure water per day (CPRT, 2007).
Solar still is a simple method but offers a low freshwater yield, typically producing 2 - 4 litres
of freshwater per day per m2 of solar collection area. Production rates in mid- and southern
Australian latitudes average approximately 0.8 litres per m2, per sun hour. There have been a
number of modifications to solar stills to increase the efficiency, such as using sun trackers,
reflective panels, heat recovery devices and coupling solar collectors, but these systems have
been restricted to small- to medium-scale units only. Heat recovery and air mass circulation
can improve the production rate to 20 litres per day per m2 (Kunze, 2001).

49

Chapter 2

Figure 2-21: A simple solar still (Buros, 2000)

2.8.2

Solar-thermal desalination systems

2.8.2.1 Previous theoretical analysis of solar pond coupled with MSF


A theoretical analysis of a solar pond coupled with a MSF plant operating in Tripoli, Libya
was conducted by Agha (2008). A solar pond having a depth of 2.5 metres supply heat at
temperatures between 70 - 90oC to a 1000 m3/day MSF plant, as shown in Figure 2-22.

Figure 2-22: Schematic of solar pond coupled with a 31-stages MSF plant (Agha, 2008)

The analysis includes different desalination plants performance ratios (PR) and number of
stages. The area of the solar ponds was in the range of 75,900 186,000 m2. The results from
the simulation are shown in Figure 2-23. The economic analysis includes the capital, energy
and operating and maintenance costs. The electrical power consumption (at a unit cost of US
$0.06 / kWh) for the pond and MSF unit was assumed to be a total of 300 kW. The land, liner
and salt costs were assumed to be US $1 / m2, US $8 / m2 and US $40 / ton, respectively.
50

Chapter 2

From Aghas simulation analysis, the unit costs of product water ranges from US $1.80 for a
pond storage temperature of 90oC and plant performance ratio of 10 to US $1.94 for a pond
storage temperature of 70oC and plant performance ratio of 6. Agha recommended blending
the distillate product from the MSF plant (which is usually less than 25 ppm TDS) with a low
cost, low salinity (up to 2000 ppm TDS) brackish water to reduce the water costs. The unit
costs of the blended water would then range from US $1.0 to US $1.5 per m3 depending on
the operating temperature and salinity of the brackish water (brackish water was assumed to
costs US $0.1 / m3 in this case). The analysis also concluded that the solar pond coupled MSF
system would require large solar collection areas, about 73 185 m2 per m3/day capacity
depending on the pond storage temperature and desalination plants performance ratio.

Figure 2-23: Thermal simulation results of solar pond coupled MSF desalination (Agha, 2008)

2.8.2.2 Solar pond coupled with MEMS


Lu et al. (2001) tested a multi-effect, multi-stage (MEMS) flash desalination unit operating
under various conditions at the El Paso salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) site (Figure 2-24).
The MEMS unit consisting of three effect and four stages has been operated successfully at
temperatures up to 80oC and the high quality (3 ppm TDS) distillate production rate ranged
from 1.6 to 5.0 LPM. Scaling was observed in the third stage condenser but had not
significant effect on the production rate and performance ratio. Lu et al. (2001) concluded
from their experimental studies and solar desalination review that thermal desalination by
SGSP is one of the most promising solar desalination technologies.

51

Chapter 2

(b) 3000 m2 solar pond

(a) El Paso MEMS unit

Figure 2-24: El Paso MEMS desalination unit and solar pond (Lu et al., 2002)

2.8.2.3 Solar pond coupled with Autoflash MSF


A Swiss company Atlantis Desalination Systems designed a self-regulating Atlantis
Autoflash multistage desalination system to be coupled with solar ponds in 1999. The plant
consumes less than 2 kWh per m3 as parasitic electrical energy. From the simulation results
based on a plant operating in North Africa, the water cost for a 15 m3/day plant was estimated
to be around US $5.48 / m3. A 300 m3/day plant would reduce the cost to US $2.39 / m3
(Szacsvay et al., 1999).

2.8.2.4 Solar desalination using concentrating solar power


The Plataforma Solar de Almeria (PSA) in Spain successfully demonstrated during the 1990s
the technical feasibility of solar-thermal desalination using concentrating parabolic-trough
(CPT) solar collectors coupled with a multi-effect distillation (MED) unit. The plant consisted
of a vertical 14-effect forward-feed MED unit with a nominal distillate production of 72 m3
per day, a solar-thermal CPT collector field using synthetic oil and a thermocline thermal
energy storage (TES) system. A cogeneration scheme (combined power and desalination) was
tested in the first phase of the project, where high-pressure steam was produced to drive a
small power plant while a fraction of the steam was used to power the desalination plant.
In the second phase of the project, the electricity generation operation ceased and a doubleeffect absorption heat pump was added to reduce the overall energy consumption. The plant
uses a steam ejector vacuum system. A schematic of the system (during phase II) is shown in
Figure 2-25. The solar energy is converted into thermal energy as it heats the oil circulating
through the solar collectors. The thermal energy stored in the storage tank (in the form of
52

Chapter 2

sensible heat of oil) provides the steam generator with the required thermal energy. The heat
pump delivers 200 kW of thermal energy at 65oC to the MED plant. But the MED uses only
90 kW of the energy. The remaining 110 kW is recovered by the heat pump evaporator at
35oC. The heat pump requires 90 kW of thermal power at 180oC provided by the steam
generator which gets its thermal energy from the CPT. The thermal and electrical energy
consumption in the second phase have been reduced from 67 to 36 kWh / m3 (or from 241 to
130 kJ/kg) and 3.3 to 2.9 kWh / m3, respectively. The recovery ratio (RR) is approximately
38% (Blanco and Alarcon, 2006).

Figure 2-25: Schematic of solar MED system (Phase II) (Blanco et al., 2002)

A new research project called Enhanced zero discharge seawater desalination using hybrid
solar technology (Aquasol) was initiated in 2002. The CPT solar collectors were replaced
with stationary compound parabolic concentrators (CPC) solar collectors; and together with
the existing thermal energy storage system were designed to operate with water as the heat
transfer fluid (HTF). The CPC solar collectors have a total surface area of 500 m2 and the
thermal storage tanks have a total capacity of 20 m3. A smoke-tube gas boiler (used as a
backup system in the absence of solar radiation) and an advanced solar dyer (for final
treatment of the brine) were incorporated. The first effect of the existing MED was modified
to work with hot water at temperatures between 64 and 75oC (Blanco and Alarcon, 2006). The
Aquasol system is currently under evaluation.
53

Chapter 2

Concentrating parabolic-troughs (CPT), similar to the ones used in the PSA project as
discussed above, use parabolic-shaped mirrors (Figure 2-27a) to concentrate the sun's energy
on an absorber tube (called a receiver) containing a heat-transfer fluid (HTF). This type of
solar collector is generally only used for commercial power production applications (as shown
in Figure 2-26), because very high temperatures (up to 400oC) can be achieved. At present,
most installations include thermal energy storage in the form of molten salt. Operational
plants include the 310 MW FPLs Solar Energy Generating Systems plants in California,
US; the 64 MW Acciona Energys Solar One plant in Nevada, US and the 50 MW Andasol
1 in southern Andalusia, Spain. Other large-scale solar-powered plants being planned include
the 50 MW Andasal II and 50 MW Andasol III plants in Spain; and the 280 MW Solana
in the Arizona, US. American and European researchers believe that the cost of electricity
from CPT could fall from approximately US $0.11 / kWh today to US $0.4 / kWh by 2020
(Taggart, 2008).

Figure 2-26: Schematic of concentrated solar power plant with thermal storage (Quaschning, 2003)

Garcia-Rodriguez et al. (2002) analysed and compared the use of a number of solar
technologies (SGSP, flat-plate solar collectors, ETSC, CPC, CPT and SGSP) for seawater
desalination by thermal processes (such as MSF and MEE) under Spanish climatic conditions.
The study concluded that direct steam generation from CPT was a promising technology for
seawater desalination in hybrid (solar-conventional energy) systems.

54

Chapter 2

Linear Fresnel (LF) uses a number of flat or slightly curved optical surfaces arranged in long
parallel lines (Figure 2-27b). These mirrors are positioned to reflect direct sunlight into a
receiver with one surface having a Linear Fresnel concentrator. Fresnel mirrors are lighter
than CPT mirrors (weigh only 30% of the weight of CPT mirrors) and has lower
manufacturing costs (Ford, 2008). In Australia, a project is underway at Liddell power station,
New South Wales to replace some of the station's boiler feedwater by hot water from a solar
thermal array using compact linear Fresnel reflector technology. This is the first in Australia
where solar energy has been integrated with a coal-fired power station. Stage II of the
prototype project now underway, is planned to produce 4400 MWh of renewable electricity
annually (MG, 2006). The system will eventually provide 95 MW of thermal energy to the
power plant, giving an estimated electrical equivalent of 35 MW.
Other concentrating solar power (CSP) technologies are available on the market, including
solar power towers which produce much higher temperature and solar dishes which offer
higher efficiency. CSP technologies are most suited for regions like south-western USA,
northern Africa, southern Spain and Australians outback where direct normal radiation is
strongest.

(a) Concentrating parabolic-troughs (CPT)


(Kearny, 2007)

(b) Linear Fresnel (LF) installed at Liddell


power station (MG, 2006)

Figure 2-27: CSP Technologies

CSP systems generate a lot of heat which can be used as a direct energy input to thermal
desalination processes, provided the top brine temperature (TBT) is below the threshold for
scaling. Alternatively, the heat can be turned into electricity via a power plant to drive RO
processes. An even more attractive option is to have a hybrid desalination system (RO-MSF
or RO-MEE) coupled with a concentrating solar steam power plant. In this hybrid and
cogeneration system, part of the electricity produced by the steam power plant can be used to
run the RO desalination system while the low to moderate temperature steam exiting the
turbine can be used to drive the thermal process (MSF or MEE). The MSF plant can be
55

Chapter 2

coupled to the cold end of the steam cycle power plant extracting steam at 90 - 120oC from
the turbine to heat the feed saltwater. If the MSF plant substitutes the condenser in the
conventional plant, enough feedwater must be provided for both desalination and cooling. A
backpressure turbine may also be required depending on the steam and condensation
temperatures. Similarly, MEE processes can also be coupled to the steam cycle.
Other studies on desalination systems coupled to solar power plants were conducted. A hybrid
MSF-RO plant driven by a dual purpose solar plant was installed in Kuwait. The MSF and
RO systems had a distillate production of 25 m3/day and 20 m3/day, respectively (Delyannis,
1987). Glueckstern (1995) presented a detailed analysis of a dual-purpose solar plant.
Rheinlander and Lippke (1998) analysed a cogeneration system in which a MEE plant is
coupled to a solar tower power plant.
A Victorian energy company Acquasol is planning on developing a combined power
generation, desalination and salt harvesting facility in Port Augusta, South Australia. The first
stages of the solar-gas hybrid power station will include a total electrical output of 200 MW.
50 MW of solar-thermal energy will be provided by a solar field consisting of concentrating
parabolic-troughs (CPT) solar collectors laid over an area of 2 km2 (Crisp, 2007b). The
remaining 150 MW will be provided by the combined cycle gas turbine (CCGT). The
desalination plant will initially consist of an RO having a distillate production of 15 ML/day.
An MEE process using the heat from the power station will later be incorporated in the
system.
High concentration solar photovoltaic systems can also be used to provide electricity to largescale RO processes. For instance, a 154 MW solar power station is being built in Victoria,
Australia using heliostat concentrator photovoltaic (HCPV) solar dishes (SS, 2006).

2.8.3

Photovoltaic reverse osmosis

The electricity from photovoltaic (PV) panels can be used for desalination processes. The
electrical energy can be used for electro-mechanical devices such as pumps in a RO process
or a in a direct current (DC) device such as ED process. RO process use alternating current
(AC) for the pumps and as such requires a DC to AC inverter. PV systems deliver fluctuating
power unless connected to a battery storage system and are most suited for small-scale plants.
The extent to which PV energy is competitive with conventional energy depends on the plant
capacity, the distance to the electricity grid and the salt concentration of the feed saltwater.
56

Chapter 2

Tzen et al. (1998) and Kalogirou (2001) analysed the costs of PV-RO desalination systems.
Tzen et al. analysis showed that the water costs of a small-scale PV-RO desalination system
producing 12 m3/day of fresh water would be around 29/m3. The system was designed to
work with a feed saltwater salinity of 40,000 ppm TDS pressurised at 65 bars. The recovery
ratio (RR) was 23%. The capital and operating costs of the RO, PV, batteries, inverter and
diesel backup generator were considered in the economic analysis based on a lifecycle of 20
years with 3% rate of return. Fiorenza et al. (2003) compared the estimated cost of fresh water
obtained from PV-RO with conventional desalination systems. Their analysis showed that
PV-RO systems (for plant sizes between 500 and 5000 m3/day) were at least 2.5 times that of
current conventional systems.

2.8.4

Wind-powered reverse osmosis

Wind-powered desalination is suitable where high wind speed is available. Robinson et al.
(1992) described the design, construction and testing of a wind-RO brackish desalination
system designed for small remote communities in Western Australia. On Rottnest Island just
off the West Australian coast, a small-scale RO plant has been operating over the past few
years. The desalination plant provides 500 kL/day of fresh water and meets 70% of the
islands needs. It uses 100 kW from the 600 kW wind generator which also provides power
for the island. Habalia and Saleh (1994) presented a study of a wind-powered brackish water
(up to 4000 ppm TDS) RO plant in Jordan. The reported cost (approximately US $0.98
1.71) was found to be lower than that obtained using conventional diesel engines especially in
remote areas. Garcia-Rodriguez et al. (2001) performed a preliminary cost evaluation of
wind- RO and reported that seawater wind-powered desalination is one of the most promising
uses of renewable energy. The cost of electricity produced by wind turbines has dropped
significantly over the last 15 years and nowadays many medium- to large-scale RO
desalination plants are installed in coastal areas where high wind speed is available.
It is important that desalination plants are powered by additional renewable energy (that is, by
renewable energy systems that would not otherwise have happened) to ensure that the plants
do not increase the greenhouse gas emissions. Moreover, any renewable energy credits
purchased should not be counted towards meeting any existing renewable energy targets.
Experimental research on the direct coupling of a wind turbine with a RO system by means of
shaft power has been carried out at the Canary Islands Technological Institute projects
57

Chapter 2

AERODESA I and AERODESA II (Garcia-Rodriguez, 2003). In Coconut Island off the


northern coast of Oahu, Hawaii, a brackish water wind-powered RO desalination plant was
installed. The system uses directly the shaft power from a windmill with the high pressure
pump of a RO system. A flow/pressure stabilizer and a feedback control mechanism adjust the
flow rate and water pressure according to the variable wind speed. A fresh water production
of 13 LPM could be maintained for wind speed of 5 m/s (Liu et al., 2002). The direct coupling
of wind turbines with RO systems operating at variable flow rates avoids the use of energy
storage and involves less energy conversion, thereby resulting in higher efficiency.

2.8.4.1 Kwinana SWRO plant


The first commercial seawater desalination plant in Australia opened in November 2006. The
144 ML/day seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) plant (Figure 2-28a) in Kwinana, Western
Australia, is the largest SWRO plant in the southern hemisphere. The AUD $387 (US $290)
million SWRO plant, with an annual running cost of AUD $20 million provide 17% of
Perths water supplies. The plant buys its power (approximately 180 GWh per year) from
electricity generated by the Emu Downs wind farm (Figure 2-28b), located north of Perth.
The 83 MW wind farm consists of 48 wind turbines and contributes over 272 GWh per year
into the grid.

(a) Aerial view of SWRO plant (WC, 2008)

(b) The Emu Downs wind farm (WC, 2006)

Figure 2-28: Kwinana SWRO plant in Kwinana, Western Australia

The SWRO plant incorporates a two-pass system as shown in Figure 2-29. The first pass
consists of 12 SWRO trains with a capacity of 160 ML/day while the second pass consists of
six BWRO trains with a final product capacity of 144 ML/day. The typical TDS achieved
from the first and second pass are 300 and 40 ppm TDS, respectively. The submerged
seawater intake is 200 m offshore at a depth of 10 m. The seawater (with salinity ranges from
58

Chapter 2

36,000 to 37,100 ppm TDS; temperature ranges from 14 to 26oC) is pressurised to 60 64


bars by six high-pressure pumps. The concentrated brine is discharged 470 m offshore via a
160 m long, 40-port diffuser to ensure enough mixing within 50 m of the diffuser (Crisp,
2007a).
The recovery ratio (RR) is approximately 43% and the total plant energy consumption is 3.2
3.5 kWh / m3 (2.32 kWh / m3 of which is used by the SWRO pumps). This is the lowest
energy consumption reported for large-scale SWRO partly due to the use of pressure
exchangers (PX) energy recovery devices having a net transfer efficiency of 98%. The PX
effectively saves the SWRO plant 15.6 MW of energy (ERI, 2008). The water from the plant
was estimated to cost AUD $1.16 / m3 (Cameron, 2007), though this cost analysis does not
include a return on capital.

Figure 2-29: Schematic of Kwinana SWRO plant (Degrmont, 2005)

The Premier of Western Australia has announced a second SWRO plant for Perth, similar to
the Kwinana plant. The plant to be located near Binningup in south west of Perth will provide
approximately 144 ML/day of fresh water. The project will cost AUD $955 million and
should be completed by the end of 2011.

2.8.4.2 Tugun SWRO plant


A SWRO plant is currently being built at Tugun, Queensland, Australia. The AUD $1.12
billion plant (with annual operating costs of AUD $48 million) when fully operational in
January 2009, will provide 125 ML/day of fresh water. The plant will use approximately 24.5
MW of power to produce and distribute the water (Liew, 2007). The cost of fresh water is
59

Chapter 2

estimated to be approximately AUD $2.55 / m3 (Turner et al., 2007). The plant will initially
be powered entirely by fossil fuels and the plant energy consumption is expected to be over 4
kWh / m3 (GCBN, 2008). In a recent joint statement however, the Premier and Deputy
Premier of Queensland have asked and challenged the green energy industry to come up with
viable renewable energy options to power the desalination plant and completely offset the
carbon emissions (DME, 2008).

2.8.4.3 Kurnell SWRO plant


Another SWRO desalination plant, costing around AUD $1.9 billion, is currently being
constructed at Kurnell, New South Wales, Australia. The proposal was announced by the
NWS government in June 2007, after having abandoned previous plans in November 2006. It
is expected that the plant when completed in 2010 will be able to generate 250 ML/day of
fresh water, with the possibility of scaling up to 500 ML/day in the future if needed (SW,
2008). The new 67 turbine wind farm (with a capacity of 140 MW) being built at Bugendore,
NSW will supply the power required by the desalination plant.
Smith (2005) reported that the cost of water from a 500 ML/day plant at Kurnell would be
approximately AUD $1.44 / m3. However, the Minister for Emergency Services and Minister
for Water reported during one of the legislative assembly that the desalinated water cost
(based on projected operating costs in Sydneys Water pricing) would be around AUD $0.6 /
m3 if the desalination plant was operating at full capacity (PNSW, 2008). It is unclear what
was included in the cost calculations. Moran (2008) gives a different estimation in his report
(AUD $2.14 / m3) for water delivered to the distribution network, based on a six per cent
return on investment and an operating cost of AUD $0.61 / m3.

2.8.4.4 Wonthaggi SWRO plant


Plans to build a SWRO desalination plant, capable of producing 450 ML/day (150 GL/yr) of
fresh water, at Wonthaggi in Victoria, Australia, were announced in June 2007. The plant will
cost an estimated AUD $3.1 billion and will be completed by late 2011. It includes an 85
kilometre pipeline connecting it to Melbourne. The plant is estimated to use about 90 MW of
power from the grid, which includes water pumping. The greenhouse gas emissions will be
offset by the purchase of renewable energy in addition to the Governments current renewable
energy targets (DPC, 2008) but it hasnt been announced yet the type of green energy to be
provided. If the plant is to be powered by wind energy, approximately 270 MW of wind
power would be required.
60

Chapter 2

The operating costs (including renewable energy component) are estimated at AUD $(2007)
130 million per year (MW and GHD, 2007). The overall recovery is around 42%. From public
information, it is likely that plant energy consumption will be in the range 4 - 5 kWh / m3. The
water costs from the Wonthaggi desalination proposal are quite high. Moran (2008) reported
that the cost of water delivered to the local distribution network would be AUD $3.01 / m3
(AUD $2.13 / m3 and AUD $0.88 / m3 for capital and operating costs, respectively).

2.8.4.5 Adelaide SWRO plant


The South Australian Government is investigating plans for a SWRO desalination plant. The
proposed AUD $1.1 billion plant will deliver approximately 150 ML / day and will be located
near Port Stanvac. The cost of water is estimated at AUD $2.40 / m3 (Moran, 2008). Another
SWRO desalination plant is also being considered to supply water to the Olympic Dam
mining and processing operations (which is in the process of being expanded) in South
Australia. The 125 ML/day plant will be located in the Upper Spencer Gulf near Port
Bonython. 30 MW would be required to run the plant.

2.8.5

Solar Humidification-Dehumidification (HDH)

The solar humidification-dehumidification (HDH) process, also called solar multistage


condensation evaporation cycle (SMCEC) or multi-effect humidification (MEH) is based on
evaporation of saltwater and consecutive condensation of the generated humid air, mostly at
ambient pressure. HDH processes are designed to operate at low temperatures which make
them suitable for low-grade energy sources. However, the water content of saturated air at
low temperature is very small. The saturation humidity of air roughly doubles for every 10oC
increase in temperature (Perry and Green, 1997). Therefore, the volume of air that must be
processed and hence the size of the system is dependent on the operating temperature.
A SMCEC process uses natural convection in a vertical chimney to draw the outgoing heated
water vapour past condenser plates through which the incoming feed saltwater runs thereby
preheating the feed. A MEH process applies multiple evaporation-condensation cycles at
different temperatures in order to minimise the total energy consumption. A 5 m3/day MEH
plant operates in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, using the heat from 140 m2 solar collectors (MAGETiNOX, 2006).

61

Chapter 2

2.8.6

Membrane distillation (MD)

Membrane distillation (MD) involves thermal distillation and membrane processes. It was
introduced commercially on a small scale in the 1980s. MD differs from reverse osmosis in
that the driving force is the difference in vapour pressure of the saltwater across the
membrane rather than the total pressure. The vapour pressure is created by heating the
saltwater and the membrane which is hydrophobic only allows water vapour to pass through
into the air gap. The distillate is collected by condensing the vapour on the cool surface. A
number of methods have been employed to create a vapour pressure difference across the
membranes as shown in Figure 2-30. The four main methods are direct contact, air gap,
sweeping gas and vacuum. Direct contact is the simplest method while air gap is the most
versatile. MD has a number of potential advantages over conventional desalination processes
(such as MSF, MEE and RO), including low operating temperature, low operating pressure,
reduced membrane mechanical strength requirements and less vapour space requirements
(Evans and Miller, 2002). Since MD processes only need small temperature differentials to
operate, it is well suited for desalting saltwater where low-grade thermal energy is available.
To date, MD has only been used for small-scale applications.

Figure 2-30: Membrane distillation methods (Evans and Miller, 2002)

62

Chapter 3

SOLAR-THERMAL DESALINATION

In this chapter, the existing desalination technologies that are suitable for use
with renewable energy sources in the form of low-temperature heat sources are
explored. The criteria to be used for comparing the solar desalination systems
are also outlined. The results from the experimental studies conducted on the
solar pond to improve its thermal performance are presented.

3.1

Coupling Options between Renewable Energy Sources and


Desalination Technologies

Desalination systems can be powered by a number of solar or wind technologies as shown in


Table 3-1. Low- to medium-temperature solar collectors can be used to provide heat for
thermal desalination processes, such as Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) and Multi-Effect
Evaporation (MEE) while photovoltaic and wind turbine systems can supply electrical energy
to Reverse Osmosis (RO). High-temperature solar concentrating parabolic trough (CPT)
collectors with storage can provide both electricity and heat through a co-generation system.
This type of system can drive hybrid systems, such as RO-MSF or RO-MEE.
Desalination
Systems

Solar / Wind Technology

MSF

MEE

Flat Plate / Evacuated Tubular Collectors

Concentrating Parabolic Troughs (CPT)


[Co-generation system producing both electricity and heat]

Salinity-Gradient Solar Ponds (SGSP)

RO

Photovoltaic

Wind Turbine [producing electricity]

Table 3-1: Coupling options between renewable energy and desalination processes

63

Chapter 3

3.2

Solar Desalination Systems Investigated in this Project

A number of solar-thermal heat sources can be used with MSF and MEE desalination
technologies as mentioned earlier. This research has focussed on low temperature
applications, which is one of the main objectives of this study. The main coupling options
investigated are the MSF and MEE systems coupled with salinity-gradient solar ponds
(SGSP) or evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC). SGSP solar technology has been selected
for investigation because of its combined energy collection and storage capability (as will be
discussed in the next section) and its suitability into salinity mitigation schemes. One of the
advantages of coupling a SGSP to a desalination system is the possibility of utilising the
discharged concentrated salt solutions from the system for commercial salt production, or
constructing additional solar ponds to support additional desalination capacity. ETSC is also
well suited for low-temperature applications and offer low-cost manufacturing.
Scale deposit on the heat transfer surfaces is a major problem with thermal distillation
processes. One solution is to reduce the operating boiling temperature and hence pressure.
Although this study is focussed on SGSP and ETSC, industrial processes that are
appropriately located (that is, near a saltwater source) can also utilise their low-grade and/or
waste heat to generate water. CPT is suitable for solar-thermal desalination systems but is
beyond the scope of this study.
As part of another research project, a combined desalination and power (CDP) system with a
distillate production capacity of 2500 litres/day, a recovery ratio of 11% and a potential
electrical power production of 1200 W has been investigated concurrently at RMIT
University by Zhao et al. (2009). In the CDP system, the saltwater, after being heated by solar
energy (to about 85oC), is introduced into an evacuated cylinder through a hollow shaft and
rotor by the difference in pressure. Nozzles fixed to the ends of the rotor cause the saltwater to
vaporise and exit at high velocity, thereby creating a reaction force (or torque). A generator
connected to the rotor produces electrical energy. The vapour produced is condensed into
fresh water by a condenser.

64

Chapter 3

3.3

Low-Temperature Heat Sources

3.3.1

Salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP)

A salinity-gradient solar pond (Figure 3-1) is a large body of water between 2 and 5 m deep
with a salinity gradient. Solar radiation that reaches the bottom of the pond is trapped in the
lower region and stored since convection currents are suppressed (Hull et al., 1989).

Figure 3-1: Salinity-Gradient Solar Pond (SGSP)

The upper convective zone (UCZ) is a mixture of fresh water and low salinity brine. This
zone requires continuous flushing with fresh water or low salinity water to compensate for
evaporation and flush away the rising salt to the top surface by the natural process of salt
diffusion through the non-convective zone (NCZ). Below it, the NCZ contains a salinity
gradient such that the water close to the surface is always less salty than the water below it.
The NCZ constitutes a thermally insulating layer since natural convection currents are
suppressed. The lower convective zone (LCZ), also known as the storage zone, is where the
heat is stored and extracted. To compensate the losses of salt from the LCZ and the NCZ,
solid salt or saturated brine must be regularly added to this layer.
Solar energy that reaches the lower zone and is absorbed there can escape only by conduction.
The thermal conductivity of water is moderately low, and if the gradient zone has adequate
thickness, heat escapes upward from the lower zone very slowly. This makes the solar pond
both a thermal collector and a long-term storage system. Solar ponds can provide reliable heat
at temperatures between 50 and 90oC and have a low capital cost since they are based on
locally available low-cost materials, and can be incorporated into salinity mitigation schemes

65

Chapter 3

(Akbarzadeh and Andrews, 2005). SGSP can also be used for production of electricity by
driving a Ranking engine with the heat stored in the pond.

(a) 50 m2 experimental solar pond at RMIT

(b) 3000 m2 solar pond at Pyramid Hill

Figure 3-2: Experimental and demonstration solar ponds

Two SGSP were used during this research study (Figure 3-2). A 53 m2 experimental SGSP
was constructed in 1998 at RMIT University, in Melbourne, Australia. The circular solar pond
is 8.2 metres in diameter and about 2 metres deep. A 3000 m2 demonstration SGSP was built
at Pyramid Hill in northern Victoria, Australia in 2002 as part of a collaborative project
between RMIT University, Pyramid Salt Pty Ltd and Geo-Eng Australia Pty Ltd to
demonstrate and commercialise a solar pond system as an innovative, cost-effective method
of capturing and storing solar energy for a range of applications. The demonstration solar
pond is 2.3 metres deep.
3.3.2

Evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC)

3.3.2.1 Principle of ETSC


Evacuated tube solar collectors transform solar radiation into heat and transfer that heat to a
medium - water or other heat transfer fluid (HTF). Each evacuated tube (Figure 3-3) consists
of two glass tubes made from extremely strong borosilicate glass. The outer tube is
transparent allowing light rays to pass through with minimal reflection. The inner tube is
coated with a special selective coating (usually Aluminum Nitrite) which features excellent
solar radiation absorption properties. The air is withdrawn from the space between the two
glass tubes to form a vacuum, which eliminates conductive and convective heat losses.
Because the collector consists of a series of tubes, the sun's rays are perpendicular to the tubes
for most of the day, allowing the system to operate at high efficiency for much longer than
flat-plate collectors. Some ETSC are fitted with compound parabolic concentrators (CPC) to
66

Chapter 3

increase the efficiency. ETSC are currently available at low cost from Chinese manufacturers
in three different flow configurations direct flow, U pipe and heat pipe. The efficiency is
between 50 - 60 % (Linuo, 2006).

Figure 3-3: Evacuated solar tube (Linuo, 2002)

3.3.2.2 Direct flow (thermosyphon)


The direct flow system (Figure 3-4) works on the thermosyphon principle. Thermosyphon
relies on warm water rising, a phenomenon known as natural convection, to circulate water
through the solar absorber and to the manifold. As water in the absorber heats, it becomes
lighter and rises into the manifold above. Meanwhile, cooler water in the manifold flows
downwards into the absorber thus causing circulation. Direct flow systems are the cheapest
evacuated tube solar collectors available.

Figure 3-4: Direct flow ETSC at RMIT University, Bundoora, Australia

67

Chapter 3

3.3.2.3 U pipe
U pipe solar collectors (Figure 3-5) are made of evacuated tubes similar to the direct flow
system, except that the HTF flows through a U-tube heat-carrying pipe usually made of
copper, which is connected to the absorber by aluminium fins. The HTF is never in direct
contact with the absorber. One of the advantages is the fact that the solar collector can still
operate even with several tubes breakage.

(a) Inside view (Suntrap, 2008)

(b) End view

Figure 3-5: U pipe ETSC

3.3.2.4 Heat pipe


In the heat pipe configuration (Figure 3-6), the sun's energy absorbed by the tubes is
transferred to the HTF via special copper heat pipes located inside each tube. A small amount
of evaporative fluid inside each heat pipe is turned to vapour by the suns energy. This gas
then rises to the top of the pipes, which are welded or inserted into a heat transfer manifold.
The cold HTF is then pumped through this manifold to absorb the heat. The cooled vapour
condenses by exchanging heat and returns to the bottom of the pipe and the cycle is repeated.

(a) Schematic (Endless-Solar, 2007)

(b) Heat pipes in ETSC (Apricus, 2006)

Figure 3-6: Heat pipe ETSC

68

Chapter 3

3.3.3

Geothermal energy

Low-temperature geothermal waters in the upper 100 m could be a reasonable source of


energy for thermal desalination. A review on geothermal energy in Israel, in which
temperatures up to 130oC were considered indicated that the cost of desalinated water from
distillation plants using geothermal sources could be as low as US $0.5 / m3 (Ophir, 1982).
Bourouni et al. (1999) studied the performance of two geothermal-powered distillation plants
installed in France and in south of Tunisia. The plants were designed to work at low
temperatures (60 - 90oC). They concluded that the use of geothermal water resources was
promising for cooling and desalting.
3.3.4

Industrial waste heat

Several high-temperature chemical, petroleum and power plants processes generate waste
heats in various forms, including exhaust gases and liquids. For most of high-grade energy
processes, where the temperature is over 500oC, waste heat recovery devices have been
implemented. However, not much has been done to recover low to medium-grade waste heat
(CSIRO, 2006). Desalination plants could use energy harnessed from low temperature waste
heat sources. For instance, in a diesel generator power station, the waste heat from the exhaust
gases, jacket cooling water, lube oil and air cooling system can be recovered to provide heat
to a thermal desalination plant located neat the site. Waste heat can also be recovered from the
exhaust gases of gas turbines.

3.4

Criteria for Comparing Solar Desalination Systems

In order to compare the various solar-thermal desalination technologies studied in this


research with each other and other renewable-based desalination systems, the following
criteria will be used.
3.4.1

Salinity levels

The salinity level of the input saltwater determines the most suitable type of desalination
process. The salinity of seawater around Australia varies typically between 33,000 ppm TDS
(or mg/L) and 38,000 ppm TDS (Degrmont, 2005; SW, 2007) while the saline groundwater
in Pyramid Hill, northern Victoria was measured in 2006 to be around 30,000 ppm TDS. The
solar-thermal desalination investigated in this study must be able to desalinate saltwater with a
salinity level up to 45,000 ppm TDS. The purity of the distillate from the desalination system
69

Chapter 3

will be checked by measuring the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The TDS will also give an
indication of the effectiveness of the demister. The World Health Organisation (2006) has
established a guideline maximum TDS value of less than 500 ppm for potable water. Water
with extremely low concentrations of TDS may also be unacceptable because of its insipid
taste.
3.4.2

Fresh water production

The rate of fresh water production is an important measurement which defined the capacity of
the desalination system. Since solar radiation varies throughout the day and over an annual
period, the rates of production will be expressed as a range (representing the minimum and
maximum distillate production) and annual cumulative production.
3.4.3

Recovery Ratio

Recovery ratio in this study is defined as the volume of fresh water produced per unit volume
of input feed saltwater (excluding any additional saltwater used for cooling). Recovery ratio is
expressed as a percentage as shown in the following equation.

RR =

3.4.4

fresh water
100 %
input feed saltwater

(3-1)

Specific thermal energy consumption

Conventional desalination system usually powered by steam, measure the performance of the
desalination plant by the performance ratio (PR). PR is defined as the ratio between distillate
produced and steam consumed. The specific thermal energy consumption of a solar-thermal
desalination system is defined as the thermal energy input per unit volume of fresh water
produced. The unit is kJ/kL.
3.4.5

Specific electrical energy consumption

For an electrical energy input, the specific energy requirement is usually kWh / kL. All the
electrical energy inputs, such as energy used for instrumentation, pumping and de-aeration,
need to be identified and measured for meaningful comparison.

70

Chapter 3

3.4.6

Cooling water requirements

If a thermal desalination technology uses a separate water stream for cooling, this must be
specified and the extra electrical energy also needs to be identified.
3.4.7

Solar collection area

For solar-thermal desalination systems, the solar collection area determines the amount of
energy that can be captured from the sun. The collection area also dictates the required land
area. The ground area in the case of a SGSP is approximately the same as the pond surface
area whereas in the case of ETSC, the ground area is specific to the location chosen. To
determine the effective ground area, the local latitude at the particular site needs to be taken
into consideration to determine the extra area required between collectors to prevent shading
effects. Sometimes, the distillate production is expressed as volume of fresh water per solar
collection area (L/m2).
3.4.8

Unit costs of fresh water produced based on lifecycle analysis

In this study, the desalination technologies will be compared on a full lifecycle cost analysis.
The capital and operating costs over the plants expected lifetime, and any salvage costs at the
end of its life are considered in the economic analysis. These are converted to present values
using a 5% real discount rate. The total present value is then divided by the total fresh water
production over its lifetime to obtain the unit water cost in $(2008) / kL.

3.5

RMIT Experimental Solar Pond

3.5.1

Description of solar pond

A 53 square metre experimental SGSP was constructed in 1998 at RMIT University, in


Melbourne. The circular solar pond, as shown in Figure 3-7 is 8.2 metres in diameter. The
level of water in the pond is fixed at 2.05 metres from the bottom using an overflow system
(Figure 3-8). Its wall and base are made of reinforced concrete with a thickness of 0.2 metres.
The surface of the concrete is coated with a 1 mm layer of epoxy resin to protect the concrete
against corrosion and possible chemical reactions.

71

Chapter 3

Figure 3-7: 53 m2 experimental solar pond

The pond level is 1.35 metres below the ground level. To remove the salt which slowly
diffuses upwards from the lower layers and to compensate for evaporation losses, fresh water
continuously flows from a mains tap to flush the surface (Figure 3-9). Typically the rate of
flushing is 0.7 LPM. This is about twice the evaporation rate for this particular location.

Figure 3-8: Overflow system

Figure 3-9: Flushing system

Floating rings are distributed over the surface of the pond to reduce mixing that could disturb
the salinity gradient. Each ring, 1.5 mm thick and 35 mm wide, is made from a high-density
polyethylene strip and is 0.6 metres in diameter. The density of the HDPE is just less than the
density of water (940 kg/m3). Therefore the top edge of the rings protrudes slightly above the
surface of the pond. A salt charger (Figure 3-10) is used to replenish the sodium chloride salt
in the pond. The cylindrical charger, with a diameter of 0.6 metres, is made from polyethylene
and is fixed to the wall of the pond. The bottom of the cylinder, which is open, is located 0.56
metres above the bottom of the pond. A 0.4 metres wide, 1.5 metres tall, 10 mm thick glass

72

Chapter 3

window (Figure 3-11) is installed on the western side of the pond to observe the clarity of the
interior of the pond and also to monitor the condition of the internal heat exchanger.

Figure 3-10: Salt charger. Floating rings shown

Figure 3-11: Glass window for


observation

The solar pond was refurbished between June and December 2006. A 100 mm thick layer of
polystyrene insulation was placed on the bed of the pond to reduced heat losses to the ground.
The thermal conductivity and density of the insulation are 0.03 w/m.oC and 35 kg/m3,
respectively. Due to the insulations low density, the insulation experiences an upthrust. A
layer of concrete, 180 mm thick was poured on top of the insulation to counteract the
buoyancy force. The pond was designed with a depth of 2.05 m. The bottom storage zone was
designed to be 0.56 m thick, the gradient zone 1.34 m thick and the top convective zone 0.15
m thick. The pond was refilled in January 2007 and the salinity gradient was re-established
using an injection filling technique (Fynn and Short, 1983). In this filling technique, the solar
pond is partially filled with saturated brine at a volume equal to the desired storage zone plus
half of the gradient zone (to a depth of 1.23 m in this case). Fresh water was then injected
starting at a point which will define the storage and gradient zone boundary or NCZ-LCZ
interface (0.56 m from the bottom in this case) using a diffuser. The diffuser was then moved
upward continuously or stepwise at a rate twice that of the increase in pond water level.

73

Chapter 3

Figure 3-12: Diffuser used to set-up gradient

The diffuser as shown in Figure 3-12 was used for this operation and the flow rate was
adjusted to maintain the correct Froude number calculated using the following equation by
Zangrando (1991);
V2
Fr =

( g B )

12

(3-2)

where is the density of the surrounding saline fluid, v is the injection velocity at the diffuser
outlet, g is the acceleration due to gravity, is the density difference between the injected
fluid and the surrounding fluid and B is the gap width of the diffuser. Zangrado (1991)
suggests that Fr = 15 should be maintained during the filling process. It took four days to
build the gradient. The establishment started on the morning of 4th January 2007 and ended on
the evening of 7th January 2007. The injection lasted about ten hours every day. After the
injection was completed, the pond level was 1.85 m and fresh water was added onto the pond
surface through a floating sheet of plywood as shown in Figure 3-9. Figure 3-13 shows the
development of the salinity distribution of the pond during the gradient establishment. As
shown in the figure, the daily results fit the designed density profile well.

74

Chapter 3

Density Profile Development (January 2007)


2.0
1.8
1.6

Height (m)

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
995

3 Jan 07 - Initial Profile


4 Jan 07
5 Jan 07
6 Jan 07
7 JAN 07
Designed Profile
1015

1035

1055

1075

1095
1115
1135
3
Density (kg/m )

1155

1175

1195

1215

Figure 3-13: Salinity profile development during gradient establishment

Figure 3-14 shows the UCZ and LCZ temperature variations during the first one and a half
months after the salinity gradient was set up. It can be seen from the figure that that the
bottom temperature increased at an average daily rate of about 0.7oC.

Figure 3-14: Temperature variation in UCZ and LCZ just after gradient set-up

75

Chapter 3

3.5.2

Monitoring system and maintenance of clarity

3.5.2.1 Heat extraction and monitoring system

The internal heat exchanger (Figure 3-15), installed to a frame which is fixed to the wall, is
made of reinforced polyethylene pipe (32 mm OD, 3mm thick). The plastic tubing is ideal for
the highly corrosive environment. The way the pipe was fixed to the frame allows it to move
freely in the circumferential direction to allow for any contraction and expansion. There are
22 rows of tubes and the total length of the in-pond heat exchanger is 560 metres. The thermal
conductivity of the polyethylene pipe is 0.37 W/m.oC. Another heat exchanger (Figure 3-16)
was installed on the floor of the solar pond for heat extraction from the LCZ only; however,
this heat exchanger was not used in the current research project.

Figure 3-15: In-pond heat exchanger (heat


extraction from NCZ and LCZ)

Figure 3-16: In-pond heat exchanger (heat


extraction from LCZ only)

A data acquisition system (model: DataTaker DT500 Series 2) was set up to allow continuous
temperature measurements from 57 different T-type thermocouples, having an accuracy of
(1.0oC or 0.75% of the temperature reading); whichever is greater, used in and around the
pond (Figure 3-18). The DT500 has a thermocouple measurement accuracy of (0.16% of the
full-scale reading + 1.2oC).
A thermocouple was placed on the surface of each row of the polyethylene pipe (Figure 3-17)
and insulated with Armaflex tube insulation to allow measurement of the heat exchanger wall
temperature. At the same location, thermocouples were positioned to measure the in-pond
water. One thermocouple was placed above the UCZ to measure the ambient temperature and
another one was placed on the bed of the pond 2 metres from the wall. Nine additional
76

Chapter 3

thermocouples were installed during the ponds refurbishment to measure the ground heat
losses. Three thermocouples were placed below the insulation at a distance of 20 mm, 2 m
and 4 m from the wall. Similarly, three thermocouples were placed between the insulation and
the concrete slab at the same distances. The remaining three thermocouples were placed 5 mm
below the surface of the concrete slab as shown in Figure 3-19 below.

Figure 3-17: Location of thermocouples

Figure 3-18: DataTaker DT500

Figure 3-19: Schematic view of pond showing location of thermocouples

77

Chapter 3

3.5.2.2 Experimental setup

Figure 3-20: Schematic heat extraction system in solar pond

A schematic of the heat extraction system is shown in Figure 3-20. A small submersible pump
(with a maximum flow of 950 litres per hour and a maximum head of 1.8 m) was used to
circulate the water during heat extraction. Two thermocouples were installed at the inlet and
outlet of the heat exchanger and connected to the existing monitoring system.
A vertical clear plastic pipe was connected to the inlet of the heat exchanger to measure the
pressure drop and hence the pumping head. A valve was also connected to control the flow
rate (Figure 3-22). A breather tube was connected to the vertical riser on the outlet of the heat
exchanger to allow bubbles of air to be released from the circulating fluid (Figure 3-21).

Figure 3-21: Breather tube connected to outlet

Figure 3-22: Clear plastic pipe connected to inlet

78

Chapter 3

Temperatures in and around the pond were recorded at half hour intervals by the monitoring
system. This was done for the entire period while heat was being extracted from the pond.
Temperatures at the inlet and outlet of the heat exchanger were measured every five minutes.

3.5.2.3 Clarity maintenance

An adjustable pole was fixed to the wall of the pond for manual measurements. Parameters
regularly measured include temperature, density, pH and turbidity profiles. A hand-held
Anton Par density meter was used for measurement of density. The meter also gives the
temperature of the sample which can be used together with the density reading to calculate the
salinity. The brine transparency nepthalometric turbidity units (NTU) measurement was
provided by a turbidity meter. It is essential to maintain the clarity of the pond to maximise
the transmission of solar radiation to the LCZ and hence the thermal performance and
stability. An increase in turbidity is caused by many factors including dust, leaves and debris.
Some of these particles settle to the bottom of the pond while others simply suspend at some
level in the gradient layer. It is recommended that NTU < 1.0 to maximise light transmission
through the gradient layer to the lower convective zone.
Attempts have been made at RMIT in the past to maintain the clarity using brine shrimps.
However, the population of brine shrimps decreased gradually to extinction possibly due the
lack of dissolved oxygen in the water. Another practical way of maintaining the clarity is to
reduce the pH of the brine to 4 or less by adding hydrochloric (HCl) acid (Hull, 1989). At the
RMIT pond, chemical treatment was administered since January 2007 by injecting HCl at
different heights to maintain the pH below 4 (Figure 3-23).

Figure 3-23: Acid injection pipes with outlets at different heights in the pond

79

Chapter 3

The turbidity and pH profiles of the pond was monitored regularly to determine the heights at
which acidification was needed to maintain the right pH. However, after using acid for over
twenty months, algae bloom was observed at the surface and in the UCZ, even with a low pH
of 4. Some local species have eventually adapted and survived at the lower pH, resulting in
further acidification to maintain the clarity. One of the disadvantages of having a low pH is
the rapid deterioration of metal fittings in the pond. The heat exchanger supports are made of
galvanised iron and extensive corrosion and pitting was observed (Figure 3-24).

Figure 3-24: Corrosion of metal supports due to low pH

3.5.2.4 Observation of salt precipitation

Crystallisation of sodium chloride was observed at some stage when adding HCl acid near the
NCZ-LCZ interface. A further test was performed by adding some HCl to the saturated brine
obtained from lower convective zone. Adding HCl acid to the saturated NaCl solution caused
NaCl to crystallise (Figure 3-25). This phenomenon can be explained by Le Chateliers
Principle (Clugston and Flemming, 2000): If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a
change in temperature, pressure, or the concentration of one of its components, the system
will shift its equilibrium position so as to counteract the effect of the disturbance.
Sodium chloride dissolves and dissociates in water to [Na+] and [Cl-]. The reaction is
reversible (Equation (3-3)).
NaCl(s) [Na+] + [Cl-]

(3-3)

The concentrations of [Na+] and [Cl-] are related by Equation (3-3). When multiplied together,
the concentrations of [Na+] and [Cl-] give a fairly constant value called the solubility product
constant (Ksp) which is the highest concentration before precipitation will occur. That is, if the
product [Na+] [Cl-] is greater than Ksp of NaCl, NaCl crystals will be formed.
80

Chapter 3

Ksp = [Na+][Cl-]

(3-4)

In the lower convective zone, the saturated aqueous brine solution means that the maximum
amount of NaCl which can be dissolved in a given amount of water is present. The
concentration of both the sodium ion and the chloride ion in a saturated solution of NaCl is
5.4M. This means that at the most 5.4M of [Na+] and 5.4M of [Cl-] can exist in the solution.
By adding hydrochloric acid which is 12M in [Cl-], the concentration of [Cl-] increases
dramatically. The product [Na+][Cl-] becomes greater than the Ksp of NaCl. This disturbs the
dynamic chemical equilibrium. Crystallisation of NaCl thus occurs to relieve this stress.
Precipitation of NaCl can cause convection currents near the NCZ-LCZ interface and disturb
part of the gradient layer and make it locally unstable. It can also affect the clarity of the pond
by making the lower convective zone cloudy for some time. Therefore, special care had to be
taken to avoid acid injection close to the NCZ-LCZ interface.

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 3-25: Salt precipitation observation (a) on bottom of pond (b) before adding HCl to saturated
NaCl solution in beaker (c) after adding HCl acid to NaCl

3.5.3

Experimental studies on heat extraction from gradient layer

3.5.3.1 Conventional heat extraction methods

The conventional method of heat extraction from a solar pond is to draw the heat from the
LCZ only (Figure 3-26). This can be done using an in-pond heat exchanger located in the
LCZ. A heat transfer fluid circulates in a closed cycle through the internal heat exchanger and
transfers its thermal energy through an external heat exchanger. This method was applied to
the 3000 m2 solar pond at Pyramid Hill, Australia. Heat extraction can also be performed by
pumping the hot brine from the top of the LCZ through an external heat exchanger and then

81

Chapter 3

returning the brine at a reduced temperature to the bottom of the LCZ. The velocity of the
brine being pumped needs to be regulated to prevent erosion of the gradient layer.

(a) using internal heat exchanger

(b) using external heat exchanger

Figure 3-26: Conventional method of heat extraction

3.5.3.2 Theoretical analysis of heat extraction from the gradient layer

Heat has been successfully extracted from the lower convective zone of solar ponds for
industrial process heating, space heating and power generation (Andrews and Akbarzadeh,
2002; Rabl and Nielsen, 1975; Tabor and Doron, 1986). An alternative way of extracting heat
from solar ponds was investigated theoretically with the aim of improving the overall energy
efficiency by Akbarzadeh and Andrews (2006). In this method, heat is extracted from the
NCZ as well as, or instead of, the LCZ. The following key idealised assumptions were made
in the theoretical analysis:
1. The only process of heat transfer is vertically by conduction. The pond is stable with no
convection in the gradient layer. Heat extraction from the gradient layer has no significant
adverse effects on the hydrodynamic stability of the solar pond
2. There is no heat loss to the ground or the sides
3. The working fluid in the heat exchanger has exactly the same temperature as the pond at
the same level
4. The heat transfer fluid is in thermal equilibrium with the ambient before entering the heat
exchanger in the gradient layer.
The theoretical analysis showed that heat extraction from the gradient layer improves the
thermal efficiency of the solar pond. For example, a solar pond delivering heat at a rate of
82

Chapter 3

about 45 W/m2 and a temperature of 50C above ambient, for a given set of conditions, will
operate at an efficiency of just over 22% if heat is extracted just from the LCZ. The same
pond will be able to deliver heat at the same temperature but with an efficiency of about 28%
if the heat removed from the LCZ is reduced to 35 W/m2, and instead additional heat is
removed from the gradient layer at the rate of 21 W/m2. If no heat is removed from the LCZ,
and heat is extracted only from the gradient layer, then the efficiency increases to 33%, with
around 65 W/m2 of heat being delivered. Extraction of heat from the gradient layer can
decrease heat losses to the surface and hence result in an increase in the overall thermal
energy efficiency of up to 50%.
As part of the present research project, the effect of heat extraction from the gradient layer on
the performance of the 53 m2 experimental solar pond at Bundoora East, RMIT was
investigated and the results compared with the theoretical predictions.

3.5.3.3 Heat exchanger theoretical performance calculations

The rate of heat extraction from the solar pond is given by


Qsp = A o Uo LMTD

(3-5)

where Ao is the external surface area of the heat exchanger, Uo is the overall heat transfer
coefficient based on the external surface area (in W/m2.oC) and LMTD is given by

LMTD =

Thx,o - Thx,i

)(

ln Tp - Thx,i / Tp - Thx,o

(3-6)

where Thx,i , Thx,o and Tp are the temperature of the inlet and outlet of the internal heat
exchanger and pond, respectively.
The thermal energy extracted is given by

Qsp = m CP, sp ( Thx,o - Thx,i )

(3-7)

Where m is the mass flow rate (in kg/s) and Cp, sp is the specific heat of the circulating brine
(in J/kg.oC).
Thermal efficiency is defined as the ratio of total heat removed from the solar pond to the
total amount of solar radiation which has fallen on the surface of the solar pond during a
defined period. The pond efficiency can be calculated as follows:
83

Chapter 3

sp =

m C p , sp Thx , o Thx , i

(3-8)

G A sp

Where G is the solar radiation at the surface of the pond (in W/m2) and Asp is the area of the
solar pond.
Numerous theoretical and experimental investigations have been carried out to determine the
thermal efficiency of solar ponds. A transient computational analysis on the performance of
solar ponds under varying conditions carried out by Wang and Akbarzadeh (1982) showed
that a solar pond could provide heat at an efficiency of 15% and at an average temperature of
about 87oC or at 20% efficiency and an average temperature not higher than 65oC.
The overall heat transfer coefficient can be found from

Q = A o Uo LMTD =

LMTD
1
sin ce Ao U o =
Roverall
Roverall

(3-9)

where

Roverall = RP + R FO + RWT + RFI + Rwater =

R fo
d
1
1
ln o
+
+
ho Ao Ao 2 kWT L d i

R fi
1
+
+
Ai hi Ai

(3-10)

In Equation (3-10) above, Rp represent the convection heat transfer from the brine in the solar
pond to the wall tube, RFO is the resistance due to fouling on the solar pond side, RWT is the
thermal resistance of the wall tube, RFI is the resistance due to fouling on the heat transfer
fluid (HTF) side and Rwater represent the convection heat transfer from the wall tube to the
HTF. ho and hi are the convective heat transfer coefficients (in w/m2.oC), Rfo and Rfi are the
fouling factors at those surfaces (in m2.oC/W), kWT is the thermal conductivity of the wall tube
(W/m.oC), L is the total length of the heat exchanger; and do and di are the external and
internal diameters of the pipe.
For this experiment, the fluid flow rate in the pipe was fixed at 4.4 LPM. The properties were
evaluated at the mean temperature. The Reynolds number was found to be in the turbulent
flow range (around 4,000). The following correlation by Gnielinski (1976) was used to
determine the Nusselt number.

84

Chapter 3

Nui =

( f 8)( Re 1000 ) Pr
12
1 + 12.7 ( f 8 ) ( Pr 2 3 1)

(3-11)

The correlation above is valid for 0.5 < Pr < 2000, 3000 Re 5 x 106 and (L/D) 10. The
friction factor for smooth tubes developed by Petukhov et al. (1970) for 3000 Re 5 x 106 is
given by:
f = ( 0.790 ln Re 1.64 )

(3-12)

The Nusselt number was found to be 30.1. By knowing the thermal conductivity of the HTF
(ki), the internal convective heat transfer coefficient, hi, can be found from:
hi =

Nui ki
di

(3-13)

The average Nusselt number (Nuo) for a free convective flow with a uniform temperature
around a cylindrical pipe is given by Churchill and Chu (1975). The correlation is valid for Ra
1012.

ho d o
0.387 Ra1 6
= 0.60 +
Nuo =
8 27
ko
1 + ( 0.559 Pr )9 16

(3-14)

where ko is the thermal conductivity of the surrounding brine. Rayleigh number is defined as
Ra =

g (Ts T ) d o3

kT

(3-15)

Where g is the acceleration due to gravity, is the thermal expansion coefficient (in 1/oC),
Ts is the surface temperature of the pipe, T is the temperature of the surrounding brine, is
the kinematic viscosity (in m2/s) and kT is the thermal diffusivity (m2/s).
When dealing with sodium chloride solutions, the range for is (0.3 to 7.4) x 10-4 1/oC while
the range for KT is (1.3 to 1.8) x 10-7 m2/s (Hull et al., 1989). At a density of 1110 kg/m3,
and KT can be assumed to be 5.79 x 10-4 1/oC and 1.68 x 10-7 m2/s, respectively. The fouling
coefficient Rfi and Rfo were assumed to be 0.0005 and 0.004 m2.oC/W, respectively. The
fouling coefficient is much higher on the outside of the pipe due to particles like dust settling
on the wall tube. Using Equations (3-14) and (3-15), the external convective heat transfer
coefficient, ho, can be found.
85

Chapter 3

3.5.3.4 Experimental results

Figure 3-27 shows the monthly average global solar radiation (in W/m2), (a) during the past
18 years and (b) during the past two years only, for Melbourne Airport, a site near the pond.
These data were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM, 2008).
Monthly Average Global Solar Radiation (during the last 18 years)

325

300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
Jan90

Monthly Average Global Solar Radiation (during 2006 and 2007)

350

325

Monthly Average Global Solar Radiation (W/m2)

Monthly Average Global Solar Radiation (W/m2)

350

300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25

Jan91

Jan92

Jan93

Jan94

Jan95

Jan96

Jan97

Jan98

Jan99

Jan00

Jan01

Jan02

Jan03

Jan04

Jan05

Jan06

Jan07

0
Jan-06

Jan08

Mar-06

May-06

Day (from January 1, 1990 to June 30, 2008)

Jul-06

Sep-06

Nov-06

Jan-07

Mar-07

May-07

Jul-07

Sep-07

Nov-07

Jan-08

Day (from January 1, 2006 to January 1, 2008)

(a) Jan 1, 1990 to June 30, 2008

(b) Jan 1, 2006 to Jan 1, 2008

Figure 3-27: Monthly average global solar irradiance

Heat was extracted from the pond from 8th May to 2nd July 2008 using the closed loop heat
extraction system (Figure 3-20). The pump flow rate was adjusted to 4.3 LPM. Figure 3-28
below shows the daily average temperature of the ambient, UCZ and LCZ. Also shown are
the inlet and outlet temperatures of the heat exchanger during the heat extraction period.

Temperature (oC)

Daily Average Temperatures of Ambient, UCZ (HX_Inlet), LCZ and Outlet of Heat Exchanger
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

LCZ
Heat Extraction
th

HX_Outlet

nd

(8 May to 2 July)

Ambient
UCZ / HX_Inlet

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

91

101

111

121

131

141

151

161

Days (25th April to 2nd October 2008)

Figure 3-28: Daily average temperatures of ambient, UCZ (which is also HX_Inlet), LCZ
and outlet of heat exchanger

As clearly shown, the LCZ temperature before heat extraction was around 42oC. The
temperature was reduced to 20oC for the next 30 days. This considerable temperature drop of
86

Chapter 3

22oC is due to the high flow rate (needed to avoid air pockets in the heat exchanger). Then the
temperature remained fairly constant at 18-20oC during two periods of seven days (Figure
3-29). When heat removal ceased, the LCZ rose to 23oC in the first month. Three months after
heat extraction, the LCZ temperature was about 38oC. The ambient temperature fluctuated
through the months since the sinusoidal variation is related to the solar radiation intensity. It
was lower than the UCZ temperature during heat removal since the working fluid, after being
heated was returned to the surface.

Temperature (oC)

Daily Average Temperatures of Ambient, UCZ (HX_Inlet), LCZ and Outlet of Heat Exchanger
(during Heat Extraction)
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0

Heat Extraction (8th May to 2nd July)


LCZ
HX_Outlet
UCZ / HX_Inlet
Ambient

Steady state (A)

Steady state (B)

12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70
Days (6th May to 4th July 2008)

Figure 3-29: Daily average temperatures of ambient, UCZ, LCZ and outlet of heat
exchanger during heat removal only (steady-states also shown)

Two steady-state periods are identified in Figure 3-29. In the first and second steady stages,
the LCZ temperatures were stable for 7 days at 20oC (7th to 14th June) and 18oC (20th to 27th
June), respectively. Since, the working fluid was pumped from the surface using a
submersible pump; the inlet to the heat exchanger had the same temperature as the UCZ. The
outlet temperature had a similar trend as the LCZ temperature but was 0.7oC lower due to heat
losses from the tubes as the working fluid passes through the progressively cooler layers of
the NCZ. The temperature gains across the heat exchanger during the first and second steady
stages were ~ 5.3oC and 4.9oC, respectively. This corresponds to a heat extraction of around
1.5 kW. Approximately 63% (940 watts) of the total heat was extracted from the NCZ and the
remaining 37% (560 watts) from the LCZ.
Figure 3-30 shows the daily average fluxes of solar radiation, heat extraction and energy lost
to the surface by conduction during heat removal. The daily solar radiation was fairly constant
87

Chapter 3

during the identified steady-state periods. The lost energy to the surface was calculated as a
one dimensional heat conduction process. The upward lost energy was negligible (2.9 4.8%
of solar irradiation flux). The energy lost to the sides was neglected in this analysis since there
was no temperature sensors mounted in the surrounding walls.

Daily Average Heat Fluxes of Solar Radiation, Heat Removal and Energy Lost to Surface

160
150
140

Steady state (A)

130

Steady state (B)

120

Energy Flux (W/m2)

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

th

44
nd

Days (8 May to 2
Solar Radiation

Heat Extracted

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

July 2008)
Energy Lost to surface

Figure 3-30: Daily average heat fluxes of solar ration, heat removal and energy lost to the
surface (steady-states also shown)

In Figure 3-31, the daily average heat fluxes of lost / gained energy through the bottom of the
pond have been plotted for 11 distinct days at two-week intervals. A positive heat flux means
that heat is being transferred from the pond to the ground beneath the pond. The heat fluxes
were calculated using the measurements from the temperature sensors mounted at different
locations between the concrete bases and the insulation (see Figure 3-19). It is clear that the
pond was gaining heat from the ground at an average rate of 3 W/m2 from 15th May to 3rd
August (winter months). During other times (25th April to 14th May; 3rd August to 21st
September), it was loosing heat to the ground at an average rate of 2.3 W/m2. Zhang and
Wang (1990) simulation studies on the thermal storage of the ground beneath solar ponds
revealed that the ground thermal storage is more efficient when heat is removed from the
pond in cold seasons. The lost / gain energy fluxes (3.0 4.6% of solar irradiation flux) are
negligible due to the polystyrene insulation sheets.

88

Chapter 3
Daily Average Heat Fluxes through Concrete Base and Insulation

7.0
6.0

Heat Extraction

5.0

(8th May to 2nd July)

Daily Average Heat Flux (W/m )

4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
-1.0

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

91

101

111

121

131

141

Concrete (20mm from wall)


Concrete (2m from wall)
Concrete (4m from wall)
Insulation (20mm from wall)
Insulation (2m from wall)
Insulation (4m from wall)

-2.0
-3.0
-4.0
-5.0
-6.0
-7.0
Days (25th April to 21st September 2008)

Figure 3-31: Daily average heat fluxes through concrete base and insulation (data analysed
for 11 distinct days at two-week intervals)

The efficiency of the solar pond (defined as the ratio of daily heat removed to the total daily
solar radiation received at the pond surface) during heat extraction is plotted in Figure 3-32. It
can be seen that the average efficiencies during the first and second steady-stage periods are
32.8% and 35.8%, respectively. At other times, the efficiency were either temporarily raised
(if the amount of energy withdrawn is more than the incoming solar radiation corresponding
to cloudy days) or decreased due to fluctuating solar radiation. If the heat gain fluxes from the
ground beneath the solar pond are taken into account (see Figure 3-31), the average
efficiencies during the first and second steady-stage periods would be 31.7% and 34.4%,
respectively. Also, if the heat gains (during winter months) from the surrounding walls are
included in this analysis, this would reduce the average efficiencies further. It is noteworthy
that in addition to the gains through gradient layer heat extraction, higher efficiencies would
be expected due to the low temperature of the LCZ (in this first experimental study),
compared to the required operating temperature of 80oC in many applications.

89

Chapter 3
Efficiency of Solar Pond during Steady-State
100%
95%
90%
85%
80%
75%

Steady state (A)

70%

Steady state (B)

Efficiency (%)

65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%

Avg. Eff ~ 35.8 %.

Avg. Eff ~ 32.8 %.

15%
10%
5%
0%
42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54
th

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

th

Days (5 to 30 June 2008)

Figure 3-32: Efficiency of solar pond (ratio of heat removal to incoming solar radiation)

3.5.3.5 Measurement Profiles

Density profiles in the pond from 17th April to 26th September 2008 are plotted in Figure 3-33.
The figure shows a well maintained strong salinity gradient, with no convective layers
present. From the position of the two boundaries of the NCZ, it can be seen that the UCZ and
LCZ thicknesses are 15 and 85 cm, respectively, leaving the NCZ with 105 cm.
[Density Profiles during 2008] (3 profiles before heat extraction, 6 during and 11 after)

Height (m)

2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
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
990

1000

1010

1020

1030

1040

1050

1060

1070

1080

1090

1100

1110

1120

1130

1140

1150

1160

1170

1180

1190

1200

1210

1220

Density (kg / m )
17-Apr-08

24-Apr-08

07-May-08

15-May-08

23-May-08

29-May-08

14-Jun-08

21-Jun-08

28-Jun-08

04-Jul-08

11-Jul-08

18-Jul-08

24-Jul-08

31-Jul-08

16-Aug-08

22-Aug-08

28-Aug-08

05-Sep-08

12-Sep-08

26-Sep-08

Figure 3-33: Density profiles in 2008 (three profiles before heat extraction, six during and 11
after)

90

Chapter 3

In Figure 3-34, the temperature profiles in the pond have been plotted from 23rd January to
26th September 2008. The profile during heat removal on 27th June is also plotted. The
significant change in the LCZ temperature can clearly be seen from this figure.

Height (m)

[Temperature Profiles during 2008] (4 profiles before heat extraction, 1 during and 12 after)
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
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
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

Temperature ( C)
23-Jan-08
11-Jul-08
28-Aug-08

01-Feb-08
18-Jul-08
05-Sep-08

10-Apr-08
24-Jul-08
12-Sep-08

24-Apr-08
31-Jul-08
19-Sep-08

27-Jun-08
08-Aug-08
26-Sep-08

04-Jul-08
16-Aug-08

Figure 3-34: Temperature profiles in 2008 (four profiles before heat extraction, one during and 12 after)

The pH of the brine in the pond (mainly in the UCZ and NCZ) was kept below 4 most of the
time to maintain the clarity (Figure 3-35).

Height (m)

[pH Profiles during 2008] (3 profiles before heat extraction, 7 during and 14 after)
2.1
2.0
1.9
1.8
1.7
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
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

29-May-08
31-Jul-08
26-Sep-08

08-Jun-08
08-Aug-08
04-Oct-08

6.5

7.0

pH
10-Apr-08
21-Jun-08
22-Aug-08

24-Apr-08
28-Jun-08
28-Aug-08

07-May-08
04-Jul-08
05-Sep-08

15-May-08
11-Jul-08
12-Sep-08

23-May-08
18-Jul-08
19-Sep-08

14-Jun-08
16-Aug-08
09-Oct-08

Figure 3-35: pH profiles in 2008 (three profiles before heat extraction, seven during and 14
after)

91

Chapter 3

3.5.3.6 Modelling validation and comparative analysis

A number of assumptions were made in the theoretical analysis by Akbarzadeh and Andrews
(2006) on heat extraction from the gradient layer. As discussed in previous sections, the heat
fluxes of energy lost / gained through the bottom of the pond were neglected in the calculation
of the efficiency. (The heat fluxes through the bottom of the pond were only 3.0 to 4.6% of
total solar irradiation flux). This would only change the efficiency values by 3 to 4%. The
effect of the heat fluxes through the surrounding walls was neglected due to unavailability of
temperature sensors in the walls. It is important to note that the heat loss through the
surrounding walls (below ground level) during summer months would be significant since the
walls are insulated above ground only.
One of the main objectives of the experimental investigation was to determine the effect of
heat extraction from the gradient layer on the hydrodynamic stability of the solar pond. The
stability of the NCZ is critical to maintain good thermal performance. A number of
temperature profiles were taken at different distances, in a radial direction, from the heat
exchanger pipes. Figure 3-36 shows large temperature fluctuations for profiles taken near the
tubes. No similar phenomena were observed at about 800 1,000 mm from the heat
exchanger tubes, clearly showing that the fluctuations observed near the tubes are indications
of localised convective currents due to the cooling effect of the heat transfer fluid flowing in
the heat exchanger tubes. This had no effect on the density profile as shown in Figure 3-33.

Temperature Profiles at diferrent distances from the Heat Exchanger Pipes


(during Heat Removal on 25th and 27th June 2008)

2.1
2.0

140mm

1.9

450mm

1.8
1.7

660mm

1.6

1000mm

1.5
1.4

Height (m)

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
10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

18.0

19.0

Temperature ( C)

Figure 3-36: Temperature profiles at different distances from the heat exchanger pipes (during
heat removal)

In the theoretical analysis, an idealised perfect heat exchanger was assumed such that there
was no temperature difference between the temperature of the brine in the pond and the
92

Chapter 3

temperature of the HTF at the same depth. However, there was some temperature drop as
shown in Figure 3-37, leading to a reduction in the amount of heat being extracted. This
temperature drop (having an average of 1.6 oC) was partly due to fouling on the outside of the
heat exchanger tubes. The temperature of the HTF was approximated by measuring the
surface temperature of the heat exchanger pipes. The HTF would in practice be 2-3oC lower
than the surface temperature of the pipes. It is also clear from the figure that the HTF leaves
the heat exchanger with a temperature close to the LCZ.
Average Daily Temperature Profiles of HX Pipe Surface and Brine in Pond
2.0
1.9

Pond Temperature (09/05/08)

1.8

Pipe Surface Temperature (09/05/08)

1.7

Pond Temperature (08/06/08)

1.6

Pipe Surface Temperature (08/06/08)

1.5
1.4
1.3
Height (m)

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
14 15

16 17

18 19 20

21 22 23

24 25 26 27 28 29 30
o
Temperature ( C)

31 32 33

34 35 36

37 38

39 40

Figure 3-37: Temperature profiles of surface of heat exchanger pipes and brine in pond

The average temperature difference between the UCZ and the ambient was 1oC during the
monitoring period when no heat was extracted. But during heat removal, since the brine
pumped from the UCZ was returned to the surface after being heated, the temperature of the
UCZ was higher than the ambient by an average of 2.5oC (Figure 3-38). This also occurs in
applications where the upper zone is used as cooling water and the return is hot. If a discrete
water circuit was used instead, the HTF would have entered the heat exchanger at a
temperature equal to or close to ambient.

93

Chapter 3
Daily Average Ambient and UCZ Temperatures

23
22
21

Heat Extraction

20

(8th May to 2nd July)

19
18
Temperature (oC)

17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9

Ambient

UCZ / HX_Inlet

7
6
5
1

11

21

31

41

51

61

71

81

91

101

111

121

131

141

151

161

Days (25th April to 2nd October 2008)

Figure 3-38: Daily average ambient and UCZ temperature

Using the equation described earlier, the theoretical overall heat transfer coefficient based on
the external surface area was found to be around 59 W/m2.oC. 46% of this value is attributed
to the thermal resistance of the wall tube, 24% to the resistance due to fouling on the outer
surface, 16% to the inside convective resistance, 10% to the outer convective resistance and
4% to the resistance due to fouling on the HTF side. The internal and external convective heat
transfer coefficients were found to be hi = 560 W/m2.oC and ho = 435 W/m2.oC, respectively.
The overall heat transfer coefficient based on the experimental data obtained is only 16
W/m2.oC (27% of theoretical value) as shown in Figure 3-39. Such a low heat transfer
coefficient is partly due to the fouling on the outside of the pipes, which was underestimated
in the theoretical analysis.

94

Chapter 3
Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient (Based on External Surface Area)
70

60

U (W/m2.oC)

50

40

30

20

10
Steady state (B)

Steady state (A)

0
14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

Days (8th May to 2nd July 2008)


OHTC (Theoretical)

OHTC (Experimental)

Figure 3-39: Overall heat transfer coefficient (based on external surface area)

3.5.3.7 Temperature gradient profiles

The temperatures of the profiles taken on the first day of heat removal (7th May 2008) and
five weeks later (14th June 2008) were expressed in a non-dimensional form using the
following equation to examine the differences in the temperature gradient.

T ( x) Ttop
Tbottom Ttop

(3-16)

where (theta) is the non-dimensional temperature, T(x) is the brine temperature at position
x, Ttop is the temperature at the top of the NCZ and Tbottom is the temperature at the bottom of
the NCZ.
In Figure 3-40, the profile taken during heat removal was approximated by a 2nd order
polynomial trendline due to the fluctuations caused by localised convective currents, as
explained earlier. Clearly, the temperature profiles in the two cases are different but have the
same end point temperature.

95

Chapter 3
[Non-Dimensional Temperature Profiles] Height versus Theta
1.90
1.85

07-May-08

1.80

14-Jun-08

1.75

Just before Heat Extraction

1.70

Poly. (14-Jun-08)

1.65

Poly. (07-May-08)

1.60
1.55
1.50
Height (m)

1.45
1.40
1.35
1.30
1.25
1.20
1.15
1.10
1.05

During Heat Extraction

1.00
0.95
0.90
0.85
0.80
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00
Theta

Figure 3-40: Non-dimensional experimental temperature profiles

Non-Dimensional Temperature and Temperature Gradient Profiles


100

1.0

90

0.9
0.8

Just before Heat Extraction

70

0.7

60

0.6

50

0.5
During Heat Extraction

40

0.4

30

0.3

20

0.2

10

0.1

Theta

Temperature Gradient ( oC/m)

80

0.0
1.9

1.8

1.7

1.6

1.5

1.4

1.3

1.2

1.1

1.0

0.9

0.8

Height above bottom of pond (m) [within NCZ]


Temp. Profile (7 May 2008)

Temp. Profile (14 June 2008)

Temp. Gradient (7 May 2008)

Temp. Gradient (14 June 2008)

Figure 3-41: Non-dimensional experimental temperature gradient profiles

The temperature gradient profiles for the two different cases are plotted in Figure 3-41. The
shape of the profiles are similar to the ones predicted in the theoretical analysis by
Akbarzadeh and Andrews (2006). In the case when heat extraction has just started, the
96

Chapter 3

temperature gradient near the top of the NCZ is high (~ 79oC/m). At the bottom of the NCZ,
the temperature gradient is very low. On 14th June 2008 however, the temperature gradient
profile has reversed. Now, the temperature gradient is small (~ 5oC/m) at the top of the NCZ,
as compared to the other case. And at the bottom, the temperature gradient is relatively high
which corresponds to an upward conduction heat flux from the LCZ. The small temperature
gradient at the surface means that there is very little heat loss by conduction to the UCZ. This
results in a higher thermal efficiency.

3.5.3.8 Practical implications

By extracting heat from the NCZ, the process is closer to being reversible since the
temperature difference between the brine in the pond and the HTF is small. This method is
well suited for applications where it is desired to heat a HTF from ambient temperature to the
temperature of the LCZ. In the experimental study, the temperature of the LCZ initially
decreased very quickly due to the HTF high flow rate until it reached a steady-state. A
salinity-gradient solar pond with heat extraction from the NCZ and/or LCZ could serve as an
emergency source of energy. For instance, it could provide heat at a high rate for power
generation during peak time for a short duration (three to five hours). This new method of
heat extraction is promising since the convection currents were only localised and the density
profiles were unaffected. However, to use this method of heat extraction in medium- to largescale systems, a different type of heat exchanger needs to be considered. A possibility is to
use an external heat exchanger to withdraw and re-inject salt solutions at a number of
different levels within the NCZ. However, the effect of the substantial heat extraction from
the NCZ at different levels on the stability of the salinity gradient (both vertically and
horizontally) is still an open question. An experimental study using an external heat
exchanger for brine extraction and re-injection at different levels still needs to be conducted to
determine the feasibility. Moreover, an economic analysis needs to be conducted to evaluate if
the economic gains from increased thermal efficiency can help to recoup the additional capital
and operating costs of the gradient layer heat extraction system.

97

Chapter 4

MODELLING OF SOLAR PONDS AND EVACUATED


TUBULAR SOLAR COLLECTORS
This chapter details the modelling techniques used to simulate the salinitygradient solar pond and the evacuated tubular solar collectors.

4.1

Theoretical Model of Salinity-Gradient Solar Pond

4.1.1

Modelling of SGSP using finite difference formulation

There have been previous studies on the thermal behaviour of salinity-gradient solar ponds
(SGSP), including investigation of the effects of ground heat storage, different modes of heat
extraction, and influences of different parameters on the thermal efficiency. A computer
model for solar ponds using finite difference techniques was first proposed by Tybout (1967).
The same technique was later used by Hull (1980) and Wang and Akbarzadeh (1982) for
further analysis of performance.
In the present study, a one-dimensional transient model of a SGSP, partly similar to that used
by Wang and Akbarzadeh (1982), has been developed using a finite difference formulation to
determine the ponds performance at different heat extraction rates when coupled with
thermal desalination processes, thereby optimising the solar collection area.

4.1.2

SGSP modelling assumptions

The following assumptions were made in the modelling of the SGSP:


1. Wall effects are neglected
2. The upper convective zone (UCZ) is assumed to be totally convective and treated as one
layer. The temperature of the UCZ is thus assumed to be uniform and equal to the ambient
temperature
3. The lower convective zone (LCZ) is treated as a single layer with an effective thermal
conductivity determined by the heat transfer coefficient of natural convection in that zone
4. The bottom of the pond is lined with deep clay instead of a plastic membrane liner. The
temperature at the bottom of the clay layer is assumed to be constant and equal to the
yearly average ambient temperature
98

Chapter 4

5. All insolation comes directly from the sun and the incidence angle is fixed at 2 pm on the
corresponding date
6. The physical properties of sodium chloride (NaCl) solution are treated as functions of
salinity and/or temperature.

4.1.3

Attenuation of solar radiation

The following formula by Bryant and Colbeck (1977) was used to estimate the attenuation of
solar radiation in the pond:
H ( x) = H S [0.36 (0.08 ln y )]

(4-1)

where H(x) is the solar radiation at a depth x, Hs is the solar radiation penetrating the water
surface, and is the transmission coefficient. The overall transmission coefficient for a
smooth water surface is typically 0.9 (Weinberger, 1964). A value of 0.85 was assumed for
the transmission coefficient in this simulation. In the above equation, y is the actual distance
that the sunlight has to travel after it penetrates the water surface. It is equal to x / cos r, where
r is the angle of refraction (that is, the angle between the light beam and the vertical
direction). For saltwater solution, sin i / sin r = 1.33, where i is the angle of incidence and 1.33
is the refractive index for water. The angle of incidence can be determined using the
following equations by knowing the latitude of the site, declination of sun and hour of day.
The local latitude ( ) is positive in the north hemisphere. In Melbourne, the local latitude is
approximately -37.8o. The solar hour angle ( ) represents the number of hours away from
local solar noon. = 0 at local solar noon and is positive in the afternoon.

sin i = sin sin + cos cos cos

(4-2)

The angle of declination can be found from:

= 23.45 sin 360

[N + 284]

99

365

(4-3)

Chapter 4

4.1.4

Thermal properties of sodium chloride solution

In order to determine the thermal properties (specific heat, thermal conductivity and density)
of sodium chloride solution, the following approximate empirical equations given by
Kaufmann (1960) were used. These equations are expressed in terms of the salt concentration
(in kg/m3) and/or temperature (in oC). The specific heat can be found by:
Cp p = 4180 4.396 S + 0.0048 S 2

(4-4)

The thermal conductivity is given by:

K p = 0.5553 0.0000813 S + 0.0008 (T 20)

(4-5)

The density of the salt solution, which is a function of salt concentration and temperature, can
be found from the following equation.

p = 998 + 0.65 S 0.4 (T 20)

4.1.5

(4-6)

Finite difference formulation

4.1.5.1 General equation


The thermal process in a large SGSP can be expressed as a one-dimensional unsteady
conduction with heat generation. The SGSP and the ground layer can be divided into a
number of horizontal divisions (or sublayers) as shown in Figure 4-1 below.
If nodes (as shown in Figure 4-1) are located in the middle of each division, the following
difference equation for the temperatures of the three adjacent nodes can be derived using an
energy balance.


(T T ) (T T )
n 1
n
+ q xn = xn n Cpn T
+ n +1 n
x
x
xn +1 xn

n
n
1

+
+
2 kn 1 2 kn 2 kn +1 2 kn

(4-7)

The temperature of node n at time + can be written in terms of the temperatures of


node n and the two adjacent nodes (n - 1) and (n + 1) at time as follows.

100

Chapter 4

Tn +

T T

n 1
n
= Tn +

xn n Cp n xn 1 + xn
2 k n 1 2 k n


T T
n
+ n +1
x
x

+
n
1

+ n
2 k n +1 2 k n


q
+
n Cp n

(4-8)

Therefore, by knowing the initial temperature and thermal properties of each node and
repeatedly using the above equation, the final temperatures of all divisions at the end of each
time increment can be obtained. The general equation above can be applied to the different

conditions as described in the following sections. In the above equation q is the net heat
generation per unit volume. It is the difference between the rate of energy absorbed by the
sublayer from solar radiation and the rate of heat extraction (if any).

Figure 4-1: Horizontal division in a SGSP using the finite difference method

4.1.5.2 Sublayer just below UCZ in NCZ


The UCZ is treated as a distinct layer. The temperature of the sublayer just below the UCZ at
time + in terms of the initial temperature of the sublayer, the sublayers adjacent to it
and the thermal properties is as follows. The thickness (xUCZ) and thermal conductivity of the
UCZ (kUCZ) are inputs to the simulation.
101

Chapter 4

Tn +

T T

n 1
n
= Tn +
x
x
x n n Cp n UCZ
+ n
2 kUCZ 2 k n


T T
n
+ n +1
x
n +1 + x n
2k
n +1 2 k n


q
+
n Cp n

(4-9)

4.1.5.3 Sublayers in NCZ


Since the sublayers in the NCZ are the same thicknesses, the general Equation (4-8) can be
simplified. The density, specific heat and thermal conductivity of the brine at different
positions within the NCZ are found using Equations (4-4), (4-5) and (4-6).

Tn +

T T
2
n 1

n
= Tn +

2
1
x n n Cp n 1
+
k n 1 k n


T T
n
+ n +1
1
1

+
k n +1 k n


q
+
n Cp n

(4-10)

4.1.5.4 Sublayer just above LCZ in NCZ


The sublayer just above the LCZ is treated separately and can be expressed as follows.

Tn +

T T

n 1
n
= Tn +
x
x

x n n Cp n n 1
+ n
2 k n 1 2 k n


T T
n
+ n +1
x

LCZ + x n
2k
LCZ 2 k n


q
+
n Cp n

(4-11)

4.1.5.5 Sublayers in LCZ


The LCZ is treated as a single layer and the effective thermal conductivity is determined by
the heat transfer coefficient of natural convection in that zone. The calculated convective heat
transfer coefficient based on the heat extraction experimental study at RMIT was found to be
approximately 435 W/m2.oC (see subsection 3.5.3.6). Typical natural convection coefficients
for liquids can ranges from 50 10,000 W/m2.oC (Beek et al., 1999). In this simulation, a
value of 450 W/m.oC was used for the effective thermal conductivity.

Tn +

T T

n 1
n
= Tn +
x
x
x LCZ n Cp n n 1
+ LCZ

2 k n 1 2 k LCZ


T T
n +1
n
+
x CLAY + x LCZ
2k
CLAY 2 k LCZ

102


q
+
n Cp n

(4-12)

Chapter 4

4.1.5.6 Sublayer just below LCZ in clay


The sublayer just below LCZ can be expressed as follows:

Tn +

T T

n 1
n
= Tn +
x
x
x CLAY n Cp n LCZ
+ CLAY

2 k LCZ 2 k CLAY


T T
n
+ n +1
x CLAY
k
CLAY


q
+
n Cp n

(4-13)

4.1.5.7 Sublayers in clay


In this transient simulation, it is assumed that the bottom of the pond is lined with five metres
of deep clay. The thermal conductivity, density and specific heat of clay were assumed to be
1.28 W/m.oC, = 1460 kg/m3 and 880 J/kg.oC, respectively.

Tn +

4.1.6

k CLAY
Tn1 Tn + Tn+1 Tn
= Tn + 2
x CLAY n Cp n

{[

] [

q
+
n Cp n

]}

(4-14)

Simulation input parameters

The simulation model was written in Visual Basic and uses Excel as the interface. The
program can simulate the operation of a SGSP at any site for any duration, provided weather
data is available.
The following input parameters are required to run the simulation:

Monthly average ambient temperature and insolation values

Thicknesses of UCZ, NCZ and LCZ

The salt concentrations in the UCZ and LCZ

The effective thermal conductivities of the UCZ and LCZ

The start day of the year for pond operation

The type of heat extraction

The start day of the year for heat extraction

The thickness of the sublayers in the NCZ and clay

The time interval

The duration of the simulation (in months or years).

103

Chapter 4

The analysis presented in this study is for a Melbourne location using monthly average
ambient temperature and solar radiation data obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology
(BOM, 2008) (see Figure 3-27). The solar radiation and temperature data were approximated
by sinusoidal functions. Heat extraction can be performed in two ways in the simulation: at a
daily steady rate (given as a percentage of the yearly average solar radiation) starting from a
particular day of the year, or at constant supply temperature for different months of the year.
The latter was used in the simulation of a SGSP coupled with thermal desalination processes.
The thicknesses of UCZ, NCZ and LCZ were assumed to be 0.2 m, 1 m and 1 m, respectively.
The assumed salt concentrations in the UCZ and LCZ were 25 and 220 kg/m3, respectively. It
is noteworthy that this simulation does not take into account salt diffusion. It is assumed that
the salt concentrations are always maintained at the right level. As reported earlier, the
effective thermal conductivities (to include the heat transfer due to natural convection) of the
LCZ was assumed to be 450 W/m.oC.
Adams and Rogers (1973) reported that x must be small for a reasonable accuracy. As x
decreases, the time increment must be decreased accordingly to satisfy the stability
condition (Holman, 1992). In this modelling, based on the stability requirement, the stability
condition for the NCZ and the deep clay is:

2 k
1
x 2 Cp

(4-15)

The stability condition must be satisfied for each division otherwise an illogical result will be
obtained (for instance, if the stability condition is not met, results will show that heat can flow
from a lower temperature to a higher temperature zone, violating the second law of
thermodynamics). For the NCZ, a sublayer increment of 10 cm and a time step of eight hours
were used to satisfy the stability requirement. Similarly, the deep clay was divided into 25 cm
sublayers. Therefore, there were 10 and 20 nodes in the NCZ and clay, respectively.

4.1.7

Simulation results

Figure 4-2 below shows a three-year prediction of the LCZ temperature for a typical SGSP in
Melbourne. The pond starts operation at the equinox (September 22) and no heat is extracted.
It can be seen that the pond will reach a maximum temperature of 106.5oC in the second year
of operation. The minimum temperature in the same year is approximately 62.1oC. The figure
shows that there is no difference between the performance of the pond in the second and third
104

Chapter 4

year, which suggests that the temperature patterns for further years may be almost the same as
the pattern in the second year. Therefore, the temperature profile obtained for the second year
will be used in further analysis.
The boiling point of sodium chloride solutions increases with salinity and pressure. The
boiling point of brine at a depth of 1.5 m is approximately 107oC (Kaushik and Rao, 2007). In
this analysis, the boiling point would be higher than 107oC since the total depth is 2.2 m. It is
noteworthy that if the maximum temperature obtained from the modelling is higher than the
boiling point hence indicating a phase change, some of the equations derived would be
invalid.
Boiling in the lower zone has been observed in several ponds, including the solar ponds at the
University of New Mexico and in Israel where the ponds have boiled at a temperature of
about 106oC and 113oC, respectively (Hull et al., 1989). Boiling should be avoided since
formed vapour bubbles can cause mixing in the gradient layer. Some solar ponds in locations
with high insolation have measures in place to prevent boiling when heat extraction
equipment is turned off.

Solar Pond Performance (Three-year prediction) [No Load]


140

30

130

20
10

100

110

Solar Radiation (MJ/m -day)

Temperature ( C)

120

90
(10)

80
70

(20)

60

(30)

50
40

(40)

30

(50)

20
(60)

10
0

(70)
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Day from start of pond operation


Average Ambient Temp

LCZ Temp

Average Solar Radiation

Figure 4-2: Three-year prediction of temperature variation in SGSP with no load

Figure 4-3 shows a three-year prediction of the ponds performance at different heat removal
rates (5, 10, 15 and 20% of the yearly average solar radiation). Heat extraction starts after 90
days. The case when no load is applied is also shown in the figure. It can be observed that in
the second year, the pond reaches a maximum of 96.7oC, 86.8oC, 79.5oC and 74.6oC for heat
105

Chapter 4

extraction rates of 5, 10, 15 and 20%, respectively. The corresponding minimum temperatures
are approximately 52.2oC, 42.2oC, 32.1oC and 21.9oC.
Solar Pond Performance (Three-year prediction) [with heat extraction]
30

140
130

20
10

100

90
(10)

80

(20)

70
60

(30)

50
40

(40)

30

(50)

110

Solar Radiation (MJ/m -day)

Temperature ( C)

120

20
(60)

10
0

(70)
0

100

200

300

Average Ambient Temp


10% extraction rate
Average Solar Radiation

400

500

600

700

Day from start of pond operation


No Load
15% extraction rate

800

900

1000

5% extraction rate
20% extraction rate

Figure 4-3: Three-year prediction of temperature variation in SGSP with heat removal

Increasing the thickness of the NCZ improves the performance of the SGSP. It provides extra
capacity as well as better insulation thereby reducing the upward conduction heat loses.
However, there is a limit to which the thickness of this layer can be increased. The density
gradient should be kept higher than some critical value for stability (Weinberger, 1964).
Figure 4-4 shows the effect of increasing the thickness of the NCZ from 1 m to 1.5 m. Two
cases are illustrated in the figure: one where the thickness of the LCZ remains unchanged
(therefore increasing the total depth to 2.7 m) and the other where the thickness of the LCZ is
decreased by 0.5 m. Also shown is the reference case (NCZ = 1 m, LCZ = 1 m). The heat
removal rate was set at 10% of the yearly average solar radiation. Heat extraction starts after
90 days.

106

Chapter 4

Solar Pond Performance (Three-year prediction) [with 10% heat extraction]


140

30

130

20
10

100

90
(10)

80

(20)

70
60

(30)

50
40

(40)

30

(50)

110

Solar Radiation (MJ/m -day)

Temperature ( oC)

120

20
(60)

10
0

(70)
0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Day from start of pond operation


Average Ambient Temp
NCZ = 1 m, LCZ = 1 m (reference)
NCZ = 1.5 m, LCZ = 0.5 m
NCZ = 1.5 m, LCZ = 1 m
Average Solar Radiation

Figure 4-4: Three-year prediction of temperature variation in SGSP with thicker NCZ

It can be seen from the figure that increasing the thickness of the NCZ improves the ponds
performance. The average LCZ temperature has risen by 7 11oC as compared to the
reference case (NCZ = 1 m, LCZ = 1 m). Having a thicker NCZ at the expense of reducing
the thickness of the LCZ offers a higher LCZ temperature in summer but this leads to a higher
temperature fluctuation (49.2oC as compared to 40.5oC for the case when NCZ = 1.5 m and
LCZ = 1 m). The simulation results show that the maximum pond temperature obtained in the
second year of operation is high (up to 98oC). In practice, the maximum pond temperature is
affected by heat losses through the walls, rainfall, evaporation and clarity; all of which were
neglected in this theoretical analysis.
The SGSP modelling will be used to analyse the effect on the performance of a SGSP coupled
with thermal desalination systems. The results will be presented and discussed in the
following chapters.

107

Chapter 4

4.2

Theoretical Model of Evacuated Tubular Solar Collectors

4.2.1

Modelling of ETSC

As reported earlier (see subsection 3.3.2), there are three main types of evacuated tubular
solar collectors (ETSC). The quoted energy efficiencies (delivered heat over incident solar
irradiance) are usually expressed as a percentage value (typically in the range 50-65% for
ETSC). The efficiency can also be presented as a graph usually accompanied by a set of three
performance variables calculated by testing bodies such as SPF testing laboratory in
Switzerland (SPF, 2004). These variables could be based on the gross area, aperture area or
absorber area. Gross area is the outer dimensions of the solar collectors, which include the
absorber, frame, manifold and reflectors (if fitted). Aperture area is the part through which the
solar radiation enters the collector whereas absorber area is the part of the collector that
actively absorbs the radiation (that is, the absorber). For flat plate solar collectors, these three
areas are almost the same.
For an ETSC, the aperture refers to the cross-sectional surface area of the outer glass tube
measured using the internal diameter. The absorber is defined as the cross-sectional area of
the inner tube measured using the outside diameter. When ETSC systems are fitted with a
reflective panel such as in compound parabolic concentrators (CPC), the entire
circumferential surface area of the inner tube is used instead of the diameter to calculate the
absorber area since the panel reflect light underside of the tubes as well. In this modelling, the
absorber area will be used for efficiencies calculations.
The Australia and New Zealand standard (AS/NZS 4234) Heated water systems - calculation
of the energy consumption (AS-NZS, 2008) details the performance evaluation procedures
for heated water systems. Section 2.2.6 Solar collector efficiency of the standard gives the
following equation for the calculation of the efficiency of evacuated tubular solar collectors.
(Tm Ta )2
(Tm Ta )

3
H
H

= a1 a 2

(4-16)

where a1, a2 (in W/m2.oC) and a3 (in W/m2.oC2) are the solar collectors performance
parameters (which can be obtained from the manufacturer or supplier); Tm is the average
manifold temperature (that is, the average of the inlet and outlet of the solar collector), Ta is
the ambient temperature and H is the solar radiation (in W/m2).

108

Chapter 4

In the absence of the ETSC performance variables, the efficiency can be calculated using the
following general correlation:

m Cp (To Ti )
=
H Aab

(4-17)

where m is the mass flow rate of water (in kg/s), Cp is the specific heat capacity of water at
constant pressure (in J/kg.oC) which can be determined using Equation A1-1 (Appendix 1), To
is the manifold outlet temperature (in oC), Ti is the manifold inlet temperature (in oC), H is the
solar radiation (in W/m2) and Aab is the absorber area (in m2).
For the present study, the specifications of the Apricus heat pipe solar collectors have been
used. The three performance variables for the solar collectors (based on the absorber area)
provided by the SPF testing laboratory report are a1 = 0.717, a2 = 1.52 W/m2.oC and a3 =
0.0085 W/m2.oC2 (SPF, 2004). These Apricus heat pipe collectors are not fitted with reflective
panels and are different to the experimental direct flow ETSC (see Figure 3-4) at RMIT
University.
This analysis does not consider the effect of the transversal or longitudinal Incidence Angle
Modifier (IAM) since this varies throughout the day and requires a transient hourly
simulation. The AIM or angular performance factor needs to be taken into account when the
radiation is not perpendicular to the collector plane. A value of 1 is normally achieved when
the collector is perpendicular to the sun rays. Values greater than 1 can sometimes be obtained
when reflection from panels or neighbouring tubes occurs.
The ETSC modelling was based on Equation (4-16) and the performance variables. A Visual
Basic program using Excel as the interface was developed to produce the efficiency curves as
shown in the next section.
4.2.2

Simulation results

The graph below (Figure 4-5) shows the simulated performance curves for five different
insolation levels (200 - 1000 W/m2) for T values between 0 to 70oC, where T is the
temperature difference between Tm and Ta.

109

Chapter 4
o

ETSC performance curves at different insolation [Ambient Temp = 30 C]

80%
75%
70%
65%
60%

Efficiency (%)

55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

DeltaT (Tm - Ta) in oC

H = 200 W/m^2

H = 400 W/m^2

H = 600 W/m^2

H = 800 W/m^2

H = 1000 W/m^2

Figure 4-5: ETSC performance curve for different insolation. Ambient temperature = 30oC

Figure 4-6 below shows the performance curve where the horizontal axis on the graph
represents the temperature difference ( T ) per solar insolation. This generalised performance
curve is often provided by manufacturers.
o

80%

ETSC combined performance curve [Ambient Temp = 30 C]

75%

Efficiency (%)

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

45%

40%
0.000 0.005 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.025 0.030 0.035 0.040 0.045 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.065 0.070 0.075 0.080 0.085 0.090
2 o

DeltaT (Tm - Ta) / Solar Radiation (H) in m . C/W

Figure 4-6: ETSC generalised performance curve. Ambient temperature = 30oC

For a desired average manifold temperature (Tm), higher efficiencies would be obtained at
higher ambient temperatures (Ta) as shown in Figure 4-7.

110

Chapter 4
2

ETSC performance curves at different ambient temperatures [H = 800 W/m ]

74%

Ta = 15 oC

72%

Ta = 20 oC

70%

Ta = 25 oC

68%

Ta = 30 oC

Efficiency (%)

66%

Ta = 35 oC

64%

Ta = 40 oC

62%
60%
58%
56%
54%
52%
50%
48%
46%
10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

Tm ( C)

Figure 4-7: ETSC generalised performance curve for different ambient temperatures

The efficiency and the performance variables of the Linuo Paradigma Tai Yang U-tube ETSC
(fitted with CPC) obtained from the manufacturer (Linuo, 2004) are shown in Figure 4-8.

Figure 4-8: Linuo U-tube ETSC efficiency (Linuo, 2004)

By substituting the performance variables into Equation (4-16) using the simulation, the
performance curve can be reproduced and compared to the Apricus heat pipe ETSC, as shown
in Figure 4-9 below. It can be seen that the ETSC with heat pipe fitted offers higher efficiency
within the operating temperature ranges.
111

Chapter 4

Performance curves for different types of ETSC [Ambient Temp = 30 C, H = 800 W/m ]
75%
73%

Apricus (Heat pipe) ETSC

71%

Linuo (U pipe + CPC) ETSC

69%
67%

Efficiency (%)

65%
63%
61%
59%
57%
55%
53%
51%
49%
47%
45%
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

DeltaT (Tm - Ta) in C

Figure 4-9: Comparison of performance for different types of ETSC. Ta = 30oC, H = 800 W/m2

The simulation results obtained when ETSC is coupled with thermal desalination systems will
be will be presented and analysed in the following chapters.

112

Chapter 5

SOLAR MULTI-STAGE FLASH (MSF) SYSTEMS

This chapter describes and derives computer simulation models based on Excel
and Visual Basic of the three different solar multi-stage flash systems that have
been developed. The theoretical analysis is first presented. The experimental
SSF apparatus that has been designed, constructed and tested is described. The
experimental results on performance are then compared with the simulation,
and differences found between them discussed.

5.1

Modelling of Solar Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) Systems

5.1.1

Introduction

Modelling, simulation, and costing of thermal desalination processes are essential for better
understanding, efficient and accurate process design, performance analysis and cost
estimation. Many models have been developed to find a functional relationship between the
design variables and the different parameters. All these models are well developed from the
basic laws of mass balances; enthalpy balance coupled with heat and mass flow rate
coefficients. Previous thermal processes modelling development include the studies by ElDessouky et al. (1999), Jernqvist et al. (1999) and Mittelman et al. (2005). However, the heat
input in those models is in the form of a controlled mass of saturated steam at constant
temperature, coming from an external boiler. In the modelling of the solar MSF systems, the
heat input is in the form of hot water at varying temperature (depending on the incoming solar
radiation and season).
In a flash system, the formation of vapour takes place from the bulk liquid and not on heatexchange surfaces. The hot saltwater is allowed to flow and flash in a series of stages. A
schematic of a single flashing stage is shown in Figure 5-1. Each stage in an MSF system
includes the following:

A brine pool

A brine transfer device between the stages to seal the vapour space between the stages
and enhance turbulence, thereby promoting the flashing process

113

Chapter 5

Condenser/preheater tubes. The flashed off salt-free vapour condenses on the outer
surface of the tubes. At the same time, the latent heat of condensation is transferred to
the feed saltwater flowing inside the tubes, thereby preheating it

A distillate tray to collect the freshwater product

A demister to remove any entrained brine droplets from the vapour, to ensure that the
fresh water product is free of salt. The demister is typically made of wire mesh layers

A venting system to remove the non-condensable gases (NCG) that are dissolved in the
feed saltwater and any air leaking into the system.

Figure 5-1: Schematic of a single-stage flash (SSF) system

A theoretical analysis of the different MSF configurations has been completed. The
simulation program written in Visual Basic and using Excel as the interface was developed to
allow estimation of key parameters for a range of different conditions and configurations.
These models are essential tools in the design of an experimental SGSP or ETSC-MSF
desalination unit for performance measurement and evaluation. The mathematical models of
the various SP-MSF configurations are based on the following assumptions:

Linear temperature profiles for the feed saltwater flowing inside the preheating
condenser tubes and the flashing brine stream

Subcooling of the condensate or superheating of the vapour has negligible effect on the
system energy balance and is therefore not taken into account
114

Chapter 5

The latent heat of vaporisation v is constant and evaluated at the average temperature
of the flashing brine

The specific heat at constant pressure, Cp, is constant and evaluated at the average
temperature of the liquid streams

The heat losses to the surroundings are negligible because the system is well insulated

The thermodynamic losses are constant in all stages and equivalent to a 2oC
temperature drop between the condensing vapour and the hot brine in each stage. This
initially assumed value is refined later.

5.1.2

Theoretical model

5.1.2.1 Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash once through (SP-MSFOT)

The schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) coupled to a multi-stage flash - once
through (MSF-OT) desalination system (SP-MSF-OT) is shown in Figure 5-2 and includes
the variables used in the equations. The same equations described below apply for an
evacuated tubular solar collector (ETSC) coupled to the MSF-OT. The SP-MSF-OT process
includes the most basic multi-stage flash process without a heat rejection stage. The principle
was explained earlier (see Section 2.4.2). The governing mathematical equations are derived
from mass balances, heat energy balances and heat transfer characteristics as follows.
The total mass balance is

mf = md + mb

(5-1)

The brine heat energy balance is

mspCpsp Tsps - Tspr = mf Cp ( T0 - t1 )

(5-2)

The condenser heat energy balance is

v md = mf Cp T0 - Tn

The brine heater heat transfer equation is

115

(5-3)

Chapter 5

mspCpsp Tsps - Tspr = Uh Ah (LMTD)h

(5-4)

where

(
)(

( T0 - t1 ) - Tsps - Tspr

LMTD
=
(
)h
ln Tspr - t1 / Tsps - T0

(5-5)

The condenser heat transfer equation is


mf CpTstage = Uc A c (LMTD )c

(5-6)

where the sum of the stage temperature drop, Tstage , is defined as


Tstage = ( T0 - Tn ) /n = T0 - T1

(5-7)

and

(LMTD )c = ( t 2 - t1 )

ln ( Tv1 - t1 ) / ( Tv1 - t 2 )

(5-8)

The thermodynamic loss Tloss is given by the temperature difference between the brine
leaving the stage n and the condensation temperature of the vapour in that stage. This loss is
caused by non-equilibrium allowance (NEA), boiling point elevation (BPE) and temperature
drop due to pressure loss in the demister. The correlation used to estimate BPE is given in
Equation A1-14 (Appendix 1). Details about NEA are given in A1-15 (Appendix 1).
Tloss = ( Tn - Tvn )

(5-9)

For SP-MSF-OT, the temperature gain of the feed saltwater flowing inside the preheating
condenser is assumed to be equal to the stage temperature drop.
(t1 Tcw) = (T0 Tn)

(5-10)

The recovery ratio is defined as the mass ratio of the freshwater produced per unit mass of
feed saltwater.

RR = md mf

116

(5-11)

Chapter 5

Figure 5-2: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-stage flash - once through (SP-MSF-OT) system

117

Chapter 5

By substitution and simplification, the 11 linear algebraic equations were reduced to five main
equations (with five unknown variables). These five main equations were expressed in matrix
notation of the form:
[A][X] = [B]

(5-12)

where [A] is a 5x5 matrix containing the constants multiplying the variables in the equations,
[X] is a 5-vector of the unknown variables, and [B] is the 5-vector that contains the known
input values on the right hand side of each equation (Figure 5-3).

a11 a12
a
21 a22
a31 a32

M
M
a
m1 am 2

a13
a23
a33
M
am3

L a1n x1 b1
L a2n x2 b2
L a3n x3 = b3

O M M M
L amn xm bm

Figure 5-3: Matrix notation for solving equations

The resulting equations in the form (A11 x1 + A12 x2 + A13 x3 ++A1n xn = b1) are as follows:

(1) md + (1) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + ( 0 ) T0 + ( 0 ) t1 = mf

(5-13)

In Equation (5-13) above, md and mb are unknown variables and mf is a known input variable.

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( -mspCpsp ) Tspr + ( -mf Cp ) T0 + ( mf Cp ) t1 = -mspCpspTsp

(5-14)

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + (1) Tspr + ( EXPA) T0 + ( -1) t1 = Tsp EXPA

(5-15)

( ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + ( 0 ) T0 + ( -mf Cp ) t1 = -mf CpTcw

(5-16)

EXPB
1 t1
n

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + (1- EXPB ) T0 + EXPB +

T
= (1- EXPB ) Tloss + cw
n

EXPB

118

(5-17)

Chapter 5

In the above equations EXPA is defined as:

EXPA =

U A
h h
msp Cpsp
e

msp Cpsp

1
mf Cp

(5-18)

and EXPB is expressed as:

EXPB =

U c Ac

m f Cp

(5-19)

The Visual Basic / spreadsheet package developed was used to solve the matrix equation as
shown in Figure 5-3. In the matrix [A][X] = [B], aij are constants and bj are known input
values. i = 1, 2,, m. j = 1, 2, 3,, n. The solution has been found by multiplying both sides
of the matrix Equation (5-12), by [A-1], the inverse of matrix [A]:
[A-1][A][X] = [A-1][B]

(5-20)

Hence, since by definition [A-1][A] = [1], the unit or identity matrix:


[X] = [A-1] [B]

(5-21)

The matrix Equation (5-21) can then be used to solve for the matrix of the unknown variables,
[X].
A separate Visual Basic model has been developed to determine the overall heat transfer
coefficient (OHTC) and the required heat transfer area for the condenser/preheater. The
output parameters (heat exchange area and OHTC) from the simulation have then been used
in the main solver to obtain the overall performance of the desalination unit. The model has
also been used to design and analyse the condenser shell and tube heat exchanger for the
experimental solar-thermal desalination unit (to be discussed later). The equations used in the
modelling of the condenser heat transfer characteristics are derived and explained in
Appendix 2.

119

Chapter 5

The key input values to the solver and the output parameters for the SP-MSF-OT simulation
are shown in Table 5-1 below.

Input parameters required by simulation

Mass flow rate of hot brine from solar pond


Temperature of supply hot brine from solar pond
Overall heat exchange transfer coefficient of brine heat exchanger
Total heat exchange area of brine heat exchanger
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater to be desalinated
Temperature of feed saltwater to be desalinated
Overall heat exchange transfer coefficient of condenser per stage1
Total heat exchange area of condenser, per stage1
Temperature difference between condensing vapour and hot brine in
each stage
Number of stages in the MSF unit (heat recovery only)
Output parameters from simulation

Temperature of liquid brine in stage


Temperature of brine exiting brine heater, also called Top Brine
Temperature (TBT)
Temperature of brine returning to solar pond
Temperature of brine exiting the condenser in stage 1, and entering
brine heater
Mass flow rate of distillate produced
Mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine
Temperature drop per stage
Flashing range
Temperature rise in preheating condensers
Temperature of liquid brine in stage 1
Temperature of condensing vapour in stage 1
Fraction of input brine converted to fresh water (Recovery ratio)
Heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of distillate produced
(specific thermal energy consumption)

Variables
name
msp
Tsps
Uh
Ah
mf
Tcw
Uc
Ac
Tloss

n
Variables
name
Tn

Units

kg/s
o
C
W/m2.oC
m2
kg/s
o
C
W/m2.oC
m2
o

Units
o

T0

Tspr

t1

md
mb
(T0 - Tn)
(t1 Tcw)
T1
Tv1
RR

kg/s
kg/s
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
%

Eth

kJ/kg

Tstage

Table 5-1: Input and output parameters in SP-MSF-OT modelling

Notes:
1: The parameters Uc and Ac are obtained using the MSF condenser heat-transfer modelling

(see Appendix 2).


The simulation model calculates the specific heat capacity (Cp) at constant pressure and the
latent heat of vaporisation ( ) based on the Equations A1-1 and A1-2, respectively, which can
be found in Appendix 1.
120

Chapter 5

5.1.2.2

Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash conventional (SP-MSFC)

The solar pond coupled to a conventional multi-stage flash system (SP-MSF-C), as shown in
Figure 5-4, incorporates a heat rejection section as well as a heat recovery section to extract
heat from the exit brine stream and recycle some of this brine back into the main heat
recovery section.
A mixture of salty water and hot concentrated brine at the bottom of the last flash chamber of
the heat rejection section is introduced into the condenser tubes of the last flash chamber of
the heat recovery section (follow the flow labelled recycle brine in the direction of the
arrows). This brine mixture has been preheated in the heat rejection section (the three flash
chambers on the right). As the mixture passes through the condenser tubes of each successive
section of the heat recovery section, it cools and condenses the vapour flashed from the hot
brine at the bottom of the chambers. At the same time the brine mixture itself is progressively
heated as it passes leftwards through the heat recovery section, reaching the temperature t1 at
the end of the section. The section thus gains its name from the use of heat recovered from the
condensing vapour to preheat the input brine mixture. In the brine heater this preheated input
brine is heated up to the top brine temperature (TBT). The hot brine enters the first flashing
chamber and the same process as in the SP-MSF-OT takes place until the final stage of the
heat recovery section is reached.
In the heat rejection section, the hot brine from the final stage of the heat recovery section is
further cooled by flashing off more vapour, which is condensed by contact with condenser
tubes cooled by incoming salty water. In turn, the incoming seawater or brine receives its first
preheating in this section before mixing with the concentrated brine issuing from the final
stage of the heat rejection section and pumping into the condenser tubes of the final stage of
the heat recovery section. Overall, the SP-MSF-C process is a model in the full use of the
external heat supplied to produce fresh water by recovering as much heat as possible from that
originally supplied to evaporate the incoming brine, through the use of a multi-stage heat
cascade process.
The mathematical model for SP-MSF-C system is similar to that given above for SP-MSF-OT
but includes a number of additional equations. The number of flashing stages in the heat
rejection section was limited to three in this analysis. In Equation (5-2) above, the variable mf

121

Chapter 5

is replaced with mr. Equation (5-6) is expressed separately for the heat recovery and heat
rejection sections. The heat recovery condenser heat transfer equation is
mr CpTrec = Uc A c (LMTD )c

(5-22)

where
Trec = trec = (t1 t2) = T1 T2

(5-23)
= [To Tn-3] / (n-3) = [t1 Tn] / (n-3)
The heat rejection condenser heat transfer equation is:

(mcw + mf ) CpTrej = U'c A 'c (LMTD )'c

(5-24)

Trej = trej = ( Tn-3 - Tn-1 ) 2 = ( tn-2 - tn ) 2

(5-25)

where

and

(LMTD )'c =

( tn-1 - tn-2 )

ln ( Tv,n-2 - tn-2 ) / ( Tv,n-2 - tn-1 )

(5-26)

Similarly, Equation (5-3) is applied separately for the heat recovery and heat rejection
sections for SP-MSF-C. The heat recovery condenser heat energy balance is:

v md,n-3 = mr Cp T0 - Tn-3

(5-27)

The heat rejection condenser heat energy balance is:

v md,n-1 - md,n-3 = ( mcw +mf ) Cp ( tn-2 - tn )

(5-28)

The overall heat recovery heat energy balance is:

mr Tn + mr T0 = mr t1 + md,n-3 Tv,n-3 + mb,n-3 Tn-3

122

(5-29)

Chapter 5

Figure 5-4: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-stage flash conventional (SP-MSF-C) system

123

Chapter 5

The technique used to solve the SP-MSF-C equations is similar to that given for SP-MSF-OT.
By substitution and simplification, the 16 linear algebraic equations were reduced to 12 main
equations (with 12 unknown variables) and expressed in matrix notation. The resulting
equations were expressed in the form (A11 x1 + A12 x2 + A13 x3 ++A1n xn = b1) where the
general form is:

A11 md + A12 mb + A13 md ,n 1 + A14 md ,n 3 + A15 Tspr + A16 T0 + A17 Tn


+ A18 Tn 1 + A19 Tn 3 + A110 t1 + A111 tn + A112 tn 2 = b1

(5-30)

The resulting equations are as follows:

(1) md + (1) mb + (0)L = mf

(5-31)

( -mspCpsp ) Tspr + ( -mr Cp ) T0 + (mr Cp)t1 + (0)L = -mspCpspTsp

(5-32)

(1) Tspr + (EXPC ) T0 + (-1)t1 + ( 0 )L = Tsp ( EXPC )

(5-33)

EXPD
EXPD
T
+
1- EXPD +

0
- n - 3 Tn-3 + (EXPD -1)t1 + (0) L = Tloss (1 EXPD )

(5-34)

( v ) md,n-3 + ( -mr Cp ) T0 + (mr Cp)Tn-3 + (0)L = 0

(5-35)

( v ) md,n-1 + ( -v ) md,n-3 + ( mcw + m f Cp ) tn + ( - mcw + m f Cp ) tn-2 + (0)L = 0

(5-36)

EXPE
EXPE
tn +
tn-2 + (0) L = Tloss (1 EXPE )

2
2

(1- EXPE ) Tn-1 + -1+

(5-37)

(1- EXPE ) Tn + (EXPE ) tn + (0)L = Tloss + Tcw ( Tloss EXPE )

(5-38)

( v ) md + ( -v ) md,n-1 + ( mcw + m f Cp ) tn + (0)L = ( mcw + m f Cp ) Tcw

(5-39)

124

Chapter 5

( mr + m f ) Tn + ( mr ) Tn1 + ( mcw + m f ) tn + ( m f ) tn2


(

+ ( Tloss ) md + ( Tloss ) md ,n 1 + (0) K = mcw + m f Tcw

( Tloss ) md,n-3 + ( mr ) T0 + (mr ) Tn + ( -mr ) Tn-3 + ( -mr ) t1 + (0)L = 0

( mcw + m f ) tn + ( mr ) Tn3 + ( mcw + m f ) tn2 + ( Tloss ) md ,n3


+ ( Tloss ) md , n 1 + ( mr ) Tn 1 + (0) K = 0

(5-40)

(5-41)

(5-42)

In the above equations EXPC is defined as:

EXPC = e

U A
h h
msp Cpsp

msp Cpsp

1
mr C p

(5-43)

EXPD is expressed as:

EXPD = e

U c Ac

mr Cp

(5-44)

and EXPE is defined as:

EXPE =

U 'c A 'c

mcw + m f Cp

e

(5-45)

A Visual Basic / spreadsheet package was developed for the SP-MSF-C to solve the matrix
equation. The matrix representation is similar to Figure 5-3. The MSF condenser heat transfer
model (explained in Appendix 2) was also used in the modelling of SP-MSF-C to estimate the
overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) and the required heat transfer area for the
condensers/preheaters in the heat recovery section as well as the heat rejection section.

The key inputs values to the solver and the output parameters for the SP-MSF-C simulation
are shown in Table 5-2 below.

125

Chapter 5

Input parameters required by simulation

Mass flow rate of hot brine from solar pond


Temperature of supply hot brine from solar pond
Overall heat exchange transfer coefficient of brine heat exchanger
Total heat exchange area of brine heat exchanger
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater
Temperature of feed saltwater
Mass flow rate of rejected cooling water
Mass flow rate of recycled brine
Overall heat exchange transfer coefficient of condenser in heat
recovery section per stage1
Total heat exchange area of condenser in heat recovery section, per
stage1
Overall heat exchange transfer coefficient of condenser in heat
rejection section per stage1
Total heat exchange area of condenser in heat rejection section, per
stage1
Temperature difference between condensing vapour and hot brine in
each stage
Number of stages in the heat recovery section
Output parameters from simulation

Temperature of liquid brine in stage


Temperature of brine exiting heater or Top brine temperature (TBT)
Temperature of brine returning to solar pond
Temperature of brine exiting the condenser in stage 1, and entering
brine heater
Temperature of brine exiting the condenser in the last stage of the
heat rejection section
Total mass flow rate of distillate produced
Mass flow rate of distillate produced by heat recovery section
Mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine
Stage temperature drop in heat rejection section
Stage temperature drop in heat recovery section
Flashing range
Temperature rise in preheating condensers of heat recovery section
Temperature of liquid brine in stage 1
Temperature of condensing vapour in stage 1
Fraction of input brine converted to fresh water (Recovery ratio)
Heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of distillate produced

Variables
name
msp
Tsps
Uh
Ah
mf
Tcw
mcw
mr

kg/s
o
C
W/m2.oC
m2
kg/s
o
C
kg/s
kg/s

Uc

W/m2.oC

Ac

m2

Uc

W/m2.oC

Ac

m2

Tloss

n
Variables
name
Tn
T0
Tspr

Units

Units
o

C
C
o
C
o

t1

Tn-2

md
md,n-3
mb
Trej

Trec

(T0 - Tn)
(t1 Tn)
T1
Tv1
RR
Eth

kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
o
C
%
kJ/kg

Table 5-2: Input and output parameters in SP-MSF-C modelling

Notes:
1: The parameters Uc, Ac, Uc and Ac are obtained using the condenser heat transfer

modelling (see Appendix 2)


126

Chapter 5

The simulation model calculates the specific heat capacity (Cp) at constant pressure and the
latent heat of vaporisation ( ) based on the Equations (A1-1) and (A1-2), respectively.

5.1.2.3 Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-stage flash mixing (SP-MSF-M)

The SP-MSF-M configuration, as shown in Figure 5-5, includes a novel multi-stage flash
process proposed by El-Dessouky et al. (1999), in which the heat rejection section in SPMSF-C is replaced by a single brine mixing box in which part of the hot brine issuing from
the final stage of the heat recovery section is mixed with incoming feed brine to be
desalinated before the mixture enters the preheating condenser section.
The mathematical model for SP-MSF-M is similar to that given above for SP-MSF-OT except
for one additional energy balance equation required for the recycle brine mixer, namely:

mf CpTcw +mr CpTn = ( mf +mr ) CpTx

(5-46)

By substitution and simplification like, the linear algebraic equations were reduced to six
main equations (with six unknown variables) and expressed in matrix notation. The resulting
equations in the form (A11 x1 + A12 x2 + A13 x3 ++A1n xn = b1) are as follows:

(1) md + (1) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + ( 0 ) T0 + ( 0 ) Tn + ( 0 ) t1 = mf

(5-47)

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( -mspCpsp ) Tspr + ( mx Cp ) T0 + ( 0 ) Tn + ( mx Cp ) t1 = -mspCpspTsp

(5-48)

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + (1) Tspr + (EXPF ) T0 + ( 0 ) Tn + ( -1) t1 = Tsp EXPF

(5-49)

( ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + ( -mx Cp ) T0 + ( mx Cp ) Tn + ( 0 ) t1 = 0

(5-50)

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + (mx ) T0 + ( -mf ) Tn + ( -mx ) t1 = -mf Tcw

(5-51)

EXPG
EXPG
T0 + -

Tn
n
n

( 0 ) md + ( 0 ) mb + ( 0 ) Tspr + 1- EXPG +

+ (EXPG -1) t1 = Tloss (1-EXPG )


In the above equations mx, EXPF and EXPG are defined as:
127

(5-52)

Chapter 5

mx = m f + mr

EXPF =

U A
h h
msp Cpsp
e

EXPG =

msp Cpsp

1
mx C p

U c Ac
m Cp
e x

(5-53)

(5-54)

(5-55)

A Visual Basic / spreadsheet package was developed for the SP-MSF-M in order to solve the
matrix equation (the matrix representation is similar to Figure 5-3). The OHTC and the
required heat transfer area for the condenser/preheater were estimated using the MSF
condenser heat transfer model (explained in Appendix 2). The key inputs values to the solver
and the output parameters for the SP-MSF-M simulation are similar to those of SP-MSF-OT
except for one additional input, namely mr, the mass flow rate of recycled brine (in kg/s). The
parameters Uc and Ac were obtained using the condenser heat transfer modelling (see
Appendix 2). The simulation model calculates the specific heat capacity (Cp) at constant
pressure and the latent heat of vaporisation ( ) based on the Equations (A1-1) and (A1-2),
respectively, which can be found in Appendix 1.

128

Chapter 5

Figure 5-5: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-stage flash - mixing (SP-MSF-M) system

129

Chapter 5

5.1.3

Technical performance evaluation of SP-MSF-OT

5.1.3.1 Simulation input parameters

The solar pond-MSF computer models have been used to find the key design parameters and
compare the performance of the different MSF configurations. The following design
parameters were used in this evaluation:

A mass flow rate of hot brine from the solar pond of 20 kg/s

A supply temperature of hot brine from the solar pond of 85C

An overall heat exchange coefficient of the brine heat exchanger of 1600 W/(m2.oC)

A total heat exchange area of the brine heat exchanger of 5 m2

An overall heat exchange coefficient of the condenser heat exchanger of 2200 W/(m2.oC)

A total heat exchange area of the condenser per stage of 2.5 m2

A temperature of feed saltwater of 17C.

5.1.3.2 Specific energy consumption

Figure 5-6 below shows that the specific energy consumption (heat from solar pond per unit
mass of distillate) in SP-MSF-OT decreases as the number of stages increases, regardless of
the feed saltwater flow rate. However, a higher capital cost would be incurred with a larger
number of stages. Figure 5-6 also shows a significant decrease in the energy consumption up
to ten stages, and thereafter diminishing gains as the number of stages further increases.
Specific thermal energy consumption (Heat from solar pond per unit mass
of distillate) vs Number of Stages [for different feed flow rate]
Specific thermal energy consumption
(kJ/kg)

5,500

mf = 0.25 kg/s

5,000

mf = 1 kg/s
mf = 1.5 kg/s

4,500

mf = 2 kg/s

4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Number of Stages (n)

Figure 5-6: Specific thermal energy consumption versus number of stages (for different feed flow rates)

130

Chapter 5

5.1.3.3 System temperatures

The system temperatures versus the number of stages for a SP-MSF-OT system are illustrated
in Figure 5-7, where Tspr is the return temperature of the solar pond, T0 is the top brine
temperature, t1 is the temperature of the preheated intake saltwater and Tn is the temperature
of the brine in the last stage. The mass flow rate of the feed saltwater was fixed at 2 kg/s. It
can be seen that as the number of stages increases, the temperatures of t1 and T0 approach the
solar pond return temperature (Tspr) due to the extra heat recovery with the additional stages
(as was shown in Figure 5-6 above).
An important design consideration is the limit on the number of stages due to a constraint on
the temperature of flashing brine in the final stage. Common practice limits this temperature
to 30C (Khan, 1986). Further reduction in the final stage temperature results in drastic
increase in the stage volume and dimensions. It can be seen from Figure 5-8 that the
relationship of specific volume of water vapour with temperature is exponential. For instance
at 30oC, the specific volume is 1.7 times the value at 40oC (an increase of 70%). Hence this
temperature constraint imposes a practical limit on the number of stages for a given set of
conditions. From the modelling, with the design conditions outlined above, it has been found
that the maximum number of stages is limited to nine.
System temperatures vs Number of Stages
90
85
80
75
70

Temperature ( C)

65

Tspr

60
55

To

50

t1

45

Tn

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Number of Stages (n)

Figure 5-7: System temperatures versus number of stages

131

Chapter 5
Specific volume of saturated water vapour and % change vs Temperature
90%

120

Specific volume

100

% change

80%
70%

Specific Volume (m /kg)

90

60%

80
70

50%

60
40%

50

30%

40
30

20%

% change in specific volume

110

20
10%

10
0

0%
5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Temperature ( C)

Figure 5-8: Specific volume of water vapour and % change at varying temperatures

5.1.3.4 Distillate production and recovery ratio

Figure 5-9 shows that the distillate production and hence recovery ratio increases with the
number of stages in a SP-MSF-OT system. The feed saltwater flow rate was fixed at 2 kg/s.
The maximum recovery ratio of SP-MSF-OT has been found to be approximately 10% when
the supply temperature for the solar pond is 85oC. At lower supply temperatures, the recovery
will be reduced as shown in Figure 5-10. For instance, at a supply temperature of 60oC, the
maximum recovery ratio will drop to 6 %.
Recovery Ratio and Distillate Production vs Number of Stages
12%

0.26

11%

0.24

10%

0.22

Recovery Ratio (%)

0.18

8%

0.16

7%

0.14

6%

0.12

5%

0.10

4%

0.08

3%

0.06

2%

Recovery Ratio

0.04

1%

Distillate Production

0.02

0%

0.00
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Number of Stages (n)

Figure 5-9: Recovery ratio and distillate production versus number of stages

132

Distillate Production (kg/s)

0.20

9%

Chapter 5
Recovery Ratio vs Number of Stages (for different supply temperatures)
12%
11%
10%

Recovery Ratio (%)

9%
8%
7%
6%
5%
4%

Tsp = 85oC

3%

Tsp = 80oC

2%

Tsp = 70oC

1%

Tsp = 60oC

0%
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Number of Stages (n)

Figure 5-10: Recovery ratio versus number of stages (for different supply
temperatures)

5.1.3.5 Optimal feed saltwater flow rate

The distillate production rate versus feed saltwater flow rate for SP-MSF-OT systems with
different number of stages is shown in Figure 5-11. It is clear from the figure that there is an
optimal flow rate for the intake saltwater for a given set of conditions. The optimal flow rates
for a system with one, five, 10 and 15 stages are 1.91, 3.47, 4.68 and 5.59 kg/s, respectively.
It is noteworthy that in the case of 15 stages, the temperature of the brine in the last stage
would be less than 30oC, which would result in significant increase in stage dimensions.
Distillate production rate vs Feed saltwater flow rate (for different number of stages)

0.28

n=1
n=5
n = 10
n = 15

0.26

Distillate Production (md) in kg/s

0.24
0.22
0.20
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.10
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0.00
0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

8.5

9.0

9.5 10.0 10.5

Feed saltwater flowrate (mf) in kg/s

Figure 5-11: Distillate production versus feed saltwater flow rate (for different number of stages)

133

Chapter 5

5.1.4

Solar MSF comparative analysis

A comparative analysis of the three SP-MSF configurations (SP-MSF-OT, SP-MSF-M and


SP-MSF-C) has been undertaken using the mathematical models developed. Table 5-3 shows
the comparison of the different SP-MSF configurations, consisting of eight stages (including
the three heat rejection stages for SP-MSF-C). The flow rate and supply temperature of the
solar heat input have been fixed at 20 kg/s and 85oC, respectively. The total intake saltwater
has been fixed to 2 kg/s in order to compare the specific thermal energy consumption and
recovery ratio. The other parameters are similar to the values assumed in subsection 5.1.3.1
above.
SP-MSF Configurations
Operating Parameters

SP-MSF-OT SP-MSF-C SP-MSF-M

Total intake saltwater, (mf + mcw) or (mf + mr) [kg/s]

2.0

2.0

2.0

Feed saltwater, mf [kg/s]

2.0

0.35

0.48

Recycle brine, mr [kg/s]

1.47

1.52

Top brine temperature, T0 [oC]

79.3

79.4

79.5

Last stage temperature, Tn [ C]

30.6

29.2

53.2

Distillate production [LPM]

9.15

7.91

5.23

Recovery ratio, RR

7.6%

37.7%

18.4%

Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth [kJ/kg]

723.7

666.2

701.8

Table 5-3: Comparison of the SP-MSF configurations for eight stages

As can be seen from Table 5-3 above, SP-MSF-C has the lowest specific thermal energy
consumption and the highest recovery ratio (37.7%) because of its much lower net brine feed
rate (0.35 kg/s). In the simulation, it has been found that the recovery ratio can be up to 4548% depending on the simulated flow rates for the feed saltwater and recycle brine. The SPMSF-M configuration proposed by El-Dessouky (1999) had a higher recovery ratio as
compared to the MSF- once through. However, the specific thermal energy consumption was
higher than MSF-C. From an economic perspective, the savings in capital costs (including
pumping costs) in MSF-OT by the elimination of the heat rejection section and brine recycle
pump together with their controls have to be weighed against the increase in operating costs
due to greater usage of chemicals for pre-treatment of feed brine. The main advantages and
disadvantages of the three MSF configurations are summarised in Table 5-4. An economic
comparative analysis of the three SP-MSF configurations in terms of the chemical and
parasitic electrical energy consumption will be performed and discussed later in Chapter 8.

134

Chapter 5

Advantages

SP-MSF-OT
Elimination of rejection section,

SP-MSF-C
Brine recirculation decreases the flow

SP-MSF-M
Removal of the heat rejection section.

brine recirculation pump and all

rate of the intake saltwater. MSF-C

Mixing of the brine recycle and intake

associated controls thus reducing

uses far fewer chemicals for make-up

seawater takes place in an external

capital and maintenance costs.

treatment as compared to MSF-OT

mixing tank rather than inside the last

thus lowering the costs of pre-

flash chamber.

treatment.

Simpler operation than MSF-C.

The heat supplied by the solar pond

Brine recirculation reduces the flow

per unit mass of distillate produced is

rate of the feed seawater. Hence,

lower than the heat needed by SP-

lower amount of chemicals is needed.

MSF-OT and SP-MSF-M.


Disadvantages High consumption of chemicals

due to large seawater intake thus

Heat rejection section and associated

The mixing process is expected to

controls increases the capital cost.

cause a thermal shock due to the

increasing the operating costs.

difference in temperatures of the

Low recovery ratio.

intake seawater and the brine recycle


resulting in additional costs for proper
venting.

Table 5-4: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the SP- MSF configurations

135

Chapter 5

5.2

The Single-Stage Flash (SSF) Experimental Desalination System

5.2.1

Development of the SSF experimental rig

The SP-MSF-OT computer model has been used to design an experimental small-scale solar
pond single-stage flash (SP-SSF) unit for use with solar heat at temperatures in the 45-85oC
range. The aims of the experimental investigation were to measure and evaluate the
performance of the SP-SSF unit when operating at low temperatures; and compare the two
different condensers (one is made out of Cu-Ni 90/10 and the other High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE)). HDPE has a very low thermal conductivity but is cheaper than Cu-Ni
90/10 and can withstand corrosion. The experimental results are used to validate the computer
model, which can then be used to evaluate larger sized SP-MSF system consisting of more
stages. It is noteworthy that the evaluation of a single-stage flash (SSF) unit is sufficient to
validate the model for multi-stage flash (MSF) systems since the physical characteristics
(such as the condenser/preheater and demister characteristics) are similar for all stages.
Moreover, the experimental estimation of the temperature drop across the demister at different
TBT will improve the model performance predictions. The SSF unit was designed to produce
500 litres per day of fresh water when operating at a top brine temperature of 85oC. Figure
5-12 shows a basic schematic of the SP-SSF system. The following subsections will explain
the key information on the design of the experimental unit.

Figure 5-12: Schematic of SP-SSF desalination unit

136

Chapter 5

5.2.2

Vacuum vessel

The vacuum vessel was designed according to the Australian Standard (AS1210-1997)
Pressure Vessel code (AS, 1997). The maximum operating vacuum pressure and temperature
are 94 kPa (or 7 kPa.abs) and 87oC respectively. However, as a factor of safety, the design of
the vessel was based on a vacuum pressure of 101 kPa (or 0 kPa.abs) and temperature of
100oC.
The vessel was developed with simple manufacture in mind. The dimensions were based on
the length of the condenser heat exchanger tubes, the area of the demister and the volume of
the flash chamber required. The vessel is cylindrical with two end cover plates as shown in
Figure 5-13 and Figure 5-15. The longitudinal axis of the vessel is horizontal.

137

Chapter 5

Figure 5-13: Layout of SSF vacuum vessel

138

Chapter 5

Figure 5-14: Location of ports on end cover plates of SSF vacuum vessel

139

Chapter 5

Figure 5-15: Three-dimensional drawing of SSF vacuum vessel

140

Chapter 5

To accommodate the condenser tubes, demister and flash chamber, the vessel internal
diameter (ID) and length were chosen to be 300 mm and 1800 mm respectively. The vacuum
vessel was made out of transparent acrylic to allow better visual monitoring and inspection.
This has proved to be very effective during leakage inspection. Acrylic can withstand
temperatures of up to 130oC. The youngs modulus and yield strength of Acrylic are 2810
MPa and 82.5 MPa respectively (3DCAM, 2004).
Since the SSF is designed to work under vacuum, the cylinder and end plates experience
external pressure (i.e. atmospheric pressure and any pressure caused by additional loading).
Therefore, the shell and end plates need to be thick enough to withstand the external pressure.
The equations from the Australian Standard AS1210-1997 (refer to Appendix 4) were used to
find the minimum shell thickness. Based on the calculations, the shell needs to be at least 11.1
mm thick to prevent the vessel from collapsing when operating at full vacuum. The maximum
circumferential strain of the shell (Aa) was found to be 0.001514 while the theoretical
pressure required to cause elastic buckling of the shell (Pe) and plastic yielding of the shell
(Py) were estimated to be 0.30 MPa and 5.89 MPa respectively. No corrosion allowance was
taken into consideration in the design since the vessel is made out of plastic. A shell thickness
of 15 mm was chosen since it is a standard size and is easier to manufacture. This gives a
factor of safety of 2.2.
The end cover plates were designed to be removable for easy access to the flash chamber and
condenser tubes. The cover plates are secured to the flanges (which are glued to the main
cylinder) by a number of bolts. The dimensions of the flanges and the number of bolts
required were determined by calculating the stresses occurring at the flanges. A maximum
allowable design stress of 55 MPa was used in the analysis.
The selected gasket from Table AS 3.21.6.4(A) (AS, 1997) is a full face elastomer gasket with
cotton fabric insertion. The 3 mm thick gasket has a gasket factor of 0.25 and a minimum
design seating stress of 2 MPa.
Having bolts too far apart can create uneven pressure on the gasket and cause leakage. The
bolt spacing (centre to centre spacing of bolts) was calculated based on the equation given in
clause 3.21.4.1 (AS, 1997). Two more recommendations by Waters and Taylor (1927); and
Oberg et al. (1985) for bolt spacings were taken into account to prevent stress concentrations
and to allow for spanner clearances.

141

Chapter 5

The bolt selected are M18 mild steel bolts AS1110 5.8 grade. The bolt forces were calculated
according to clauses 3.21.11.4.1(1) and 3.21.11.4.1(2) (AS, 1997). Based on the selected bolt
material and grade, the total bolt core area was checked to ensure that the bolts wont fail.
Finally the radial and tangential stresses in the flanges were checked according to clauses
3.21.6.4.4 and 3.21.11.6 using Equations 3.21.6.4.4(1), 3.21.6.4.4(2), 3.21.11.6(1) and
3.21.11.6(2) given by AS (1997) to ensure that they are less than the maximum allowable
design stresses.
The final specifications of the flanges are as follows:

Nominal bore size: 330 mm

Outside diameter: 430 mm

Thickness: 20 mm

Pitch circle diameter (PCD): 380 mm

Number of bolts: 12

Diameter of bolts: 16 mm

Diameter of holes: 18 mm.

The minimum calculated thickness for the cover plate determined by Equation 3.15.3(2) (AS,
1997) was found to be 19 mm. However, a standard size of 25 mm was chosen for the end
cover plates.
The final specifications of the end cover plates are as follows:

Diameter: 430 mm

Thickness: 25 mm.

As shown in Figure 5-14 and Figure 5-19, the right hand side (RHS) end cover plate contains
the ports for the spray input tube, fresh water outlet, brine outlet, pressure transducer and
instrument cabling while the left hand side (LHS) end cover plate (Figure 5-18) contains the
ports for the inlet and outlet of the condenser, the vacuum pump line and the instrument
cabling.
A 15 mm thick acrylic divider plate having a diameter of 300 mm separates the flash chamber
from the condenser chamber. The divider plate which has an opening at the top to allow the
passage of vapour and to house the demister was glued to the inside walls of the cylinder. At
the bottom of the divider plate is a 3/8 inch diameter orifice needed to drain the fresh water
produced. A tube runs from the divider plate to the RHS end cover plate allowing the fresh
142

Chapter 5

water to be collected. The vacuum vessel, which is held by adjustable steel straps mounted on
a frame, is tilted approximately seven degrees clockwise to facilitate drainage. The original
design of the vacuum vessel had holes at the bottom but this was abandoned to prevent
leakage and cracks.
Extraction of non-condensable gases (NCG) needs to be done at the coldest part of the
vacuum vessel where there is the least activity. A 2 mm thick screen plate was glued to the
LHS end cover plate below the condenser (as shown in Figure 5-15) to ensure that the lower
part is colder than the rest of the vessel since it is protected from approaching vapour. Also,
the screen plate prevents dripping condensation being carried to the vacuum pump.
Figure 5-16 shows the SSF unit without insulation. The vacuum vessel was insulated with 13
mm thick Armaflex sheet insulation (Figure 5-17) which has a thermal conductivity of 0.038
W/m.oC. The hot water piping was also insulated with Armaflex pipe insulation.

Figure 5-16: Un-insulated SSF unit

Figure 5-17: Insulated SSF unit

Figure 5-18: LHS end cover plate

Figure 5-19: RHS end cover plate

143

Chapter 5

5.2.3

Flash chamber and spray nozzles

The dimension of the flash chamber was based on the rejected brine flow rate, residence time
and pressure difference between the flash chamber and the brine reject tank. The saltwater to
be desalinated is introduced in the flash chamber via a British Standard Pipe (BSP) spray
tube. Four BSP wide-angle spray nozzles made out of stainless steel 316 (model: Fulljet
BGG316SS10W) were attached to the spray tube to maximise the exposed surface area
and promote flashing (Figure 5-20).

Figure 5-20: Spray nozzles in flash chamber

5.2.4

Demister

A demister is required in order to remove any entrained brine droplets from the vapour stream
and hence prevent salt being carried over to the condenser chamber. A mesh pad is usually
designed with a specific thickness, density and wire size to optimise the separation efficiency.
In order to determine the required demister pad cross-sectional area, the optimum design
vapour velocity first needs to be found. The optimum vapour velocity given by the SoundersBrown equation (BST-ACS, 1996) is as follows:

Vd = k

( L G )

where Vd is the design vapour velocity (in ft/sec), k is the capacity factor,
density (in lb/ft3) and

(5-56)

is the vapour density (in lb/ft3).


144

is the liquid

Chapter 5

The derating k factors for different processes are shown in Table 5-5.
Process Conditions

Capacity k factor

Most petrochemicals

0.35

Vapours from 100 to 1000 psia

0.27 0.32

Vapours under vacuum of 1-10 psia

0.15 0.32

Table 5-5: Capacity k factor reproduced from Table 6, pg. 6 (BST-ACS, 1996)

By knowing the saturation temperature, the liquid and vapour densities can be found. For this
particular design, the k factor was assumed to be 0.15.
By substituting the known values in Equation (5-56), the optimum velocity can be found. For
a saturation temperature of 47.2oC, the optimum velocity was found to be 5.33 m/s.
Since the fresh water production is known, the required cross-sectional area of the demister
can be found. For a distillate production of 0.0557 m3/s, the optimum demister cross-sectional
area is 0.01046 m2. If the demister is circular in shape, the demister diameter required is
approximately 115.4 mm.
The wire mesh demister housing (Figure 5-21) made out of stainless steel 316 which normally
would contain mesh pads was designed with a cross-sectional area of approximately 0.01046
m2. However, instead of using mesh pads, the wire mesh was filled with Tellerettes (Figure
5-22). Tellerettes are plastic packing made of polyethylene. The chosen Tellerettes type are SO with an external diameter of 47 mm, a height of 19 mm, a surface area of 185 m2/m3 and a
cavity ratio of 88 % (NCE, 2004).

Figure 5-21: Demister housing in flash chamber

145

Figure 5-22: Tellerettes

Chapter 5

5.2.5

Heat exchangers

The properties of common condenser tubes used in the desalination industry are shown in
Table 5-6. The material with the highest thermal conductivity is the Cu-Ni 90/10 with a value
of 44 W/m.oC. Aluminum brass is a cheap material; however its copper content dissolves in
saltwater, like other copper based tubes. Titanium on the other hand does not dissolve in
saltwater but is more expensive than the copper alloys. Another material widely used
nowadays is the duplex (ferritic/austenitic) stainless steel 2205. It has excellent corrosion
resistance and high strength.
Thermal Conductivity
(W/m.oC)
29
44
32
16.5
19.0
16.2
19.9

Material

Cu-Ni 70/30
Cu-Ni 90/10
Aluminum Brass
Titanium
SS 2205
SS 316L
High Steel Alloy

Table 5-6: Properties of common tube materials used in condensers


(De Renzo, 1985; Zaki, 2006)

An important design consideration that has been investigated using the mathematical models
is material selection. A major component of capital costs of an MSF plant are the heat
exchangers. By minimising the cost of the condensers, the capital costs can be reduced and
hence overall unit costs of the desalted water also minimised. Two materials suitable for SPSSF with a maximum operating temperature of 85C have been investigated for the condenser
tubes: Cu-Ni 90/10 and High Density Polyethylene (HDPE).
The tubes of the Cu-Ni 90/10 condenser (Figure 5-23) have an external diameter of 12.7 mm
and are 1 mm thick. As shown in Figure 5-23a, water enters in tube no. 1 and exits from tube
no. 10 at the top. The total length of the condenser tubes is 11.64 m and the total external
surface area is 0.46 m2 (excluding the surface area of the return bends). There are in total nine
return bends.
The thermal conductivity and coefficient of linear expansion of HDPE are 0.46 W/m.oC and
0.15 mm/m.oC, respectively. The HDPE condenser (Figure 5-24) was assembled using
commercially available fittings (Figure 5-25). As shown in Figure 5-24a, waters enters in tube
no. 1 and exits from tube no. 34. The OD and thickness of the HDPE tubes are 16.0 mm and

146

Chapter 5

1.6 mm, respectively. The total length of the condenser tubes is 37.4 m and the total surface
area is 1.88 m2 (excluding the surface area of the fittings). In total, there are 33 return bends.
One of the disadvantages of plastic tubes is the tendency to soften at high temperature. In
order to keep the HDPE pipes straight, three 10 mm thick polycarbonate support plates held
by stainless steel threaded bars and nuts were used. 38 holes of diameter 25 mm were drilled
into the three plates to allow the passage of vapour as shown in Figure 5-24b.
From the computational analysis, it has been found for the given operating conditions and
heat transfer capacity that the heat exchange area of HDPE needed is four times (1.88 m2) that
of Cu-Ni (0.46 m2) due to the low thermal conductivity. This also means that for the same
heat transfer capacity, the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) of HDPE based on the
external surface area is one-fourth that of Cu-Ni. From the simulation, the OHTC for Cu-Ni
and HDPE were found to be 1076 and 263 W/(m2.oC), respectively. However, the costs per
unit area of HDPE are considerably lower than those for Cu-Ni so there may still be
advantages in using HDPE for the condenser tubes. This will be discussed later. It is
important to note that the configuration of the multipass heat exchanger in the SSF unit is
partly parallel and partly counter-flow.

147

Chapter 5

(a) Cross-section

(b) Condenser with cover plate


Figure 5-23: Cu-Ni 90/10 condenser

148

Chapter 5

(a) Cross-section

(b) Condenser with three support plates and cover plate


Figure 5-24: HDPE condenser

149

Chapter 5

Figure 5-25: Schematic of HDPE condenser pipe and fittings

150

Chapter 5

5.2.6

Pumps and tanks

A 50 m3/hr single-stage liquid ring vacuum pump (model: Pompetravaini TRVX 255) was
used to create and maintain the vacuum in the system (Figure 5-26a). The vacuum pump is
driven by a 1.5 kW motor. The maximum vacuum achievable by the liquid ring pump is 3.3
kPa.abs as stated by the manufacturer. However, this is dependent on the temperature of the
gas being extracted and the service fluid temperature. The manufacturers data is based on a
service liquid temperature of 15oC and air temperature of 20oC. In order to prevent the air and
liquid piping from collapsing when operating under vacuum, Plutone PVC suction hoses
which can sustain a maximum vacuum of 3 kPa.abs were used.
Non-condensable gases (NCG) lower the heat exchange rate by forming a boundary layer
over the condenser tubes. The partial pressure of NCG also contributes to the overall pressure
in the vacuum vessel. The vacuum pump needs to be operated in batch mode or continuously
to remove the NCG.
A 50 litres tank made out of stainless steel 316 was used to collect the freshwater while a 220
litres tank made out of carbon steel was needed for the brine collection. A 250 litres
polyethylene tank was used to supply the saltwater to the desalination system.

(a) Vacuum pump

(b) Extraction pump

(c) Supply pump

Figure 5-26: Vacuum, extraction and supply pumps

In order to allow the fresh water and reject brine liquid to be removed from the tanks while
the system is still processing under vacuum, low net positive suction head (NPSH) extraction
pumps were installed. A 1.1 kW extraction pump (model: Pompetravaini TBA 291) with brass
impellers and cast iron diffusers was used to remove the drained liquid from the brine tank.
Similarly, the distillate from the freshwater tank was extracted by a 1.1 kW pump (model:
Pompetravaini TBA 291) with stainless steel 316 parts (Figure 5-26b). The minimum positive
head required for liquids in boiling conditions using these extraction pumps is only 0.17 m.

151

Chapter 5

Net positive suction head (NPSH) shows the difference between the pressure and the liquid
vapour pressure in a hydraulic system. If the liquid stagnation pressure drops below the
vapour pressure, liquid boiling occurs resulting in cavitation. Vapour bubbles caused by
cavitation may reduce or stop the liquid flow and damage the pump.
The net positive suction head required (NPSHR) is a function of the pump design at the
operating point on the pump performance curve. It is the amount of liquid pressure required
into the intake port of the pump. The extraction pumps used in this research study have a
NPSHR of 0.9 to 1.1 m.
The net positive suction head available (NPSHA) is a function of the pump suction system. In
a flooded suction system (as was the case in this investigation), NPSHA is given by the
following equation:
NPSHA = hatm + hsuc - hvap - hfric

(5-57)

where hatm is the atmospheric pressure, hsuc is the liquid height or static head, hvap is the
vapour pressure and hfric is the friction losses in the suction line.
In order to prevent cavitation, NPSHA must be greater than NPSHR. The vacuum pressure in
the storage tanks (about 5 kPa) and the static head (minimum of 4.9 kPa) provides enough
NPSHA for the safe operation of the extraction pumps.
It is noteworthy that constructing the desalination plant at an elevation of 11 metres eliminates
the need for the distillate and reject brine extraction pump. The barometric leg can be created
to seal the vacuum system and allow for gravity drainage. This would reduce the systems
capital and maintenance costs. However this is unpractical for large-scale applications.
A horizontal multistage centrifugal pump (model: Onga SSH500) as shown in Figure 5-26c
was installed to meet the pressure requirement of the gas water heater used in the
experimental study partly conducted indoors to simulate solar-thermal heat. The pump has a
maximum head of 45 m and a maximum flow rate of 72 LPM. The centrifugal pump was also
used during the experimental study of the HDPE to supply saltwater to the flash chamber,
since the HDPE condenser has a high pressure drop owing to the number of return bends.

152

Chapter 5

5.2.7

Instrumentation and data acquisition

In order to measure the performance of the SP-SSF unit, a number of sensors were connected
to a data acquisition system. This section describes the equipment used during the
investigation. A schematic showing the position of the sensors on the SP-SSF unit is shown in
Figure 5-37.
As thermal performance measurements are important in this investigation, resistance
temperature detectors (RTD) have been used to accurately measure the temperature at
different points. The 2-wire thin film platinum probes Pt100 (Figure 5-27) have a resistance of
100 0.1 at 0oC. The operating range and accuracy are -50C to +250C and 0.3oC
respectively. All the RTD sensors were calibrated using a RTD calibrator (model: Fluke 712).
In the flash chamber, RTD sensors were placed to measure the saturation temperature and the
reject brine temperature. RTD sensors were also positioned within the condenser chamber at a
low and high point to measure the saturation temperature. The surface temperature of the
condenser was also taken. The temperature of the saltwater to be desalinated was measured at
different points as shown in Figure 5-37. The inlet and outlet temperatures of the saltwater
flowing in the condenser/preheater were taken to allow the calculation of the heat transfer. In
addition, the temperature of the fluid was taken prior to the entry and exit of the gas water
heater. In addition, the ambient temperature was recorded.

Figure 5-27: Resistance temperature detector

Figure 5-28: Turbine flow transducer

A turbine flow transducer (Figure 5-28), with a flow rate range of 0.2 to 9 LPM, was placed at
the inlet of the spray tube (external to the vacuum vessel) to measure the flow rate of the
saltwater to be desalinated. Another similar flow meter (with a plastic jet inserted in the
flowmeter to restrict the flow rate in the range of 0.05 to 1.5 LPM) was positioned on the
freshwater collection line to measure the distillate production. These flow measurements

153

Chapter 5

enable the distillate production and recovery ratio to be calculated. The accuracy of the
flowmeters reported by the manufacturer is 3 % of the reading.
The flowmeter transducer gives a frequency output. The full scale frequency is up to 200 Hz.
A frequency-to-analogue converter (model: Brodersen PXF-20) as shown in Figure 5-29 was
needed to convert the frequency output from the flowmeter to match the voltage input (0 to
20V range) of the data acquisition system. The frequency-to-analogue converters were
calibrated using a function generator. This was done by calculating the voltage outputs at
varying frequencies.

Figure 5-29: Frequency to analogue converters

Figure 5-30: Parker visual flowmeter

A visual flowmeter (model: Parker EF.7731112290) was placed at the inlet of the condenser
to measure the cooling water flow rate when the SP-SSF is operating in non-preheating mode.
The flow meter which has a range of 4 to 50 LPM can be seen in Figure 5-30.
As a double check of the flow rate values, vertical graduated clear tubes were attached
externally to the freshwater and brine tanks. The flow rates were determined by measuring the
volumetric difference in water level over a known amount of time.
Side-mounted level switches (model: Gems LS-7 series Type 7) as shown in Figure 5-31 were
fitted to the freshwater and brine tanks to allow the liquids to be drained automatically by the
extraction pumps whenever the tanks are nearly full. The pumps were activated by the plastic
level switches via dual float controllers (model: Levelite GLL 100000).

154

Chapter 5

Figure 5-31: Tanks level switches

Figure 5-32: Pressure transducer PMP 1400

Two calibrated pressure transducers (model: GE Druck PMP1400) were installed to measure
the pressure in the flash and condenser chambers. The transducers (Figure 5-32) are capable
of measuring vacuum pressure from 0 to 1 bar absolute and give a voltage output (0 to 5V)
proportional to the applied pressure. The typical accuracy is 0.15% of the span (difference
between the lowest and highest pressure).
Pressure gauges were connected on the supply line at four points to monitor the pressure. The
readings were not used for any calculations and hence the gauges need not be very precise.
The pressure gauges made out of stainless steel 316 were chosen for their compatibility with
saltwater, range of operating temperatures and pressures.
The RTD sensors, flowmeters and pressure transducers were connected to a data recorder
(model: Yokogawa MV230) consisting of 30 channels (Figure 5-33) for continuous
measurements. The measurement interval was set to two seconds.

155

Chapter 5

Figure 5-33: Yokogawa MV230 data recorder

The parasitic energy consumption of the vacuum, supply and extraction pumps was each
measured by power meters (model: ND Multicube 3-M2) as can be seen in Figure 5-34. The
power meters are capable of measuring current, voltage, PF and kW indicators and kWh. The
power meters were selected for their accuracy and cost effectiveness.

156

Chapter 5

Figure 5-34: Four ND Multicube power meters fixed to control panel

An ultrasonic leak detector (model: Infocom) proved useful in detecting and fixing leakage
during the early trial of the SP-SSF unit.
The quality of the freshwater produced by the SP-SSF unit was measured by a total dissolved
solids (TDS) meter (model: Primo) with automatic temperature compensation (Figure 5-35).
The operating range is 0 to 1999 ppm and the accuracy is 2% F.S.
Since seawater and/or brackish water were not available on location, saltwater was prepared
by mixing industrial grade salt (available in 25 kg bags from Pyramid Salt) with freshwater.
The salinity of the saltwater was measured by a density meter (model: Anton Paar DMA 35N)
as shown in Figure 5-36.

157

Chapter 5

Figure 5-35: Primo TDS meter

Figure 5-36: Anton Paar density meter

A schematic showing the position of the sensors on the SP-SSF unit is shown in Figure 5-37.
Table 5-7 gives a description of each sensor attached to the data recorder.

158

Chapter 5

Figure 5-37: Schematic showing position of sensors on SP-SSF unit

159

Chapter 5

Sensor type

Channel
number
1

Description

Pressure transducer [P1] Pressure in condenser chamber (kPa.abs)


Pressure transducer [P2] Pressure in flash chamber (kPa.abs)

Flow transducer [M1]

Saltwater feed flow rate (LPM)

Flow transducer [M2]

Distillate flow rate (LPM)

RTD [T1]

Condenser inlet water temperature (oC)

RTD [T2]

Condenser outlet water temperature (oC)

RTD [T3]

Brine heater inlet water temperature (oC)

RTD [T4]

Brine heater outlet water temperature (oC)

RTD [T5]

Flash chamber inlet water temperature (oC)

RTD [T6]

Distillate water temperature (oC)

10

RTD [T7]

RTD [T8]

Reject brine water temperature ( C)

11
o

Flash chamber saturation temperature ( C)

12
o

RTD [T9]

Condenser chamber upper saturation temperature ( C)

13

RTD [T10]

Condenser surface temperature (oC)

14

RTD [T11]

Condenser chamber lower saturation temperature (oC)

15

RTD [T12]

Liquid brine temperature (oC)

16

RTD

Flash chamber external surface temperature (oC)

17

RTD

Condenser chamber external surface temperature (oC)

18

RTD

Ambient temperature (oC)

Flow meter

Cooling water flow rate (LPM)

19
visual
only

Table 5-7: Description of sensors on SP-SSF unit

5.2.8

Coupling of SSF with heat source

Since the heat capacity of the salinity-gradient solar pond at RMIT University (see Section
3.5) was not enough for the SSF unit, a 47 kW gas water heater (model: Rinnai Infinity REUV2632FFU) was installed indoors next to the SSF unit to simulate solar-thermal heat.

160

Chapter 5

5.3

SSF Experimental Findings

5.3.1

Experimental procedures

The SSF unit was trialled repeatedly in order to measure the performance of the system. The
unit was tested at different top brine temperature (TBT): 45oC, 50oC, 55oC, 60oC, 65oC, 75oC
and 85oC. The lower temperature limit was chosen as 45oC since the recovery ratio drops
below 1% at temperatures less than 45oC. An upper temperature limit of 85oC was selected
since this is the maximum temperature that could be obtained from the gas hot water system
and in practice this is the average maximum LCZ temperature of a salinity-gradient solar
pond (see Section 3.3.1). The feed saltwater flow rate was also varied (from 2.5 to 7.5 LPM)
during the experiments in order to explore the effect of the flow rate on the distillate
production, recovery ratio and specific thermal energy consumption. Once the vacuum
pressure in the SSF unit was set and the condenser saltwater outlet temperature (T2) was
uniform, the steady-state measurements could be taken. The durations for the SSF steady-state
experimental tests were 10 to 50 minutes.
5.3.2

Typical results at 85oC and 3 LPM

Typical results obtained from the SSF unit when operating at a TBT of 85oC and a feed flow
rate of 3 LPM are shown in Figure 5-38, Figure 5-39, Figure 5-40, Figure 5-41 and Figure
5-42. The same calculations and analysis were applied to the remaining trials at different
temperatures and flow rates.
SP-SSF Operating temperatures

Start

90

Stop

85
80
75

Steady-state

70
65
o

Temperature ( C)

60
55
50
45
40

T1
T4
T9
T12

35
30
25

T2
T5
T10
DeltaTloss

T3
T8
T11

20
15
10
5
0
0
o

[85 C at 3.0 LPM]

10

11

12

13

Duration (min)

Figure 5-38: SP-SSF operating temperatures at 85oC and 3 LPM

161

14

15

Chapter 5

Figure 5-38 shows the operating temperatures during the experimental trial at a TBT of 85oC
and feed saltwater flow rate of 3 LPM. It is evident from the figure that the system reached a
steady-state approximately four minutes after start-up. The temperature readings remained
uniform until the trial was stopped. The thermodynamic loss Tloss (the temperature
difference between the condensing vapour and the hot brine) was derived using Equation
(5-9) and plotted on the same graph. Tloss was found to be approximately (3.7 0.7)oC for
this particular trial. This value is higher than the initially assumed theoretical value of 2oC
(see Section 5.1.1) and will be discussed later. It is worthy to note that this temperature loss is
partly caused by the vapour pressure drop in the demister. The average steady-state results are
summarised in Table 5-8. The empirical error range values were calculated using the
uncertainty analysis procedures described in Appendix 5.
Figure 5-39 shows that the measured operating pressures were almost constant in both
chambers (P1 being the pressure in the condenser chamber and P2 the pressure in the flash
chamber) during the trial at 85oC. The pressure had increased by 1 kPa.abs due to the small
accumulation of non-condensable gases (NCG) in the chambers. In a system operating
continuously, the NCG would have to be removed by a vacuum pump or ejector system to
ensure optimum performance.
SP-SSF Operating pressures

Start

20
18

Stop

Steady-state

16

Pressure (kPa)

14

P1
P2

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0
o

[85 C at 3.0 LPM]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Duration (min)

Figure 5-39: SP-SSF operating pressures at 85oC and 3 LPM

The feed saltwater and distillate flow rates measured by the flow transducers; and the derived
recovery ratio (as defined in Section 3.4.3 and calculated using Equation (5-11)) are depicted

162

Chapter 5

in Figure 5-40. The distillate production was approximately (0.157 0.005) LPM which gives
a recovery ratio of (5.23 0.23)%.
SSF Flow rates and Recovery ratio

Start

5.0

Stop

12%
11%

4.5

9%
8%

3.0

7%
6%

2.5

5%

2.0

4%

1.5

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

3.5

Flow rate (LPM)

10%

Feed Flow Rate (M1)


Distillate Prod. (M2)
Recovery Ratio (RR)

4.0

3%
1.0

2%

Steady-state

0.5

1%

0.0

0%
0

[85 C at 3.0 LPM]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Duration (min)

Figure 5-40: SP-SSF flow rates and recovery ratios at 85oC and 3 LPM

Using heat energy balance equation, the heat flow to the condenser can be found from:
Qc = M1Cp ( T2 - T1)

(5-58)

Similarly, the heat flow from the gas hot water system is:
Qh = M1Cp ( T4 - T3 )

(5-59)

The total heat energy input to the feed saltwater can be found from:
Qtotal = M1Cp ( T5 - T1) Qc + Qh

(5-60)

The variables in the above equations are defined in Table 5-7. It is noteworthy that there is a
small difference between Qtotal and (Qc + Qh) due to the thermal losses in the hot water piping
(i.e. T3 T2 and T5 T4). In this analysis, Qtotal will be calculated as the summation of Qc
and Qh.
The specific heat at constant pressure, Cp was evaluated at the average temperature of the
liquid streams using Equation A1-1 (Appendix 1). The mass flow rate of the feed saltwater,
M1 was determined by first calculating the density using Equation A1-6 (Appendix 1) and
then multiplying the density by the measured flow rate (in m3/s) as shown in Equation (5-61).
163

Chapter 5

(5-61)

m = V

The heat flow to the condenser can also be expressed as a percentage of the total heat energy
input to the feed saltwater. Figure 5-41 illustrates the derived heat flow in the SP-SSF unit. It
is obvious from the figure that (41.53 1.95)% of the total heat input to the saltwater was
provided by the condenser/preheater (represented by Qc). The remaining (8.00 0.29) kW
was provided by the gas hot water system (Qh) simulating solar-thermal heat.
It is interesting to note that without preheating (that is by having a separate cooling circuit),
(13.69 0.36) kW (Qtotal) of thermal energy would have been needed to run the system. In
addition a separate water pump would be needed to circulate the cooling water stream through
the condenser. Increasing the cooling water flow rates (in multiples of the feed saltwater flow
rates) would increase the distillate production and hence recovery ratio (up to ~ 10%) but this
would have a detrimental effect on the specific total energy consumption. For instance, by
having a separate cooling circuit with the cooling water flow rate set to three times the feed
saltwater flow rate, the recovery ratio would be ~ 7.2%. However, the specific thermal energy
consumption would be ~ 3,800 kJ/kg due to the absence of preheating. The specific total
energy consumption must also include the extra parasitic energy needed to run the cooling
water pump.
SP-SSF Heat flow

Stop

60%

Qc
Qh
Qtotal
% of Qtotal

20
18

55%
50%
45%

16

40%

Heat (kW)

14

35%
12
30%
10
25%
8

20%

15%

10%

5%

Steady-state

0%
0

Qc (% of Qtotal)

Start

22

[85 C at 3.0 LPM]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Duration (min)

Figure 5-41: SP-SSF heat flow at 85oC and 3 LPM

The derived specific thermal energy consumption defined as the heat supplied by the solar
pond (in this case by the gas hot water heater) per unit mass of distillate produced (see Section
164

Chapter 5

3.4.4) is illustrated in Figure 5-42. The specific thermal energy was found be approximately
(3,175 150) kJ/kg.
SP-SSF Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

Start

8,000

Stop

7,500
7,000

Specific thermal energy (kJ/kg)

6,500

Steady-state

6,000
5,500
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
0

[85 C at 3.0 LPM]

10

11

12

13

14

15

Duration (min)

Figure 5-42: SP-SSF specific thermal energy consumption at 85oC and 3 LPM

The average results (together with the error range values) from the steady-state trial at 85oC
are shown in Table 5-8. The error range values were calculated using the uncertainty analysis
procedures described in Appendix 5.
Pressure in condenser chamber, P1 (kPa.abs)

14.69 0.16

Pressure in flash chamber, P2 (kPa.abs)

15.80 0.16

Saltwater feed flow rate, M1 (LPM)

3.000 0.092
0.157 0.005

Distillate flow rate, M2 (LPM)


o

19.4 0.4

Condenser inlet water temperature, T1 ( C)


o

46.6 0.5

Brine heater inlet water temperature, T3 ( C)

46.1 0.5

Brine heater outlet water temperature, T4 (oC)

84.4 0.5

Flash chamber inlet water temperature, T5 (oC)

81.8 0.5

Distillate water temperature, T6 (oC)

46.0 0.5

Reject brine water temperature, T7 (oC)

47.1 0.5

Flash chamber saturation temperature, T8 (oC)

51.9 0.5

Condenser chamber upper saturation temperature, T9 (oC)

48.5 0.5

Condenser outlet water temperature, T2 ( C)

45.3 0.5

Condenser surface temperature, T10 ( C)


o

Condenser chamber lower saturation temperature, T11 ( C)


o

Liquid brine water temperature, T12 ( C)


165

45.4 0.5
52.1 0.5

Chapter 5

Flash chamber external surface temperature (oC)

37.6 0.5
o

32.2 0.5

Condenser chamber external surface temperature ( C)


o

Ambient temperature ( C)

21.5 0.4

RR (%)

5.23 0.23
3.7 0.7

DeltaTloss ( C)
Qc (kW)

5.68 0.22

Qh (kW)

8.00 0.29

Qtotal (kW)

13.69 0.36

Qc (% of Qtotal)

41.53 1.95

Eth (kJ/kg)

3,175 150

Table 5-8: SP-SSF average steady-state results (with error range values) for
trial at 85oC and 3 LPM

5.3.3

SP-SSF at varying heat source temperature and constant feed flow rate

5.3.3.1 Procedures
The SP-SSF was tested at varying heat source temperatures (45oC, 50oC, 55oC, 60oC, 65oC,
75oC and 85oC) while keeping the feed saltwater flow rate uniform at approximately 4.1
LPM. This was achieved by changing the temperature setting on the gas hot water outlet
(which is equivalent to the top brine temperature). The experimental results from the various
top brine temperature (TBT) tests are provided in the following sub sections.

5.3.3.2 Distillate production and recovery ratio


SP-SSF Distillate production and recovery ratio at varying TBT (constant flowrate of 4.1 LPM)
8.0%

0.24

Distillate Production (LPM)

0.20

7.5%

Recovery ratio

7.0%

Recovery ratio (Best fit line)

6.5%

Distillate production (Best fit line)

0.18

6.0%
5.5%

0.16

5.0%
0.14

4.5%
4.0%

0.12

3.5%

0.10

3.0%
0.08

2.5%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

0.22

Distillate production

2.0%

0.06

1.5%

0.04

1.0%
0.02

0.5%

0.00

0.0%
40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Top brine temperature, TBT (oC)

Figure 5-43: SP-SSF distillate production and recovery ratio at varying heat source temperature
(with error bars shown)

166

Chapter 5

Figure 5-43 shows that for a constant feed flow rate the recovery ratio (mass fraction of input
saltwater converted to fresh water) increases as the TBT increases. The maximum recovery
ratio (RR) obtained experimentally was about (5.47 0.24)%, equivalent to a daily distillate
production of (321 10) litres, for a feed flow rate of (4.080 0.124) LPM. The error bars
(defined by the error range values calculated using the uncertainty analysis procedures
described in Appendix 5) and best fit lines are also shown in the figure. The error bars in the
x-axis direction (X error bars) show the error range values in the measurement of the TBT
while the error bars in the y-axis direction (Y error bars) show the distillate production
empirical error range values.

5.3.3.3 Specific thermal energy consumption


At a constant feed flow rate the specific thermal energy consumption (heat from solar pond
per unit mass of distillate) decreases as the top brine temperature increases for a constant feed
flow rate of 4.1 LPM at initial temperatures between 16 and 19oC (Figure 5-44). The results
obtained were approximated using a power trend curve as shown in the figure. For this set of
conditions, the specific thermal energy consumption at 45oC and 85oC are (8,947 538) kJ/kg
and (2,892 136) kJ/kg, respectively.
SP-SSF Specific thermal energy at varying TBT (constant feed flow rate of 4.1 LPM)

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

11,000
10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Top brine temperature, TBT ( C)

Figure 5-44: SP-SSF specific thermal energy consumption at varying heat source
temperature (with error bars shown)

167

Chapter 5

5.3.3.4 Thermodynamic losses


The thermodynamic losses, Tloss (derived using Equation (5-9)) are presented in Figure 5-45
for different TBT. These losses are caused by non-equilibrium allowance (NEA), boiling
point elevation (BPE) and temperature drop due to pressure loss in the demister.
BPE increases with temperature and are typically within the range of 0.1oC to 1.0oC (see
Equation A1-14 in appendix 1 for details). As was noted before, the vapour formation and
hence distillate production increases with the TBT. For the same demister area, the vapour
velocity rises with an increase in the TBT. Consequently, the pressure drop and hence
temperature drop across the demister would rise. Therefore, one would expect the
thermodynamic losses to be higher as the TBT increases. However this was not observed in
the trials. Tloss varied between (2.4 0.7)oC and (6.3 0.7)oC and more thermodynamic
losses occurred at low TBT.
One possible explanation is the fact that the brine level in the flash chamber had an effect on
the thermodynamic losses. The brine level was not constant (as observed visually in the trials)
due to the unsteady brine reject flow being affected by the release of NCG from the brine
reject storage tank. The brine level needs to be maintained at an optimum level to reduce the
head loss caused by higher brine levels which would increase the pressure drop. Due to the
accumulation of NCG in the brine reject tank (it is noteworthy that more NCG is released at
low TBT), the brine level never attained equilibrium and this has consequently resulted in
higher Tloss at low TBT.
SP-SSF Thermodynamic losses at varying TBT (constant feed flow rate of 4.1 LPM)
8.0

7.0

5.0

DeltaTloss ( C)

6.0

4.0

3.0

2.0

1.0

0.0
40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Top brine temperature, TBT ( C)

Figure 5-45: SP-SSF thermodynamic losses at varying heat source temperature (with error
bars shown)

168

Chapter 5

5.3.3.5 Heat flow


Figure 5-46 depicts the derived heat flow at varying TBT. Qc is the heat flow to the
condenser/preheater, Qh is the heat flow from the gas hot water system simulating solarthermal heat and Qtotal is the total heat added to the feed saltwater to be desalinated. The
derived results were approximated by fitting trend curves. As can be seen in the figure and in
Table 5-9, the preheating process contributed up to (43.5 2.0)% of the total heat energy
requirement.
SP-SSF Heat flow at varying TBT (constant feed flow rate of 4.1 LPM)
24
Qh
Qc
Qtotal
Qtotal (Best fit line)
Qh (Best fit line)
Qc (Best fit line)

22
20

Heat flow (kW)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Top brine temperature, TBT ( C)

Figure 5-46: SP-SSF heat flow at varying heat source temperature (with error
bars shown)

169

Chapter 5

Description
Pressure in condenser
chamber, P1 (kPa.abs)
Pressure in flash chamber,
P2 (kPa.abs)
Saltwater feed flow rate,
M1 (LPM)
Distillate flow rate (LPM)
Condenser inlet water
temperature, T1 (oC)
Condenser outlet water
temperature, T2 (oC)
Brine heater inlet water
temperature, T3 (oC)
Brine heater outlet water
temperature, T4 (oC)
Flash chamber inlet water
temperature, T5 (oC)
Distillate water
temperature, T6 (oC)
Reject brine water
temperature, T7 (oC)
Flash chamber saturation
temperature, T8 (oC)
Condenser chamber upper
saturation temperature, T9
(oC)
Condenser surface
temperature, T10 (oC)
Condenser chamber lower
saturation temperature, T11
(oC)

Top brine temperature, TBT (oC)


55
60
65

45

50

75

85

8.20 0.16

10.01 0.16

11.82 0.16

10.00 0.16

15.62 0.16

13.13 0.16

15.78 0.16

8.58 0.16

10.35 0.16

12.22 0.16

11.09 0.16

16.29 0.16

13.71 0.16

16.36 0.16

4.087 0.125

4.053 0.124

4.060 0.124

4.100 0.125

4.054 0.124

4.109 0.125

4.080 0.124

0.034 0.001

0.048 0.002

0.080 0.003

0.101 0.003

0.122 0.004

0.182 0.006

0.223 0.007

19.1 0.4

16.4 0.4

16.5 0.4

19.2 0.4

17.0 0.4

17.0 0.4

16.7 0.4

25.4 0.5

22.7 0.4

25.6 0.5

35.2 0.5

27.3 0.5

42.7 0.5

46.4 0.5

25.0 0.5

22.4 0.4

25.2 0.5

34.8 0.5

26.9 0.5

42.3 0.5

46.0 0.5

45.0 0.5

48.1 0.5

55.0 0.5

59.9 0.5

64.8 0.5

74.9 0.5

84.6 0.5

45.0 0.5

48.2 0.5

55.0 0.5

59.6 0.5

64.5 0.5

74.8 0.5

84.6 0.5

26.5 0.5

35.0 0.5

36.9 0.5

37.6 0.5

40.5 0.5

42.2 0.5

46.1 0.5

37.5 0.5

36.3 0.5

39.3 0.5

42.1 0.5

42.4 0.5

40.4 0.5

42.7 0.5

38.2 0.5

42.0 0.5

46.2 0.5

42.8 0.5

53.5 0.5

48.8 0.5

53.4 0.5

32.0 0.5

36.1 0.5

40.1 0.5

38.7 0.5

46.9 0.5

46.4 0.5

50.9 0.5

23.3 0.4

18.9 0.4

21.5 0.4

35.4 0.5

21.8 0.4

38.0 0.5

41.0 0.5

24.2 0.5

28.0 0.5

32.1 0.5

33.7 0.5

31.6 0.5

44.2 0.5

48.6 0.5

170

Chapter 5

Liquid brine temperature,


T12 (oC)
Flash chamber external
surface temperature (oC)
Condenser chamber
external surface
temperature (oC)
Ambient temperature (oC)

38.3 0.5

41.6 0.5

45.6 0.5

43.0 0.5

50.6 0.5

48.8 0.5

53.7 0.5

22.8 0.4

37.2 0.5

38.2 0.5

32.9 0.5

32.3 0.5

38.7 0.5

38.7 0.5

21.8 0.4

35.7 0.5

36.8 0.5

29.0 0.5

30.6 0.5

36.7 0.5

36.1 0.5

19.2 0.4

19.6 0.4

19.8 0.4

20.4 0.4

17.8 0.4

19.8 0.4

18.0 0.4

(0.83 0.04)%

(1.18 0.06)%

(1.97 0.09)%

(2.46 0.11)%

(3.00 0.13)%

(4.43 0.19)%

(5.47 0.24)%

6.3 0.7

5.5 0.7

5.5 0.7

4.3 0.7

3.7 0.7

2.4 0.7

2.8 0.7

Qc (kW)

2.44 0.26

2.75 0.29

2.56 0.19

3.57 0.18

4.86 0.33

6.84 0.27

8.28 0.31

Qh (kW)

5.07 0.23

6.32 0.25

8.43 0.32

8.16 0.33

8.75 0.31

9.84 0.37

10.75 0.38

Qtotal (kW)

7.51 0.34

9.07 0.38

10.99 0.37

11.73 0.38

13.61 0.45

16.68 0.46

19.03 0.49

RR
DeltaTloss (oC)

Qc (% of Qtotal)
Eth (kJ/kg)

(32.49 3.73)% (30.32 3.42)% (23.29 1.94)% (30.43 1.82)% (35.71 2.73)% (41.01 1.97)% (43.51 1.98)%
8,947 538

7,902 423

6,323 315

4,848 250

4,310 204

3,244 157

2,892 136

Table 5-9: SP-SSF average steady-state results (with error range values) at varying heat source temperature and constant feed flow rate

171

Chapter 5

5.3.4

SP-SSF at varying feed flow rate and constant heat source temperature

5.3.4.1 Procedures
The SP-SSF unit was trialled at varying feed flow rates (between 2.5 and 7.5 LPM) while
keeping the top brine temperature (TBT) constant at approximately 75oC. The results obtained
from the experimental tests are provided in the following sub sections.

5.3.4.2 Distillate production and recovery ratio


Figure 5-48 shows that the recovery ratio (RR) increases as the feed flow rate decreases when
the feed temperature is kept constant. However, the distillate production rate increases as the
feed rate increases (Figure 5-47). The error bars (defined by the error range values calculated
using the uncertainty analysis procedures described in Appendix 5) and best fit lines are
shown in the figure.
SP-SSF Distillate production at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)
0.26

Distillate Production (LPM)

0.24

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14
Distillate production

0.12

Distillate production (Best fit line)


0.10
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-47: SP-SSF distillate production at varying feed flow rate (with error
bars shown)

172

Chapter 5
SP-SSF Recovery ratio at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)
4.6%

4.4%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

4.2%

4.0%

3.8%

3.6%

3.4%

3.2%

Recovery ratio
Recovery ratio (Best fit line)

3.0%
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-48: SP-SSF recovery ratio at varying feed flow rate (with error bars
shown)

5.3.4.3 Specific thermal energy consumption


As the feed saltwater flow rate increases at constant TBT, the specific thermal energy
consumption increases (Figure 5-49). The relationship between the specific thermal energy
and the feed flow rate was found to be almost linear at constant TBT. It is noteworthy that this
relationship is different to the case when the TBT is varied at constant feed flow rate (see
Figure 5-44).
o

SP-SSF Specific thermal energy at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75 C)

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

5,500

5,000

4,500

4,000

3,500

3,000
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-49: SP-SSF specific thermal energy consumption at varying feed flow rate (with
error bars shown)

173

Chapter 5

5.3.4.4 Heat flow


The heat flow at varying flow rates is shown in Figure 5-50. It can be seen that the preheating
process (represented by Qc in the figure) contributed between (31.7 1.7)% and (39.6
2.0)% of the total heat energy requirement.
SP-SSF Heat flow at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)
30

Qh

28

Qc

26

Qtotal

24

Qtotal (Best fit line)

Heat flow (kW)

22

Qh (Best fit line)

20

Qc (Best fit line)

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-50: SP-SSF heat flow at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)

The average steady-state results (including derived results) at varying feed saltwater flow rate
and constant top brine temperature are provided in Table 5-10.

174

Chapter 5

Description
Pressure in condenser
chamber, P1 (kPa.abs)
Pressure in flash chamber,
P2 (kPa.abs)
Saltwater feed flow rate,
M1 (LPM)
Distillate flow rate (LPM)
Condenser inlet water
temperature, T1 (oC)
Condenser outlet water
temperature, T2 (oC)
Brine heater inlet water
temperature, T3 (oC)
Brine heater outlet water
temperature, T4 (oC)
Flash chamber inlet water
temperature, T5 (oC)
Distillate water
temperature, T6 (oC)
Reject brine water
temperature, T7 (oC)
Flash chamber saturation
temperature, T8 (oC)
Condenser chamber upper
saturation temperature, T9
(oC)
Condenser surface
temperature, T10 (oC)
Condenser chamber lower
saturation temperature, T11
(oC)
Liquid brine temperature,

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)


3.48
4.44
5.03

2.63

2.98

6.00

7.19

14.00 0.16

14.59 0.16

16.20 0.16

16.20 0.16

15.20 0.16

13.66 0.16

16.16 0.16

14.37 0.16

15.18 0.16

16.82 0.16

16.80 0.16

15.70 0.16

14.83 0.16

17.44 0.16

2.633 0.080

2.979 0.091

3.481 0.106

4.437 0.135

5.033 0.153

5.999 0.183

7.188 0.219

0.112 0.004

0.125 0.004

0.145 0.005

0.173 0.005

0.186 0.006

0.203 0.006

0.240 0.007

16.6 0.4

16.8 0.4

17.1 0.4

16.9 0.4

16.3 0.4

18.9 0.4

18.7 0.4

39.7 0.5

39.9 0.5

37.8 0.5

37.2 0.5

38.1 0.5

41.0 0.5

36.5 0.5

39.3 0.5

39.5 0.5

37.5 0.5

36.9 0.5

37.8 0.5

40.5 0.5

36.1 0.5

74.5 0.5

74.7 0.5

74.9 0.5

74.8 0.5

74.7 0.5

74.7 0.5

74.6 0.5

73.7 0.5

74.6 0.5

74.8 0.5

74.7 0.5

74.5 0.5

74.5 0.5

74.3 0.5

42.5 0.5

44.4 0.5

46.8 0.5

46.3 0.5

43.8 0.5

43.0 0.5

45.1 0.5

43.0 0.5

41.4 0.5

44.5 0.5

45.0 0.5

43.5 0.5

47.7 0.5

51.2 0.5

50.4 0.5

51.4 0.5

53.9 0.5

54.0 0.5

52.4 0.5

50.2 0.5

54.2 0.5

44.8 0.5

46.0 0.5

47.2 0.5

48.5 0.5

48.0 0.5

45.2 0.5

47.5 0.5

33.6 0.5

33.8 0.5

32.4 0.5

33.3 0.5

34.7 0.5

43.4 0.5

42.8 0.5

39.5 0.5

40.7 0.5

40.9 0.5

42.6 0.5

43.9 0.5

43.3 0.5

42.2 0.5

50.7 0.5

51.7 0.5

54.1 0.5

54.2 0.5

52.6 0.5

50.3 0.5

54.4 0.5

175

Chapter 5

T12 (oC)
Flash chamber external
surface temperature (oC)
Condenser chamber
external surface
temperature (oC)
Ambient temperature (oC)

35.3 0.5

42.1 0.5

44.2 0.5

43.9 0.5

43.4 0.5

36.3 0.5

39.4 0.5

33.1 0.5

38.7 0.5

40.6 0.5

40.0 0.5

40.0 0.5

33.3 0.5

34.5 0.5

17.5 0.4

17.9 0.4

20.4 0.4

18.5 0.4

17.9 0.4

21.1 0.4

21.0 0.4

(4.25 0.19 )%

(4.19 0.18)%

(4.18 0.18)%

(3.90 0.17)%

(3.70 0.16)%

(3.38 0.15)%

(3.34 0.14)%

6.0 0.7

5.7 0.7

6.9 0.7

5.7 0.7

4.6 0.7

5.2 0.7

6.9 0.7

Qc (kW)

4.23 0.17

4.78 0.20

5.05 0.22

6.29 0.28

7.27 0.31

8.73 0.37

8.93 0.42

Qh (kW)

6.46 0.23

7.30 0.26

9.05 0.32

11.74 0.42

12.95 0.46

14.77 0.54

19.27 0.68

Qtotal (kW)

10.70 0.29

12.08 0.33

14.09 0.39

18.02 0.50

20.22 0.56

23.50 0.65

28.20 0.80

RR
DeltaTloss (oC)

Qc (% of Qtotal)
Eth (kJ/kg)

(39.53 1.96)% (39.57 1.96)% (35.84 1.85)% (34.91 1.81)% (35.95 1.82)% (37.15 1.88)% (31.67 1.75)%
3,461 167

3,510 168

3,735 177

4,072 192

4,177 198

4,366 209

4,818 226

Table 5-10: SP-SSF average steady-state results (with error range values) at varying feed flow rate and constant heat source temperature

176

Chapter 5

5.3.5

Parasitic electrical energy

The main parasitic electrical energy requirements of the SSF unit are for the liquid-ring
vacuum pump, the saltwater supply pump and extraction pumps. The supply pump has been
used to meet the pressure requirement of the gas hot water heater used in the experimental
study conducted indoors to simulate solar-thermal heat. The electrical energy was measured
using power meters (see Section 5.2.7) over the duration of each trial. The average parasitic
electrical energy requirements are presented in Table 5-11. It is noteworthy that the electrical
energy requirements (per m3 of distillate product) would reduce considerably if the capacity
of the MSF system and the number of stages are increased. This will be discussed in the later
chapters.

Liquid Ring Vacuum


Supply
Brine Extraction
Distillate Extraction

SP-SSF Electrical Energy Consumption


(KWhe per m3 of distillate)
74.5 (if running continuously)
32 - 40
3.1 - 5.1 (depending on recovery ratio)
0.4

TOTAL

110 120

Pump Equipment

Table 5-11: SP-SSF average parasitic energy per m3 of distillate product

5.3.6

Quality of distillate

The SSF unit was tested at a salinity level of up to 45,000 ppm TDS. As noted earlier, the
saltwater to be desalinated was prepared by mixing industrial grade salt with freshwater.
Knowing the size of the saltwater feed tank and the salinity level required, the quantity of salt
needed was calculated. For instance, when testing the SSF unit at a feed salinity of 30,000
ppm TDS (3% salt concentration) using the 220L feed tank, the amount of salt needed would
be 0.22 m3 x 1000 kg/m3 x 3% = 6.6 kg. Similarly, 9.9 kg of salt would be needed when
testing the SSF unit at 45,000 ppm TDS.
The salinity of the feed saltwater (up to 45,000 ppm TDS) was measured by a density meter
while the quality of the fresh water produced was measured using a TDS meter (see Section
5.2.7). The quality of the fresh water obtained during the trials was less than 35 ppm TDS.
During the early trials, the quality of the fresh water produced was around 390 ppm TDS due
to gaps (allowing brine droplets to pass through) between the demister and the divider plate
separating the flash chamber from the condenser chamber. The gaps were later filled with
silicon glue to avoid any brine droplets being carried over to the condenser. Also, the brine
177

Chapter 5

water level in the flash chamber had to be carefully monitored to avoid the saltwater from
splashing onto the demister.

5.3.7

SP-SSF using HDPE heat exchanger

The designs of the HDPE and Cu-Ni 90/10 condensers were based on the following common
conditions.

Total feed saltwater flow rate: 7.5 LPM

Feed saltwater temperature: 17oC

Condenser water temperature difference: 16oC

Saturation temperature: 46.5oC.

Table 5-12 presents the physical characteristics of the exchanger tubes assumed in the
modelling.
Description
Total number of tubes
Number of tubes in a vertical
row
Fouling resistance on the
water side (m2.oC/W)
Fouling resistance on the
vapour side (m2.oC/W)

Cu-Ni 90/10
10

HDPE
34

0.000170

0.000145

0.000044

0.000022

Table 5-12: SP-SSF assumed physical characteristics

Using the condenser heat transfer model (refer to Appendix 2 for details), the heat exchange
area required and the overall heat transfer coefficient (based on the external surface area)
were determined. Table 5-13 lists the main performance characteristics.
Description
Condenser surface
temperature (oC)
Total length of heat exchange
tubes (m)
Total external heat exchange
surface area (m2)
Overall heat transfer
coefficient based on external
surface area (W/m2.oC)
Total condenser pressure
drop (kPa)

Cu-Ni 90/10

HDPE

34.11

44.69

11.58

37.34

0.46

1.88

1076

263

33.90

48.98

Table 5-13: SP-SSF heat exchangers performance characteristics

178

Chapter 5

In order to evaluate the performance of the HDPE condenser, the same experimental
conditions as the Cu-Ni 90/10 trials were applied. The trials (at a TBT of 85oC and feed flow
rate of 5.0 LPM) were repeated a number of times to ensure uniformity. The operating
temperatures during the HDPE trials are illustrated in Figure 5-51.
SSF Operating Temperatures (HDPE condenser)

[85 C at 5.0 LPM]

90
85

Temperature ( C)

80
75

T1

T2

T3

70

T4

T5

T8

65

T9

T12

DeltaTloss

60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
5

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35

Duration (min)

Figure 5-51: SP-SSF HDPE Operating temperatures at 85oC and 5.0 LPM

The results obtained from the trials with the Cu-Ni 90/10 condenser (when operating at 85oC
at 5 LPM) will be used as a benchmark for the purpose of comparison in order to assess the
performance of the HDPE condenser. Table 5-14 shows the performance results of both
condensers and the percentage differences between the values. It is evident from the table that
the Cu-Ni 90/10 heat exchanger slightly outperformed the HDPE condenser. Cu-Ni 90/10
produced more distillate as compared to the HDPE and had a higher recovery ratio resulting
in much lower specific thermal energy consumption.
However, it is noteworthy that the HDPE condenser contains more tubes resulting in more
vapour flow restrictions around the heat exchange tubes. In addition, the HDPE is supported
by three acrylic support plates (as was mentioned in Section 5.2.5). These support plates also
impedes on the vapour flow. Nevertheless, given the technical difficulties in avoiding the
vapour flow restrictions, the HDPE performed well. Further design improvements are
required in order to enhance its performance.

179

Chapter 5

Condenser
Cu-Ni
HDPE
18.39 0.16
18.36 0.16
19.81 0.16
19.09 0.16
4.986 0.152
5.104 0.156
0.245 0.008
0.213 0.007
15.4 0.4
15.9 0.4
45.6 0.5
43.4 0.5
45.2 0.5
43.0 0.5
84.7 0.5
84.7 0.5
84.8 0.5
84.8 0.5
57.0 0.5
57.9 0.5

Description
Pressure in condenser chamber, P1 (kPa.abs)
Pressure in flash chamber, P2 (kPa.abs)
Saltwater feed flow rate, M1 (LPM)
Distillate flow rate (LPM)
Condenser inlet water temperature, T1 (oC)
Condenser outlet water temperature, T2 (oC)
Brine heater inlet water temperature, T3 (oC)
Brine heater outlet water temperature, T4 (oC)
Flash chamber inlet water temperature, T5 (oC)
Flash chamber saturation temperature, T8 (oC)
Condenser chamber upper saturation
temperature, T9 (oC)
Condenser surface temperature, T10 (oC)
Liquid brine temperature, T12 (oC)

%
difference
0.2%
3.6%
2.4%
13.1%
3.2%
4.8%
4.9%
0.0%
0.0%
1.6%

50.0 0.5

49.8 0.5

0.4%

42.1 0.5
57.3 0.5
18.3 0.4

48.7 0.5
58.6 0.5
18.5 0.4

15.7%
2.3%
1.1%

(4.91 0.21)%

(4.17 0.18)%

15.1%

7.3 0.7

8.8 0.7

21.4%

Qc (kW)

10.5 0.39

9.79 0.38

6.8%

Qh (kW)

13.71 0.48

14.82 0.52

8.1%

Qtotal (kW)

24.19 0.62

24.6 0.64

1.7%

Ambient temperature (oC)


RR
DeltaTloss (oC)

(43.33 1.96)%

Qc (% of Qtotal)

3,358 157

Eth (kJ/kg)

(37.75
1.75)%
4,175 194

12.9%
24.3%

Table 5-14: SP-SSF heat exchangers comparative analysis (TBT = 85oC, flow rate = 5 LPM)

The pumping power required to supply the feed saltwater to the SSF unit can be calculated

from the following equation if the total pressure drop ( P ), the flow rate ( V ) and the pump
efficiency ( p ) are known.

Wp =

P V

(5-62)

Due to the design of the acrylic vacuum vessel, the HDPE was designed as a multi-pass heat
exchanger. With the associated return bends required, the pressure drop was excessive (50
kPa for a flow rate of 5LPM). A more efficient design of the HDPE would be to have the
vacuum vessel vertical. In this way, the condenser can be designed in a cross-flow
configuration with common headers at both ends of the heat exchanger tubes. This would
reduce the vapour flow impediment and the pressure drop.
180

Chapter 5

HDPE tubes are in many ways far more complex to work with than metals tubes such as CuNi because of their flexible nature and undesirable limitations. But unlike Cu-Ni, HDPE heat
exchangers are not subject to corrosion, oxidation or chemical attacks. Plastic heat exchangers
have a longer life regardless of the environment and thickness corrosion allowance is not
included in the design. Moreover, the surface of plastic tubing is smoother than metals and
this tends to give them better scaling resistance by avoiding the build-up of deposits.
The low surface energy of polymers such as HDPE makes them hydrophobic, resulting in
poor wet-ability. This normally impedes the heat transfer by leaving part of the heat exchange
area unused. However, in condenser, this maintains dropwise condensation, which gives
better heat transfer coefficient as compared to film condensation. Another material which
promotes dropwise condensation worth investigating is Polytethefluoroethylene (PTFE).
PTFE can be used in plate heat exchangers. It is noteworthy that the theoretical analysis of the
HDPE condenser was based on film condensation. An economic comparative analysis of the
two condensers (Cu-Ni 90/10 and HDPE) will be undertaken later in Chapter 8.
5.3.8

Comparison with theoretical solar SSF model

The SP-SSF unit has been used to validate the mathematical / computational modelling
developed for multi-stage flash once through (MSF-OT) desalination process. The data
obtained from the experimental study were compared with the predictions from the
simulation. For the purpose of comparison, the empirical results obtained during the trials
when the TBT was constant at 75oC will be used. The same conditions as those observed
during the experiments were applied to the modelling; for instance the same thermodynamics
losses as those obtained during the trials were assumed in the modelling. If a too low value is
chosen for the thermodynamic losses, the simulation will over predict the distillate
production. The opposite is true if a too high value is assumed. Figure 5-52, Figure 5-54,
Figure 5-55, Figure 5-56 and Figure 5-57 illustrate the comparative analysis. It is noteworthy
that the error bars in the x-axis direction (X error bars) showing the error range values in the
measurement of the feed saltwater flow rates are not shown in the figures since the same flow
rates were assumed in the simulation.
The total distillate production at varying feed flow rate obtained from the modelling and
experimentally is presented in Figure 5-52. The lines of best fit displayed in the figure show
increasing distillate production for an increased feed water flow rate. The simulation appears
181

Chapter 5

to under predict the distillate production (as can be clearly seen in Figure 5-52) which in turn
affects the recovery ratio (Figure 5-54). This is most likely attributable to the spray nozzles
(see Section 5.2.3) used to enhance the vapour formation (not accounted for in the simulation)
and the fact that some of the vapour condenses on the inside walls of the acrylic cylinder since
the temperature of the inside walls are much lower than the saturation temperature at the start
of the trial. Nevertheless, the modelling results obtained are within the error bars (defined by
the error range values calculated using the uncertainty analysis procedures described in
Appendix 5) of the empirical data, indicating a good agreement. It is noteworthy that the
simulation would have over predicted the distillate production if the originally assumed
thermodynamic losses value of 2oC was assumed in the modelling (Figure 5-53).
SP-SSF Comparative distillate production at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)

0.26

Distillate Production (LPM)

0.24

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14
Experimental results
Simulation results

0.12

Experimental results (Best fit line)


Simulation results (Best fit line)

0.10
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-52: SP-SSF comparative distillate production at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)
SP-SSF Comparative distillate production at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)

0.26

Distillate Production (LPM)

0.24

0.22

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14
Experimental results
0.12

Simulation results
Simulation results (DeltaTloss = 2 deg.)

0.10
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-53: SP-SSF comparative simulated distillate production (with error bars shown)

182

Chapter 5

SP-SSF Comparative recovery ratio at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75 C)

4.6%

4.4%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

4.2%

4.0%

3.8%

3.6%

3.4%
Experimental results
Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)
Simulation results (Best fit line)

3.2%

3.0%
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-54: SP-SSF comparative recovery ratio at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)

The derived thermal energy consumption (Figure 5-55) and heat flow (Figure 5-56 and Figure
5-57) comparative analysis also show a good agreement between the experimental results and
the predictions. All of the simulation results fit well within the error ranges (uncertainty range
representing the limits of measurement errors) of the empirical data.
SP-SSF Comparative specific thermal energy at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)

5,200

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

Experimental results
5,000

Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)

4,800

Simulation results (Best fit line)

4,600
4,400
4,200
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-55: SP-SSF comparative specific thermal energy at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)

183

Chapter 5
SP-SSF Comparative heat flow at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75oC)
22

Qh - Experimental results
Qc - Experimental results

20

Qh - Simulation results
Qc - Simulation results

18

Qh - Experimental results (Best fit line)


Qc - Experimental results (Best fit line)

Heat flow (kW)

16

Qc - Simulation results (Best fit line)


Qh - Simulation results (Best fit line)

14
12
10
8
6
4
2
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-56: SP-SSF comparative heat flow at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)
o

SP-SSF Comparative total heat input at varying flow rate (constant TBT of 75 C)

30

Qtotal - Experimental results


28

Qtotal - Simulation results


Qtotal - Experimental results (Best fit line)

Total heat input, Qtotal (kW)

26

Qtotal - Simulation results (Best fit line)

24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

5.5

6.0

6.5

7.0

7.5

8.0

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Figure 5-57: SP-SSF comparative total heat input at varying feed flow rate (with error bars shown)

The comparative analysis showed that the simulated results were within the error ranges of
the empirical data at each data point. The model can therefore be used to accurately predict
the performance of other solar MSF systems. Table 5-15 shows the simulated results obtained
at varying feed flow rates when the TBT was maintained at 75oC. The empirical results with
error ranges were shown in Table 5-10.

184

Chapter 5

Feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Description

2.63

2.98

3.48

4.44

5.03

6.00

7.19

2.633

2.979

3.481

4.437

5.033

5.999

7.188

0.109

0.121

0.141

0.170

0.185

0.208

0.233

16.6

16.8

17.1

16.9

16.3

18.9

18.7

Condenser outlet water temperature, T2 ( C)

40.0

39.9

40.2

38.6

37.1

38.5

37.1

Brine heater inlet water temperature, T3 (oC)

40.0

39.9

40.2

38.6

37.1

38.5

37.1

73.7

74.6

74.8

74.7

74.5

74.5

74.3

Flash chamber inlet water temperature, T5 ( C)

73.7

74.6

74.8

74.7

74.5

74.5

74.3

Distillate water temperature, T6 (oC)

44.6

46.0

45.1

47.6

49.3

49.9

49.3

50.5

51.7

52.0

53.2

53.9

55.1

56.1

44.6

46.0

45.1

47.6

49.3

49.9

49.3

Liquid brine temperature, T12 ( C)

50.5

51.7

52.0

53.2

53.9

55.1

56.1

Ambient temperature (oC)

17.5

17.9

20.4

18.5

17.9

21.1

21.0

4.12%

4.07%

4.06%

3.83%

3.67%

3.46%

3.24%

DeltaTloss ( C)

6.0

5.7

6.9

5.7

4.6

5.2

6.9

Qc (kW)

4.30

4.80

5.35

6.71

7.29

8.29

9.22

Qh (kW)

6.18

7.21

8.66

11.17

13.14

15.07

18.66

Qtotal (kW)

10.49

12.01

14.01

17.89

20.43

23.36

27.87

Saltwater feed flow rate, M1 (LPM)


Distillate flow rate (LPM)
o

Condenser inlet water temperature, T1 ( C)


o

Brine heater outlet water temperature, T4 ( C)


o

Reject brine water temperature, T7 (oC)


o

Condenser chamber upper saturation temperature, T9 ( C)


o

RR
o

Qc (% of Qtotal)
Eth (kJ/kg)

41.04% 39.97% 39.96% 37.54% 35.68% 35.23% 33.07%


3,417

3,566

3,680

3,948

4,267

4,355

Table 5-15: SP-SSF simulation results at varying feed flow rate and constant heat source temperature

185

4,806

Chapter 5

5.3.9

Field testing at Pyramid Hill, Northern Victoria

The single-stage flash (SSF) unit was demonstrated successfully in December 2006 in a short
field trial at a salinity mitigation scheme at Pyramid Hill, northern Victoria as part of a project
investigating the productive use of saline land and the development of sustainable
desalination systems.
Desalination requires energy to drive the process. The use of solar energy or other renewable
energy to drive the process enables the desalination system to be self-sufficient. In this field
trial, the existing 3000 m2 solar pond (Figure 5-59a) provided the heat input to the
desalination unit. Figure 5-58 shows the changes in the temperature profiles from February to
September 2006 obtained from the monitoring system. The maximum temperature of the LCZ
reached in February 2006 was only 63oC due to convection layers in the upper part of the
gradient zone (NCZ). In 2006, the NCZ was only 0.7 m. The temperature of the LCZ would
have been more if there was a thicker NCZ. Since the temperature in the pond was only 55oC
during the field trial, three banks of evacuated tube solar collectors were used to boost the
temperature.

[Temperature Profiles] Height versus Temperature


2.4

3-Feb

2.2

1-Mar
25-Mar

2.0

18-Apr

1.8

1-May
15-May

Height (m)

1.6

1-Jun
11-Aug

1.4

27-Sep

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

Temperature ( C)

Figure 5-58: Temperature profiles from February to September 2006 (Pyramid Hill Solar Pond)

In the solar pond at Pyramid Hill, the heat exchanger tubes are located in the pond, just below
the interface within the gradient layer. The 48 extraction tubes each 60 m long are made out
of polyethylene (26mm ID, 31mm OD) to withstand the corrosive environment. The heat
exchanger was designed for a heat output of 60 kW with a water flow of 174 LPM.

186

Chapter 5

(a) 3000 m2 solar pond

(b) heat exchanger modified header

(c) Evacuated tube solar collectors

(d) SSF unit being tested

(e) Evaporation ponds

(f) Salt collected from evaporation ponds

Figure 5-59: Field trial of SP-SSF at Pyramid Hill

During the field trial, the manifold pipes were modified (Figure 5-59b) since only nine tubes
were required. The saline groundwater (3 to 4 % salinity) was pumped to the surface and
passed through the in pond heat exchanger and evacuated tube solar collectors (Figure 5-59c)
to be heated to around 68oC. The saltwater was then introduced in the SSF unit (Figure 5-59d)
187

Chapter 5

to be desalinated. The more concentrated brine from the SSF was discharged to evaporation
ponds (Figure 5-59e) adjacent to the solar pond.
At Pyramid Hill as part of a salinity mitigation scheme, the saline groundwater is pumped out,
channelled into a number of successive evaporation ponds, and allowed to crystallise into
sodium chloride salt. However, bittern the liquid remaining after crystallising out sodium
chloride containing mainly magnesium chloride remains as a waste product. Also, fresh
water is lost to the atmosphere through the process of evaporation. If a thermal desalination
system coupled to a solar pond is incorporated into a salinity mitigation scheme, the salty
groundwater can be desalinated to produce fresh water and the more concentrated saline
solution can be an asset in the salt production process, since it would reduce the number of
evaporation ponds required and increase the productivity. The by-product can also be used to
construct additional solar pond capacity, thus supporting more energy for increased desalting.

5.4

SSF Conclusions

The research work presented in this chapter has focussed on solar multi-stage flash (MSF)
systems leading to a better understanding of the technical performance of the three MSF
desalination processes when operating at low temperatures (less than 90oC).
A mathematical / theoretical analysis of the different MSF configurations has been completed.
The simulation program written in Visual Basic and using Excel as the interface was
developed to allow estimation of key parameters for a range of different conditions. The
models (based on a number of assumptions) allow the heat exchange area of the condenser,
the overall heat transfer coefficient, the distillate production, the thermal energy consumption
and the various operating temperatures to be determined. It can also be used to find the
optimal feed saltwater flow rate for a given set of conditions. The simulation models were
developed in such a way that they could be applied to other solar-thermal technologies such as
evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC).
The model shows that the specific thermal energy consumption (heat from solar pond per unit
mass of distillate) decreases as the number of stages increases, regardless of the feed saltwater
flow rate. A comparative analysis of the three different configurations revealed that SP-MSFC has the lowest specific thermal energy consumption and the highest recovery ratio because
of its much lower net brine feed rate. The SP-MSF-M configuration had a higher recovery
ratio as compared to the MSF-OT. However, the specific thermal energy consumption was
188

Chapter 5

higher than MSF-C. An economic comparative analysis of the three SP-MSF configurations
in terms of the chemical and parasitic electrical energy consumption will be undertaken in
Chapter 8.
The SP-MSF-OT computer model has been used to design an experimental small-scale solar
pond single-stage flash (SP-SSF) unit, including the design of the condenser shell and tube
heat exchanger, for use with solar heat at temperatures in the 60-85oC range for performance
measurement and evaluation. The SSF unit was designed to produce 500 litres per day of
fresh water when operating at a top brine temperature of 85oC.
Two condensers have been designed using different materials: Cu-Ni 90/10 and High Density
Polyethylene (HDPE). The use of plastic tubes (HDPE) has presented a number of challenges.
One of the disadvantages of plastic tubes is the tendency to soften at high temperature. In
order to keep the HDPE pipes straight, support plates had to be used. In addition, due to the
low thermal conductivity, the heat exchange area of HDPE had to be four times (1.88 m2) that
of Cu-Ni (0.46 m2).
The way the distillate would be collected also presented its challenges. The original design of
the vacuum vessel had holes at the bottom but this was abandoned to prevent leakage and
cracks. A tube had to be connected from the divider plate to the RHS end cover plate to allow
fresh water to be collected.
The SSF unit was constructed and commissioned. It was trialled repeatedly in order to
measure the performance of the system. The unit was tested at different top brine temperature
(TBT) between 45 and 85oC. The feed saltwater flow rate was also varied from 2.5 to 7.5
LPM during the experiments in order to explore the effect of the flow rate on the
performance. The experimental results showed that for a constant feed flow rate the recovery
ratio increases as the TBT increases.

The maximum recovery ratio (RR) obtained

experimentally was about 5.5% (equivalent to a daily distillate production of 321 litres) for a
feed flow rate of 4.1 LPM. As has been seen from the trends in the results, the relationship
between the specific thermal energy and the feed flow rate was found to be almost linear at
constant TBT.
The thermodynamic losses which are caused by non-equilibrium allowance (NEA), boiling
point elevation (BPE) and temperature drop due to pressure loss in the demister were found to
189

Chapter 5

be much higher than predicted. The losses varied between 2.4oC and 6.3oC. This was caused
by the unsteady brine reject flow being affected by the release of NCG from the brine reject
storage tank. Due to the accumulation of NCG in the brine reject tank, the brine level never
attained equilibrium and this has consequently resulted in higher losses at low TBT. This
would not have been a problem if the vacuum vessel was made vertical or the flash chamber
was made larger allowing for more disengagement space.
The quality of the fresh water obtained during the trials was measured and found to be less
than 35 ppm TDS. During the early trials, the quality of the fresh water produced was around
390 ppm TDS due to gaps (allowing brine droplets to pass through) between the demister and
the divider plate separating the flash chamber from the condenser chamber. The gaps were
later filled with silicon glue to avoid any brine droplets being carried over to the condenser.
Unlike Cu-Ni, HDPE heat exchangers are not subject to corrosion, oxidation or chemical
attacks. Plastic heat exchangers have a longer life regardless of the environment. Moreover,
the surface of plastic tubing is smoother than metals and this tends to give them better scaling
resistance by avoiding the build-up of deposits. The low surface energy of polymers such as
HDPE makes them hydrophobic, resulting in poor wet-ability. This normally impedes the heat
transfer by leaving part of the heat exchange area unused. However, in condenser, this
maintains dropwise condensation, which gives better heat transfer coefficient as compared to
film condensation.
From the empirical results, it was evident that the Cu-Ni 90/10 heat exchanger slightly
outperformed the HDPE condenser. Cu-Ni 90/10 produced more distillate as compared to the
HDPE and had a higher recovery ratio resulting in much lower specific thermal energy
consumption. However, it is noteworthy that the HDPE condenser contains more tubes and
has support plates resulting in more vapour flow restrictions around the heat exchange tubes.
Nevertheless, given the technical difficulties in avoiding the vapour flow restrictions, the
HDPE performed well. A more efficient HDPE condenser using a cross-flow configuration
with common headers at both ends of the heat exchanger tubes would reduce the vapour flow
impediment and the pressure drop. Designing, constructing and testing another HDPE
condenser were deemed to be beyond the scope of this research. However, there is clearly
scope here for further research and design improvements. Another material which promotes
dropwise condensation worth investigating is Polytethefluoroethylene (PTFE). PTFE can be

190

Chapter 5

used in plate heat exchangers. An economic comparative analysis of the two condensers will
be presented later in Chapter 8.
The SP-SSF unit has been used to validate the mathematical / computational modelling. The
evaluation of a single-stage flash (SSF) unit is sufficient to validate the model for multi-stage
flash (MSF) systems since the physical characteristics (such as the condenser/preheater and
demister characteristics) are similar for all stages. The same conditions as those observed
during the experiments were applied to the modelling; for instance the same thermodynamics
losses as those obtained during the trials were assumed in the modelling. The comparative
analysis showed that the modelling results obtained were within the error ranges (range
representing the limits of measurement errors) of the empirical data, indicating a good
agreement. The model can therefore be used with confidence for further analysis and design
of solar-MSF systems.
The SSF unit was demonstrated successfully in December 2006 in a short field trial at a
salinity mitigation scheme at Pyramid Hill, northern Victoria as part of a project investigating
the productive use of saline land and the development of sustainable desalination systems.

191

Chapter 6

SOLAR MULTI-EFFECT EVAPORATION (MEE)


SYSTEMS

In this chapter, the MEE system is examined in the same manner as the SSF by
describing the simulation model, experimental apparatus designed and the
results.

6.1

Modelling Of Solar Multi-Effect Evaporation (MEE) Systems

6.1.1

Introduction

A limited number of studies on the modelling, simulation and costing of MEE processes are
available in the literature. Previous publications on the thermodynamic analysis of MEE
systems include studies by Darwish and El-Hadik (1986), Al-Najem et al. (1997), ElDessouky and Ettouney (1999) and Jernqvist et al. (1999). Very often the assumptions made
in the different models of MEE processes can cause discrepancies between the simulation
predictions and actual data or cause confusion. For instance, the analysis by Darwish and ElHadik (1986) assumes equal latent heat of vaporisation, equal specific heat for the fluids and
equal temperature drop between the effects. On the other hand, the studies by Alataqi et al.
(1998) take into account the variation in the thermodynamics losses, the effect of fluid
temperature and salinity on the thermodynamics properties; and the effect of vapour leakage
on the heat transfer coefficient. In addition, different types of evaporators and the
methodologies used to simulate the performance of the heat exchangers will give different
heat transfer coefficients as shown in the comparative analysis by Uche et al. (2002) on the
different heat transfer coefficient correlations.
The heat input in these earlier models is in the form of a controlled mass of saturated steam at
constant temperature, coming from an external boiler. By contrast, in the modelling of the
solar MEE systems to be presented in this chapter, the heat input is in the form of hot water at
varying temperature (depending on the incoming solar radiation and season).
MEE works on the principle of reducing the ambient pressure in each successive effect and
allowing the feed saltwater to undergo multiple boiling at progressively lower temperatures,
as it moves from one effect to another, without having to supply additional heat after the first
effect. In an evaporation system, the formation of vapour takes place on the heat exchange
transfer surfaces. Different evaporator tube configurations exist: vertical tube falling film
192

Chapter 6

(VTFF), vertical tube rising film (VTRF) and horizontal tube falling film (HTFF).

As

discussed in Section 2.4.3, there are three main ways of feeding the saltwater to an MEE
system: forward, backward or parallel feed. In the forward-feed system, the feed saltwater is
introduced in the first effect. Therefore, the brine at the lowest salinity is subjected to the
highest temperature. In a backward-feed system, the saltwater is first introduced into the last
effect, which has the lowest temperature and salinity. This means that the brine with the
highest salinity works at the highest temperature. In a parallel arrangement, the feed saltwater
is divided into a set of parallel streams that are introduced into all the effects at the same
salinity.
Each effect in an MEE system consists of the following:

Evaporator/condenser heat exchange tubes

A water distribution device (spray nozzles or feed weir) except when using submerged
tubes (ST)

An unevaporated brine pool

A vapour disengagement space

A demister to remove any entrained brine droplets from the vapour, to ensure that the
fresh water product is free of salt

A venting system to remove the NCG that are dissolved in the feed saltwater and any
air leaking into the system

A feed preheater or condenser except (does not apply for the first effect).

A theoretical analysis of two different MEE configurations has been completed. One uses the
HTFF - parallel flow configuration while the other a submerged-tube forward-feed
configuration. As was done for the MSF models, the MEE simulation program written in
Visual Basic and using Excel as the interface was developed to allow estimation of key
performance parameters under a range of different conditions. The mathematical models are
based on the following assumptions:

Constant heat transfer area for each effect

193

Chapter 6

Constant heat transfer area for each preheater

Subcooling of the condensate or superheating of the vapour has negligible effect on the
system energy balance and is therefore not taken into account

The latent heat of vaporisation v is constant and evaluated at the vapour condensation
temperature

The specific heat at constant pressure, Cp is constant and evaluated at the average
temperature of the liquid streams

The heat losses to the surroundings are negligible because the system is well insulated

The amount of vapour being vented with the NCG is negligible

The thermodynamic losses (BPE, NEA, temperature drop due to demister and vapour
transmission line) are taken into account and evaluated using known correlations.

6.1.2

Theoretical model

6.1.2.1 Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-effect evaporation parallel flow
(SP-MEE-P)
The schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) coupled to a multi-effect evaporation
parallel-flow (MEE-P) desalination system (SP-MEE-P) is shown in Figure 6-2. The
variables used in the equations are illustrated in the figure. The general principle of MEE
systems was explained earlier (see Section 2.4.3). This SP-MEE-P system consists of a
number of effects, numbered 1 to n from the left to right and (n-1) flashing boxes for the
distillate product. The vapour flows from left to right, in the direction of falling pressure,
while the feed saltwater flows in a perpendicular direction. The intake saltwater is introduced
into the down condenser, where it absorbs the heat of the condensing vapour from the last
effect. Part of the heated intake saltwater is rejected. The remaining feed saltwater stream is
sprayed into the effects. The saltwater spray falls in the form of thin films down the condenser
tubes arranged horizontally. The brine temperature is increased to the boiling temperature
before a small portion of vapour is formed.
In the first effect, the heat required for preheating and evaporation is provided by the salinitygradient solar pond (SGSP) or evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC). The vapour generated
194

Chapter 6

in each effect flows through a demister to remove entrained brine droplets. The vapour then
flows from the demister to the second effect. In the second and subsequent stages, the falling
brine is evaporated by heat recovered from the vapour produced in the preceding stage. In this
way the heat of vaporisation in each stage is partially recovered and used to provide the
energy necessary to evaporate the brine in the next stage. The vapour formed in effects 2 to n
is by boiling over the heat transfer surfaces and by flashing or free boiling within the liquid.
Another small quantity of vapour is formed in the flashing box for each effect due to the
flashing of distillate condensed in this effect. The flashing boxes allow the partial recovery of
heat from condensed fresh water. The vapour from the last effect is condensed in the down
condenser exchanging heat with the intake saltwater to be desalinated.
It is noteworthy that the same equations described below apply also to evacuated tube solar
collectors (ETSC) coupled to the MEE-P rather than a solar pond. The governing
mathematical equations are derived from mass balances, heat energy balances and heat
transfer characteristics as follows.
The overall mass balance is
n

F = m
i

(6-1)

i =1

The heat energy balance in the first effect is defined as

mspCpsp Tsps - Tspr = F1 Cp1 T1 T f + D1 v1

(6-2)

In Equation (6-2), F1 Cp1 (T1 T f ) is the amount of heat gained by the feed saltwater and D1 v1
is the amount of heat used to generate vapour.
The equation for the heat transfer in the first effect is

mspCpsp Tsps - Tspr = A1 U1 ( LMTD )1

(6-3)

In the SP-MEE-P system, the heat transfer surface area in each effect is used for brine heating
and evaporation. Typical temperature distributions in the effects are shown in Figure 6-1.

195

Chapter 6

(a) first effect

(b) remaining effects

Figure 6-1: Schematic of typical temperature distributions in effects of SP-MEE-P

The heat transfer in each effect (except the first effect) can be expressed as

Ti T f
Q = A ai Uai
Tc T
i 1
f
ln
(Tci 1 Ti )

(
(

+ A U (Tc T )
i 1
i
bi bi

(6-4)

where Aai and Uai are the heat transfer surface area and the overall heat transfer coefficient
(OHTC) for brine heating, respectively. Abi and Ubi are the heat transfer surface area and the
OHTC for evaporation, respectively. The calculations involved in order to predict the
respective areas for the two processes are tedious. At low operating temperatures, the energy
used for brine heating accounts for less than 10% of the total energy. Therefore, all of the heat
transfer area can be allocated to the evaporation process. This assumption simplifies the
mathematical analysis which otherwise would be very complex. Therefore, (LMTD)1 in
Equation (6-3) can be expressed as:

(LMTD )1 =

( Tsps - Tspr )
ln ( Tsps - T1 ) / ( Tspr - T1 )

(6-5)

The heat energy balance in the second effect is

D1 c1 = F2 Cp2 T2 T f + D2 v2

(6-6)

The heat transfer in the second effect is

D1 c1 = A 2 U 2 ( LMTD )2
196

(6-7)

Chapter 6

where

(LMTD )2 = ( Tc1 - T2 )

(6-8)

The heat energy balance in effect i (where i = 3 to n) is defined as

(Di-1 + D 'i 1 ) ci-1 = Fi Cpi (Ti T f ) + Di vi

(6-9)

The heat transfer in effect i (where i = 3 to n) is

(Di-1 + D 'i 1 ) ci-1 = Ai U i ( LMTD )i

(6-10)

(LMTD )i = ( Tc i-1 - Ti )

(6-11)

where

The down condenser heat energy balance equation is

(Dn + D 'n ) cn = ( m f

+ mcw Cpn T f Tcw

(6-12)

The heat transfer in the down condenser is defined as

(Dn + D 'n ) cn = Ac U c ( LMTD )c

(6-13)

where

(LMTD )c =

( Tf - Tcw )
ln ( Tc n - Tcw ) / ( Tc n - Tf )

(6-14)

The heat energy balance in flashing box of effect 2 is defined as

D '2 v2 =D1 CpTc1 D ''2 CpTx2

(6-15)

The heat energy balance in flashing box of effect i (where i = 3 to n) is

D 'i vi = ( Di 1 + D 'i 1 ) CpTci 1 + D ''i 1 CpTxi 1 D ''i CpTxi


197

(6-16)

Chapter 6

In Equations (6-15) and (6-16),

i 2
D ''i 1 = D j D 'i 1
j =1

(6-17)

i 1
D ''i = D j D 'i
j =1

(6-18)

and

The vapour temperature in effect i (where i = 1 to n) is defined as

Tvi = Ti ( BPE )i

(6-19)

where BPE is the boiling point elevation given by Equation A1-14 (Appendix 1). The vapour
condensation temperature in effect i (where i = 1 to n) is

Tci = Tvi Tdemister Tline

(6-20)

where Tdemister is the temperature drop due to the pressure loss in the demister and Tline is
the temperature drop due to the connecting pipes (the movement of vapour from one effect to
another involves a pressure loss and hence a temperature loss) and vapour condensation inside
the tubes.
The flashing box distillate exit temperature in effect i (where is i = 2 to n) is

Txi = Tvi + ( NEA)i

(6-21)

where NEA is the non-equilibrium allowance given by Equation A1-16 (Appendix 1).
The recovery ratio (RR) is defined as the mass ratio of the total freshwater produced per unit
mass of feed saltwater.
n

Di
md
RR =
= i
mf
mf
198

(6-22)

Chapter 6

Figure 6-2: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-effect evaporation parallel flow (SP-MEE-P) system

199

Chapter 6

The following substitution and simplification procedures were implemented to solve the
highly non-linear equations.
From Equation (6-3) and Equation (6-5), Tspr can be found as follows:

Tspr

Tsps T1
=
A1 U1
msp Cpsp
e

+ T1

(6-23)

Using Equation (6-7) and (6-8), D1 can be expressed as follows:


D1 =

A2U 2 (Tc1 T2 )

c1

(6-24)

Using Equation (6-15) and Equation (6-18), D2 can be expressed as


D '2 =

D1 ( CpTc1 CpTx2 )

v2 ( CpTx2 )

(6-25)

Using Equation (6-10) and Equation (6-11), D2 can be expressed as follows:


A3 U 3 (Tc2 T3 )
D2 =
D '2
c2

(6-26)

Using Equation (6-16), Di can be found. Therefore, D3 can be expressed as

D '3 = ( D2 + D '2 ) CpTc2 + [ D ''2 CpTx2 ] D ''3 CpTx3

(6-27)

By substituting Equation (6-18) in Equation (6-27), D3 can be further simplified as

( D2 + D '2 ) CpTc2 + ( D1 D '2 ) CpTx2 ( D1 + D2 ) CpTx3


D '3 =
( v3 CpTx3 )

(6-28)

Using Equation (6-10) and Equation (6-28), D3 can be found as


A4 U 4 (Tc3 T4 )
D3 =
D '3
c3

(6-29)

Similarly using Equation (6-16), Equation (6-17) and Equation (6-18), D4 can be expressed
as:
200

Chapter 6

( D3 + D '3 ) CpTc3 + ( D1 + D2 D '3 ) CpTx3 ( D1 + D2 + D3 ) CpTx4


D '4 =
( v4 CpTx4 )

(6-30)

D4 can be expressed using Equation (6-13), Equation (6-14) and Equation (6-30) as

T f Tcw

Ac U c
ln (Tc T ) Tc T
4
f
4 cw
D'
D4 =
4
c4

(6-31)

From Equation (6-2), F1 can be found as


F1 =

)
Cp1 (T1 T f )

msp Cpsp Tsps Tspr D1 v1

(6-32)

F2 can be found using Equation (6-6), Equation (6-24) and Equation (6-26) as follows
F2 =

D1 c1 D2 v2

Cp2 T2 T f

(6-33)

Similarly, using Equation (6-9) with Equation (6-25), Equation (6-26) and Equation (6-29)
enable F3 to be found as follows
F3 =

( D2 + D '2 ) c2 D3 v3

Cp3 T3 T f

(6-34)

F4 can be found using Equation (6-9), Equation (6-28), Equation (6-29) and Equation (6-31)
F4 =

( D3 + D '3 ) c3 D4 v4

Cp4 T4 T f

(6-35)

Equation (6-12) can be used to find the total feed saltwater flow rate, (mf + mcw) as follows

( m f + mcw ) = (

D4 + D '4 ) c4

Cp T Tcw
4 f

201

(6-36)

Chapter 6

The feed saltwater flow rate, mf can be found using Equation (6-1) and using Equation (6-22),
RR can be determined. The specific thermal energy consumption can be determined by
calculating the heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of total distillate produced.
The modelling has been initially developed to solve a SP-MEE-P system consisting of four
effects. With four effects, there are 13 independent equations and 13 unknown variables. The
same general equations described above can be used to analyse a system comprising n effects.
The key input values to the solver and the output parameters for the SP-MEE-P simulation
(consisting of four effects) are shown in Table 6-1.
The simulation model calculates the specific heat capacity (Cp) at constant pressure, the latent
heat of vaporisation ( ), the BPE and the NEA based on Equations A1-1, A1-2, A1-14 and
A1-16 respectively, which can be found in Appendix 1. The MEE evaporator heat transfer
model (explained in Appendix 3) was used in the modelling of SP-MEE-P to estimate the
OHTC and the required heat transfer area for the evaporators.
In order to solve the equations, a Visual Basic program was written. The program requires as
an initial input trial temperature values for the brine in the first (T1) and last effects (Tn); and
the feed saltwater to be desalinated (Tf). These temperatures are then refined and final
solution values determined by an iterative procedure developed for this purpose. The program
checks if all the flow rate values are positive and also makes use of the fact that
thermodynamics laws must not be violated. For instance, Tspr must be greater than T1. If Tspr
is less than T1, T1 is decremented before the next iteration is executed. The convergence
criterion is based on the difference between the summation of the individual feed flow rates
and mf (represented by Equation (6-1)). An iteration error of 1 x 10-2 kg/s has been used. If a
high accuracy is needed, then a smaller tolerance can be specified. Convergence of the
iterative procedure is dependent on the initial temperature guesses.

202

Chapter 6

Input parameters required by simulation

Mass flow rate of hot brine from solar pond


Temperature of supply hot brine from solar pond
Total heat exchange area of evaporator in each effect
Overall heat transfer coefficient of evaporator in each effect
Total heat exchange area of down condenser
Overall heat transfer coefficient of down condenser
Temperature of feed saltwater
Temperature drop in demister
Temperature drop in connecting lines and during condensation
Temperature of boiling brine in first effect (trial value)
Temperature of boiling brine in last effect (trial value)
Temperature of feed saltwater to be desalinated (trial value)
Output parameters from simulation

Temperature of boiling brine in each effect (final values)


Temperature of feed saltwater to be desalinated (final value)
Temperature of vapour in effects 1, 2, 3 and 4
Temperature of condensing vapour in effects 1, 2, 3 and 4
Outlet temperature of flashing box distillate in effects 2, 3 and 4
Temperature drop per effect
Temperature of brine returning to solar pond
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater to be desalinated in effects 1, 2, 3
and 4
Mass flow rate of vapour produced in effects 1, 2, 3 and 4
Mass flow rate of vapour formed in flashing boxes 2, 3 and 4
Total mass flow rate of feed saltwater (including cooling water)
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater to be desalinated
Total mass flow rate of distillate produced
Total mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine
Fraction of input brine converted to fresh water (Recovery ratio)
Heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of total distillate produced
(specific thermal energy consumption)

Variables
name
msp
Tsps
A1, A2,
A3, A4
U1, U2,
U3, U4
Ac
Uc
Tcw
Tdemister

kg/s
o
C
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
W/m2.oC
o
C
o
C

Tline

T1
Tn
Tf
Variables
name
T1, T2, T3,
T4
Tf
Tv1, Tv2,
Tv3, Tv4
Tc1, Tc2,
Tc3, Tc4
Tx2, Tx3,
Tx4

C
C
o
C
o

Units
o

Teffect

Tspr
F1, F2, F3,
F4
D1, D2,
D3, D4
D2, D3,
D4
(mf + mcw)
mf
md
mb
RR

C
C

kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
%

Eth

kJ/kg

Table 6-1: Input and output parameters in SP-MEE-P modelling

203

Units

kg/s
kg/s
kg/s

Chapter 6

One of the aims of this research study was to use the SP-MEE computer models to design an
experimental small-scale solar pond multi-effect evaporation (SP-MEE) desalination unit
for use with solar heat at temperatures in the 45-85oC range in order to measure the
performance and evaluate the desalination unit when working at low temperatures. After
having developed the modelling for the SP-MEE-P system and during initial budgeting, it has
been found that an MEE system using submerged tubes and a forward feed configuration (SPMEE-FF) would be cheaper to manufacture than a similar sized SP-MEE-P using the
horizontal tubes falling film (HTFF) design. A brief cost comparison of the two types of
evaporators will be presented in Chapter 8. In order to evaluate the performance of a SPMEE-FF system using submerged tubes, a theoretical analysis (as will be discussed in the
next section) was performed.

6.1.2.2 Solar pond / solar collector coupled to a multi-effect evaporation forward feed
(SP-MEE-FF)
The schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) coupled to a multi-effect evaporation
forward feed (MEE-FF) desalination system (SP-MEE-FF) consisting of three effects is
shown in Figure 6-3 and includes the variables used in the equations. The same equations
described below apply for ETSCs coupled to the MEE-FF system. The SP-MEE-FF system
employs a forward-feed configuration whereby hot liquid brine in each effect is transferred
via a valve as the feed into the next effect, thus making optimum use of the energy content of
the brine at each stage. As shown in the figure, three submerged tube evaporators are used
each with a tube bundle in the lower part of the shell to provide the heating surface. The tubes
are covered completely with the saltwater to be desalted. It is noteworthy that this SP-MEEFF model does not employ flashing boxes as in the SP-MEE-P model described earlier since
the experimental SP-MEE unit wont include flashing boxes in order to reduce the capital
costs.
The feed saltwater, which is part of the total intake, is partially preheated in the condenser by
the vapour coming from the last effect. The remaining cooling seawater is rejected. The feed
is then further heated progressively by the feed preheaters before it enters the first effect. In
the first evaporator, the in-flowing saltwater is heated to its boiling temperature and partly
evaporated by boiling. Heating is performed by passing hot water from the salinity-gradient
solar pond (SGSP) inside the tube bundle in this first effect. The partial evaporation of the
saltwater occurs by a nucleate pool boiling process. The vapour produced in the first
evaporator is used as the heat source in the second evaporator operating at a lower pressure.
204

Chapter 6

The remaining brine enters the second effect as the feed. The brine leaving the second effect
enters the last effect as the feed and so on.
The derived governing mathematical equations for a three-effect forward-feed SP-MEE
system are as follows. It is noteworthy that this analysis can be extended to any number of
effects. Most of the notations used before are used again here and the subscript i (where i = 1,
2 and 3) is used to denote the first, second, and third effects, respectively.
The down condenser heat energy balance is

(D3 + d3 ) c3 = ( m f

+ mcw Cp1 (Tf1 Tf0 )

(6-37)

In Equation (6-37), d3 is the amount of vapour formed by flash evaporation from B2 when its
temperature is decreased from T2 to T3 to reach equilibrium condition.
The heat transfer in the down condenser is

(D3 + d3 ) c3 = Ac U c ( LMTD )c

(6-38)

where

(LMTD )c =

( Tf1 - Tf0 )
ln ( Tc 3 - Tf0 ) / ( Tc 3 - Tf1 )

(6-39)

The heat energy balance equation for the first preheater is

(D2 + d2 ) Cp3a ( Tc 2 Tx2 ) = m f Cp3b (Tf 2 Tf1 )

(6-40)

The first preheater heat transfer equation is

(D2 + d2 ) Cp3a ( Tc 2 Tx2 ) = Ap1 U p1 ( LMTD )P1

(6-41)

where

(LMTD )p1 =

( Tf2 - Tf1 ) ( Tc 2 Tx2 )


ln ( Tx 2 - Tf1 ) / ( Tc 2 - Tf2 )

205

(6-42)

Chapter 6

Similarly, the heat energy balance equation for the second preheater is
D1 Cp4a ( Tc1 Tx1 ) = m f Cp4b (Tf3 Tf 2 )

(6-43)

The second preheater heat transfer equation is defined as


D1 Cp4a ( Tc1 Tx1 ) = A p2 U p 2 ( LMTD ) P 2

(6-44)

where

(LMTD )p2 =

( Tf3 - Tf2 ) ( Tc1 Tx1 )


ln ( Tx1 - Tf2 ) / ( Tc1 - Tf3 )

(6-45)

The heat energy balance in the first effect is

mspCpsp Tsps - Tspr = mf Cp9 (T1 Tf3 ) + D1E1

(6-46)

In Equation (6-46), the first term on the right hand side represents the amount of heat gained
by the feed saltwater and the second term represents the amount of heat needed to generate
vapour.
The heat transfer in the first effect is represented as

mspCpsp Tsps - Tspr = AE1 U E1 ( LMTD ) E1

(6-47)

where

(LMTD )E1 =

( Tsps Tspr )
ln ( Tsps - T1 ) / ( Tspr - T1 )

(6-48)

In Equation (6-47), all of the heat transfer area is allocated to the evaporation process. See
Section 6.1.2.1 and Equation (6-4) in particular for details on the assumptions made in the
heat transfer surface area.
The heat energy balances in the second effect are
d 2 E1 = B1 Cp11 (T1 TE1 )

206

(6-49)

Chapter 6

and

D1 c1 = D2 v2

(6-50)

In Equation (6-49), d2 is the small amount of vapour formed when the brine entering the
second effect flashes from T1 to TE1.
The heat transfer equation in the second effect is defined as

D1 c1 = AE 2 U E 2 (Tc1 T2 )

(6-51)

The heat energy balances in the third effect are


d3 E2 = B2 Cp14 (T2 TE 2 )

(6-52)

( D2 + d 2 ) c2 = D3 v3

(6-53)

and

The heat transfer equation in the third effect is

( D2 + d2 ) c2 = AE 3 U E 3 (Tc 2 T3 )

(6-54)

The overall mass balance is

m f = D1 + ( D2 + d 2 ) + ( D3 + d3 ) + B3

(6-55)

The mass balance in the first effect is

m f = B1 + D1

(6-56)

The mass balance in the second effect is defined as

B1 = B2 + ( D2 + d 2 )

207

(6-57)

Chapter 6

The mass balance in the third effect is

B2 = B3 + ( D3 + d3 )

(6-58)

When heat transfer tubes are submerged in saltwater, there will be a hydrostatic pressure
difference between the heat transfer tubes surface and the free surface of the saltwater.
Consequently, the generated vapour suffers a small pressure loss and a corresponding
saturation temperature loss before emerging from the free surface. The hydrostatic pressure
difference is negligible in the horizontal tubes falling film (HTFF) configurations because of
the very small thickness of the boiling film.
The equation for the vapour saturation temperature (Tvi) in effect i (where i = 1 to n) of the
SP-MEE-FF is therefore defined as

Tvi = Ti ( BPE )i Thydro

(6-59)

where Thydro is the temperature loss due to the hydrostatic pressure depression. BPE is the
boiling point elevation given by Equation A1-14 (Appendix 1).
The vapour condensation temperature (Tci) in effect i (where i = 1 to n) is similar to SP-MEEP (see Equation (6-20)).
The brine entering the second and third effects flashes from Ti to TEi. The temperature
difference between TEi and Ti+1 in effects 2 and 3 is negligible since thermal equilibrium has
to be reached. Therefore, the temperature of the flashing brine (TEi) can be assumed to be
equal to Ti+1.
The recovery ratio (RR) is

RR =

md D1 + ( D2 + d 2 ) + ( D3 + d3 )
=
mf
mf

208

(6-60)

Chapter 6

Figure 6-3: Schematic of a salinity-gradient solar pond coupled to a multi-effect evaporation forward feed (SP-MEE-FF) system consisting of three effects

209

Chapter 6

For this SP-MEE-FF model with three effects, there are 14 independent equations for 14
unknown variables as shown in Table 6-2.

Unknown variables
Equations
(6-37)
(6-38)
incorporating
(6-39)
(6-40)
(6-41)
incorporating
(6-42)
(6-43)
(6-44)
incorporating
(6-45)
(6-46)
(6-47)
incorporating
(6-48)
(6-49)

D3

d3

mf mcw Tf1

D2

d2

D1

Tx1 Tf3 Tspr msp

(6-50)

(6-51)

(6-52)
(6-53)

Tx2 Tf2

(6-54)

Table 6-2: SP-MEE-FF modelling unknown variables in equations

Using substitution and simplification, the 14 unknown variables can be solved by the solution
procedure shown in Table 6-3. For instance, D1 can be found from Equation (6-51) as follows

D1 =

AE 2U E 2 (Tc1 T2 )

c1

210

(6-61)

Chapter 6

Step

Equations

Solve for

Using variables

(6-51)

D1

AE2, UE2, Tc1 and T2

(6-50)

D2

D1

(6-54)

d2

D2, AE3, UE3, Tc2 and T3

(6-53)

D3

D2 and d2

(6-49)

mf

d2, T1, TE1 and D1

(6-52)

d3

mf, D1, d2, D2, T2 and TE2

(6-38) and (6-39)

Tf1

D3, d3, Uc, Ac, Tf0 and Tc3

(6-37)

mcw

D3, d3, mf, Tf1 and Tf0

(6-40), (6-41) and (6-42)

Tf2 and Tx2

D2, d2, mf, Tf1, Tc2, UP1 and AP1

10

(6-43), (6-44) and (6-45)

Tf3 and Tx1

D1, Tf2, Tc1, mf, UP2 and AP2

11

(6-46), (6-47) and (6-48)

msp and Tspr

mf, Tf3, T1, D1, Tsps, AE1 and UE1

Table 6-3: SP-MEE-FF modelling solution procedures

The recovery ratio (RR) and the specific thermal energy consumption (Eth) can then be
determined. The key input values to the solver (which are different to the SP-MEE-P) and the
output parameters for the SP-MEE-FF simulation are shown in Table 6-4.
A separate Visual Basic model has been developed to determine the OHTC and the required
heat transfer area for the evaporators. The output parameters (heat exchange area and OHTC)
from the simulation have then been used in the main solver to obtain the overall performance
of the SP-MEE-FF desalination unit. The model has also been used to design and analyse the
evaporators and condenser heat exchangers for the experimental solar-thermal MEE
desalination unit (to be discussed later). The MEE evaporator heat transfer model is explained
in Appendix 3.
The SP-MEE-FF mathematical model is highly non-linear. Therefore, an iterative solution is
required to determine the performance characteristics. The Visual Basic program requires trial
values for the brine boiling temperature in the first (T1) and last effects (T3); and the preheated
feed saltwater temperature (Tf1). The temperatures are then refined by an iterative procedure
(similar in principle to the one written for SP-MEE-P). The program makes sure that all
thermodynamic laws are satisfied and all flow rate values are positive. The convergence
criterion is based on the residual of the heat transfer equation with the variable Tf1 (Equation
(6-38)). An iteration error of 0.5 watt has been used. If a high accuracy is needed, then a
smaller tolerance can be specified.
211

Chapter 6

Input parameters required by simulation

Temperature of boiling brine in 1st and 3rd effect (trial values)

Variables
name

Units

T1, T3

Temperature of feed saltwater (trial value)

Tf1

Temperature of supply hot brine from solar pond


Temperature of feed saltwater
Total heat exchange area of evaporator in effect 1
Overall heat transfer coefficient of evaporator in effect 1
Total heat exchange area of evaporator in effect 2
Overall heat transfer coefficient of evaporator in effect 2
Total heat exchange area of evaporator in effect 3
Overall heat transfer coefficient of evaporator in effect 3
Total heat exchange area of first preheater
Overall heat transfer coefficient of first preheater
Total heat exchange area of second preheater
Overall heat transfer coefficient of second preheater
Total heat exchange area of down condenser
Overall heat transfer coefficient of down condenser
Temperature drop due to hydrostatic pressure depression
Temperature drop in demister
Temperature drop in connecting lines and during condensation

Tsps
Tf0
AE1
UE1
AE2
UE2
AE3
UE3
AP1
UP1
AP2
UP2
Ac
Uc

Output parameters from simulation

Temperature of boiling brine in each effect (final values)


Temperature of saturated vapour in each effect
Temperature of condensing vapour in effect 2, effect 3 and condenser
Mass flow rate of vapour produced (by boiling) in effects 1
Mass flow rate of vapour produced (by boiling) in effects 2
Mass flow rate of vapour produced (by flashing) in effects 2
Mass flow rate of vapour produced (by boiling) in effects 3
Mass flow rate of vapour produced (by flashing) in effects 3
Mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine from effect 1
Mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine from effect 2
Mass flow rate of exiting concentrated brine from effect 3
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater to be desalinated
Mass flow rate of rejected cooling water
Temperature of feed saltwater (after preheating by down condenser)
Temperature of feed saltwater after first preheater
Temperature of feed saltwater after second preheater
212

Thydro
Tdemister

Tline

Variables
name
T1, T2, T3
Tv1, Tv2,
Tv3
Tc1, Tc2,
Tc3
D1
D2
d2
D3
d3
B1
B2
B3
mf
mcw
Tf1
Tf2
Tf3

C
C
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
W/m2.oC
o
C
o
C
o
C
o

Units
o

kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
kg/s
o
C
o
C
o
C

Chapter 6

Temperature of sub-cooled liquid after passing through second


preheater
Temperature of sub-cooled liquid after passing through first preheater
Temperature of brine returning to solar pond
Mass flow rate of hot brine from solar pond
Total mass flow rate of feed saltwater (including cooling water)
Temperature drop per effect
Total mass flow rate of distillate produced
Fraction of input brine converted to fresh water (Recovery ratio)
Heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of total distillate produced
(specific thermal energy consumption)

Tx1

Tx2
Tspr
msp
(mf + mcw)

md
RR

C
C
kg/s
kg/s
o
C
kg/s
%

Eth

kJ/kg

Teffect

Table 6-4: Input and output parameters in SP-MEE-FF modelling

The concentrated brine leaving effect 1 (or effect 2) goes through a throttling valve before
entering effect 2 (or effect 3) as shown in Figure 6-4. The throttling valve is used to control
the amount of brine flowing from one effect to the other.

Figure 6-4: Schematic of throttling process of brine before entering effect 2

The flow through the throttling valve may be assumed to be adiabatic since there is neither
sufficient time nor large enough area for any effective heat transfer to take place. The change
in potential energy is also very small. There is no work done and the increase in kinetic
energy can be ignored. From the conservation of energy, the following equation can be
derived.

hE1 h1

(6-62)

The enthalpy values at the inlet and exit of the valve are the same. By knowing the
temperature at the inlet (T1), h1 can be found. The enthalpy of saturated liquid (hf) and
saturated vapour (hg) can be found at temperature TE1. From Equation (6-62), hE1 = h1.
Therefore if hE1 is between hf and hg, the brine exists as a saturated mixture at the outlet of the
valve. The quality (X) at the outlet state can be found as

213

Chapter 6

X =

( hE1 h f ) = ( hE1 h f )
h fg
( hg h f )

(6-63)

Finally, the amount of flashed vapour (d2) can be determined from

d 2 = X B1

(6-64)

The same procedures can be followed to find the amount of flashed vapour in effect 3
(denoted by d3). It is noteworthy that Equation (6-64) is only used to confirm the amount of
flashed vapour estimated by the SP-MEE-FF Visual Basic program.

6.1.3

Technical performance evaluation of SP-MEE-P

6.1.3.1 Simulation input parameters


The SPMEE-P computer model has been used to find the performance of the desalination
system under various conditions. The following design parameters were used in this
evaluation:
o A mass flow rate of hot brine from the solar pond of 1.5 kg/s
o A temperature of feed saltwater of 15C
o The down condenser has a total heat exchange area of 1 m2
o Each evaporator has a total heat exchange area of 3 m2
o The temperature drop in the demister ( Tdemister ) is 0.4oC
o The temperature drop in connecting lines and during condensation ( Tline ) is 0.4oC
o The iteration error was set to 1 x 10-4 kg/s.

The effect of salinity on the physical properties such as density, latent heat of evaporation and
specific heat at constant pressure is taken into account in the simulation performance analysis.
In some of the graphical empirical results presented, a best-fit line has been plotted and; the
best-fit line equation and the correlation coefficient R2 have been determined using Excel
built-in regression analysis functions. It is noteworthy that R2 is a statistical measure of how
well the best-fit line approximates the real empirical data values. An R2 value of 1.0 indicates
that the regression line (represented by the best-fit line equation) perfectly fits the data.

214

Chapter 6

6.1.3.2 System temperatures


The SP-MEE-P system was simulated at varying solar pond supply temperature (Tsps): 50oC,
55oC, 60oC, 65oC, 70oC, 75oC, 80oC and 85oC. Figure 6-5 , where Tspr is the solar pond brine
return temperature, T1 is the boiling temperature in the first effect and Tn is the boiling
temperature in the last effect. The temperature values obtained were approximated by best fit
lines as shown in the figure. The temperature difference between Tspr and T1 is approximately
3.6oC. Teffect is approximately 6.9oC.
SP- MEE-P System temperatures (Tspr, T1, Tn) at different Solar pond supply temperature [4 Effects]
80
Solar pond return temperature (Tspr)
Boiling temperature in first effect (T1)
Boiling temperature in last effect (Tn)
Tn (Best fit line)
T1 (Best fit line)
Tspr (Best fit line)

75
70

Temperature ( C)

65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-5: SP-MEE-P System temperatures at varying solar pond supply temperature (4 effects)

6.1.3.3 Distillate production and recovery ratio


The distillate production from the SP-MEE-P system (consisting of four effects) and the
corresponding recovery ratio at varying solar pond supply temperature (Tsps) are shown in
Figure 6-6. It can be seen that the distillate production and hence RR increases with Tsps. The
maximum distillate production and RR are 0.0640 kg/s and 44.2% respectively. When the
system operates at Tsps of 50oC instead of 85oC, the distillate production is reduced by 76.6%.
The relationship between the distillate production and Tsps was found to be almost linear. The
correlation between the recovery ratio and Tsps was also found to be linear.

215

Chapter 6
SP- MEE-P Distillate production and Recovery ratio at different Solar pond supply temperature [4 Effects]

0.070

60%

Recovery Ratio

0.060

55%
50%

Recovery Ratio (Best fit line)

0.055

Distillate Production (Best fit line)

45%

0.050

40%

0.045

35%

0.040
y = 0.0125x - 0.621
R2 = 1

0.035
0.030

30%
25%

0.025

20%

0.020

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

0.065

Distillate production (kg/s)

y = 0.0014x - 0.055
R2 = 1

Distillate Production

15%

0.015

10%

0.010

5%

0.005
0.000

0%
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-6: SP-MEE-P Distillate production and recovery ratio at varying solar pond supply
temperature (4 effects)
SP- MEE-P Distillate production at different Solar pond supply temperature [for 2, 3 and 4 Effects]
0.070
4 Effects

0.065

3 Effects

Distillate production (kg/s)

0.060

2 Effects

0.055

4 Effects (Best fit line)

0.050

3 Effects (Best fit line)

0.045

2 Effects (Best fit line)

0.040
0.035
0.030
0.025
0.020
0.015
0.010
0.005
0.000
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-7: SP-MEE-P Distillate production at varying solar pond supply temperature (2, 3 and 4
effects)

The distillate production at varying solar pond supply temperature for different number of
effects (2 to 4 effects) is depicted in Figure 6-7. It can clearly be seen that the distillate
production increases with the number of effects. By increasing the number of effects from two
to three, the distillate production increases by a factor of 1.5 to 2.4 depending on the Tsps (the
lower value at 85oC). Similarly, increasing the number of effects from three to four will
increase the distillate production by a factor of 1.5 to 2.1 depending on the Tsps.

216

Chapter 6

6.1.3.4 Specific thermal energy consumption


Figure 6-8 shows that the specific thermal energy consumption (heat from solar pond per unit
mass of distillate) in the SP-MEE-P system consisting of four effects decreases as the solar
pond supply temperature (Tsps) increases. At Tsps of 85oC, the specific thermal energy
consumption is only 810 kJ/kg as compared to 1750 kJ/kg when operating at 50oC. The same
trend was observed when the SP-MEE-P with different number of effects (two, three and four
effects) was considered (Figure 6-9).

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption at different Solar pond supply temperature [4 Effects]

1,800
1,750
1,700
1,650
1,600
1,550
1,500
1,450
1,400
1,350
1,300
1,250
1,200
1,150
1,100
1,050
1,000
950
900
850
800
750
50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-8: SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (4


effects)
SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption for different number of effects (at
different solar pond supply temperature)

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

7,000
6,500

50 deg

6,000

55 deg

5,500

60 deg

5,000

65 deg

4,500

70 deg

4,000

75 deg

3,500

80 deg

3,000

85 deg

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
2

Number of Effects

Figure 6-9: SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption for 2, 3 and 4 effects
at varying heat supply temperatures

217

Chapter 6

The simulation results obtained from the SP-MEE-P modelling (consisting of two to four
effects) were used to predict the specific thermal energy consumption at larger number of
effects (up to 18). Figure 6-10 shows the specific thermal energy consumption at varying solar
pond supply temperature for up to 12 effects. As can be seen, there is a significant decrease in
the energy consumption up to nine effects. The gains diminish as the number of effects is
further increased. A higher capital cost is needed with a larger number of effects. A similar
pattern was observed for the MSF processes (see Section 5.1.3.2). A comparative analysis for
the specific thermal energy consumption of MSF and MEE processes will be presented and
discussed in Chapter 8. The specific thermal energy consumption for SP-MEE-P systems

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

consisting of 12 and 18 effects are 226 kJ/kg and 141 kJ/kg, respectively.
SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption for different number of effects (at
different solar pond supply temperature)

5,000
4,750
4,500
4,250
4,000
3,750
3,500
3,250
3,000
2,750
2,500
2,250
2,000
1,750
1,500
1,250
1,000
750
500
250
0

55 deg
y = 14695x-1.6784
R2 = 1

65 deg
75 deg
85 deg
55 deg (Best fit line)

-1.2

y = 5707.3x
R2 = 1.0

65 deg (Best fit line)


75 deg (Best fit line)

y = 4489.2x-1.1525
R2 = 1

85 deg (Best fit line)

y = 4091x-1.1656
R2 = 1
2

10

11

12

Number of Effects

Figure 6-10: SP-MEE-P Specific thermal energy consumption for 2 to 12 effects (at
varying solar pond supply temperature)

The total number of effects in an MEE system is limited by the total temperature range (T1
Tn) available and the minimum allowable temperature difference between one effect and the
next (this gives the minimum value for Teffect ). The temperature driving force per effect
( Teffect ) affects the heat transfer coefficient and hence dictates the heat transfer area. In the
solar pond-MEE system, the lowest temperature is limited by the temperature of the available
cooling water while the highest temperature is limited by the solar pond supply temperature as
well as the scale potential of the saltwater.

218

Chapter 6

6.1.4

Technical performance evaluation of SP-MEE-FF

6.1.4.1 Simulation input parameters


The following design parameters were used in the evaluation of the SP-MEE-FF computer
model:
o A mass flow rate of hot brine from the solar pond of 1.5 kg/s
o A temperature of feed saltwater of 15C
o The down condenser has a total heat exchange area of 1 m2
o Each evaporator has a total heat exchange area of 1 m2
o The temperature drop due to hydrostatic pressure depression ( Thydro ) is 0.5oC
o The temperature drop in the demister ( Tdemister ) is 0.4oC
o The temperature drop in connecting lines and during condensation ( Tline ) is 0.4oC
o The iteration error is set to 0.2 watt.

6.1.4.2 System temperatures


The SP-MEE-FF was simulated at solar pond supply temperatures (Tsps) in the range 50-85oC.
Figure 6-11 shows the MEE (consisting of three effects) system temperatures at varying solar
pond supply temperatures. The temperature difference between Tsps and T1; and Teffect are
approximately 12.5oC and 9.7oC, respectively.
SP- MEE-FF System temperatures (Tspr, T1, Tn) at different Solar pond supply temperature [3 Effects]
80
Solar pond return temperature (Tspr)
Boiling temperature in first effect (T1)

75
70

Boiling temperature in last effect (Tn)


Tspr (Best fit line)

65

T1 (Best fit line)

Temperature ( C)

Tn (Best fit line)


60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-11: SP-MEE-FF System temperatures at varying solar pond supply temperature (3 effects)

219

Chapter 6

6.1.4.3 Distillate production and recovery ratio


The maximum distillate production and recovery ratio obtained for the given set of conditions
are 0.0278 kg/s and 62.1%, respectively (Figure 6-12). These performances were obtained
when the solar pond supply temperature was 85oC. When the supply temperature is reduced to
50oC, the distillate production and recovery ratio drop to 0.0080 kg/s and 13.0%, respectively.
It is clear from the empirical data obtained that the relationship between the distillate
production and the solar pond supply temperature (Tsps) is almost linear. Similarly, a linear
correlation was obtained for the relationship between the recovery ratio and Tsps.
SP- MEE-FF Distillate production and Recovery ratio at different Solar pond supply temperature [3 Effects]

0.030

80%
Distillate Production

Recovery Ratio (Best fit line)

70%
65%

Distillate production (kg/s)

Distillate Production (Best fit line)

60%
0.020

55%
50%
y = 0.014x - 0.5698
R2 = 1

0.015

45%
40%
35%

0.010

30%

Recovery Ratio, RR (%)

0.025

75%

y = 0.0006x - 0.0201
R2 = 1

Recovery Ratio

25%
0.005

20%
15%

0.000

10%
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-12: SP-MEE-FF Distillate production and recovery ratio at varying solar pond supply
temperature (3 effects)

6.1.4.4 Specific thermal energy consumption


The same trend for the specific thermal energy consumption as obtained for SP-MEE-P is
observed for the SP-MEE-FF system consisting of three effects (Figure 6-13). The specific
thermal energy consumption varies from 958 kJ/kg to 1225 kJ/kg (the lower value at Tsps of
85oC).

220

Chapter 6
SP-MEE-FF Specific thermal energy consumption at different Solar pond supply temperature [3 Effects]

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

1,250

1,200

1,150

1,100

1,050

1,000

950

900
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-13: SP-MEE-FF specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (3 effects)

6.1.5

Solar MEE modelling comparative analysis

The evaporator characteristics of the two SP-MEE configurations investigated (SP-MEE-P


and SP-MEE-FF) are different. In SP-MEE-P (using falling film), a thin water film flowing
over the outside of horizontal tubes is partly boiled off. The latent heat released during
condensation of the vapour flowing inside the tubes is used for both brine heating (from the
feed saltwater temperature to the saturation temperature) and vaporisation. Whereas in the SPMEE-FF (with submerged tubes), the horizontal tubes are submerged and pool boiling heat
transfer takes place. The total latent heat in this case is used for vaporisation only.
If the tubes configurations in both SP-MEE systems were falling film, the forward feed
arrangement would be more advantageous. Using a forward feed arrangement would be more
energy efficient since it would have the lowest heat transfer area and specific thermal energy
consumption. The parallel flow arrangement requires heating of the feed saltwater in each
effect from the feed temperature to the saturation temperature and the energy from the more
concentrated brine is not recovered completely.
Due to the difference in the heat transfer characteristics of the two configurations, a
comparison of the two feed configurations cannot be undertaken. Instead, an overall
comparative analysis has been performed. It is noteworthy that in order to improve heat
recovery, the SP-MEE-P model uses flashing boxes while in the SP-MEE-FF model,

221

Chapter 6

preheaters are employed. The following design parameters were used in the comparative
evaluation of the two models:
o A mass flow rate of hot brine from the solar pond of 1.5 kg/s
o A temperature of feed saltwater of 15C
o The down condenser has a total heat exchange area of 1 m2
o Each evaporator has a total heat exchange area of 1 m2
o The temperature drop due to hydrostatic pressure depression ( Thydro ) in SP-MEE-FF is

0.5oC
o The temperature drop in the demister ( Tdemister ) is 0.4oC
o The temperature drop in connecting lines and during condensation ( Tline ) is 0.4oC
o The iteration error in SP-MEE-P was set to 1 x 10-4 kg/s
o The iteration error in SP-MEE-FF is set to 0.2 watt.

Both models had the same system temperatures T1, Tn and Tf (or Tf1 in SP-MEE-FF) and feed
saltwater flow rate (mf).
Figure 6-14 and Figure 6-15 show the SP-MEE comparative distillate production and specific
thermal energy at varying solar pond supply temperature, respectively. It can be seen that
overall, the SP-MEE-P (using falling film) outperformed the SP-MEE-FF (using submerged
tubes). The difference in the distillate production and hence specific thermal energy
consumption varied between 2 and 14% (the latter at Tsps of 50oC). It is noteworthy that SPMEE-P requires heating of the feed saltwater in each effect but the falling-film evaporators
have a higher overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) (as will be discussed next) leading to
better heat transfer for the same heat transfer surface area.

222

Chapter 6
Comparative Distillate production at different Solar pond supply temperature [3 Effects]
0.035
SP-MEE-FF
SP-MEE-P
SP-MEE-FF (Best fit line)
SP-MEE-P (Best fit line)

Distillate production (kg/s)

0.030

y = 0.001x - 0.018
R2 = 1.000

0.025

0.020
y = 0.0006x - 0.0201
R2 = 1

0.015

0.010

0.005

0.000
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-14: Comparative distillate production at varying solar pond supply temperature (3 effects)

Comparative Specific thermal energy consumption at different Solar pond supply temperature [3 Effects]

1,250

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

SP-MEE-FF
SP-MEE-P

1,200

SP-MEE-FF (Best fit line)


SP-MEE-P (Best fit line)

1,150

1,100

1,050

1,000

950

900
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps ( C)

Figure 6-15: Comparative specific thermal energy consumption at varying solar pond supply
temperature (3 effects)

In order to assess the overall performance of the evaporators, a comparative analysis of the
OHTC at the same condensation temperature and vapour mass flow rate has been completed.
The OHTC of the evaporator in the first effect of the SP-MEE-FF at varying hot brine average
temperature is shown in Figure 6-16. Figure 6-17 shows the OHTC of the evaporators in
effects 2 and 3 of the SP-MEE-FF at varying condensation temperature (38 to 69oC). The
vapour mass flow rate is an output parameter from the two models and is different for the two
configurations even when the condensation temperatures are the same. In order to compare
the OHTC from the SP-MEE-FF with that of SP-MEE-P, the OHTC correlation for horizontal
223

Chapter 6

falling film evaporators (see Equation A1-17 in Appendix 1) was used. The correlation given
in Equation A1-17 is independent on the vapour mass flow rate.
Figure 6-16 and Figure 6-17 clearly shows that the OHTC of the evaporators in SP-MEE-FF
increases with the condensation temperature (which is governed by the boiling temperature)
or hot brine average temperature. The OHTC for the first effect ranges from 650 to 1200
W/m2.oC. These low values are mainly due to the thermal convective resistance of hot brine
from the solar pond. The OHTC for effects 2 and 3 were found to be between 730 and 2400
W/m2.oC. It can be seen that the OHTC values (for effects 2 and 3) at the higher condensation
temperatures (over 65oC) are close to the predicted OHTC for horizontal falling film
evaporators.

SP-MEE-FF First effect overall heat transfer coefficient at different hot brine average temperature
1,300

2 o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

1,200

1,100

1,000

900

800

700

600

500
46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

Hot brine average temperature ( C)

Figure 6-16: SP-MEE-FF First effect OHTC at varying hot brine average temperature

224

Chapter 6
Comparative Overall heat transfer coefficient at different condensation temperature
2,500

2o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

2,300
2,100
1,900
1,700
1,500
1,300
1,100
MEE-P(vapour)

900

SP-MEE-FF [Effect 2]

700

SP-MEE-FF [Effect 3]

500
36

38

40

42

44

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

Condensation temperature ( C)

Figure 6-17: Comparative overall heat transfer coefficient at varying condensation temperatures

Figure 6-18 compares the OHTC for the evaporators in SP-MEE-P for different feed saltwater
temperature (Tf). The OHTC when Tf is 25oC is close to the predicted OHTC for MEE-P
(using the correlation in Equation A1-17). Increasing the feed saltwater temperature to 30oC
results in higher OHTC (between 2700 and 2900 W/m2.oC).
MEE comparative overall heat transfer coefficient at different condensation temperature

3,000

2 o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
2,000
1,800
1,600

MEE-P (vapour)
SP-MEE-P (Tf = 20oC)

1,400

SP-MEE-P (Tf = 25oC)


SP-MEE-P (Tf = 30oC)

1,200

SP-MEE-FF (vapour)
1,000
48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

Condensation temperature ( C)

Figure 6-18: MEE comparative overall heat transfer coefficient at varying condensation temperatures

The low OHTC in submerged tube evaporation is the result of the hydrostatic water level
suppressing the boiling heat transfer in the lower portion of the tube bundles. This in turn
restricts the vapour flow to the surface liquid. In the horizontal tube falling film configuration
(as in SP-MEE-P), the nucleate boiling in the thin film on the tubes takes place with rapid
225

Chapter 6

bubble growth. Since the saltwater is sprayed on the horizontal tube bundles, the forced
convection increases the convective heat transfer. This results in higher OHTC. The OHTC of
SP-MEE-P (using falling film) evaporators obtained is up to three times the OHTC of SPMEE-FF (using submerged tubes). High OHTC implies a low heat transfer area requirement
and hence a low capital cost to achieve the same overall system performance. A brief cost
comparison of the two types of evaporators will be presented in Chapter 8. Table 6-5
summarises the main advantages and disadvantages of the two SP-MEE models.

Advantages

SP-MEE-P (falling film)

SP-MEE-FF (submerged tubes)

Partial recovery of heat from


condensed fresh water using flashing
boxes, therefore reducing thermal
energy consumption

Partial recovery of heat from


condensed fresh water using
preheaters, therefore reducing thermal
energy consumption

Higher OHTC since the nucleate


All of the latent heat released during
boiling in the thin film on the tubes
condensation of the vapour flowing
takes place with rapid bubble growth inside the tubes is used for
vaporisation

Parallel flow arrangement requires


heating of the feed saltwater in each
effect from the feed temperature to
Disadvantages the saturation temperature, therefore
reducing the amount of heat
available for vaporisation

Lower OHTC due to the hydrostatic


water level suppressing the boiling
heat transfer in the lower portion of
the tube bundles

Table 6-5: Summary of the advantages and disadvantages of the two SP-MEE models

226

Chapter 6

6.2

The 3-Effect MEE (3E-MEE) Experimental Desalination System

6.2.1

Development of the 3-Effect MEE experimental rig

A three-effect multi-effect evaporation unit (SP-3E-MEE) for use with solar thermal heat at
temperatures in the 45-85oC range has been designed using the SP-MEE-FF computer model.
As was discussed earlier, it has been decided that the 3E-MEE would use submerged tubes
and a forward-feed arrangement since this is simpler and easier to manufacture than HTFF.
The aim of the experimental investigation was to measure and evaluate the performance of the
SP-3E-MEE unit when operating at low temperatures. The experimental results are used to
validate the computer model, which can then be used to evaluate larger sized SP-MEE system
consisting of more effects. It is noteworthy that a minimum of two effects is required in order
to evaluate the solar-MEE system. Analysing a three-effect MEE system (as in this
investigation) will improve the performance predictions of an MEE system consisting of more
effects.
The 3E-MEE unit was designed to produce up to 2,300 litres of fresh water per day when the
hot water from the solar pond is supplied at 85oC. A schematic of the 3E-MEE system when
coupled with a SGSP can be found in Figure 6-3 (refer to Section 6.1.2.2 for an explanation
on the operating principle). The following subsections will give details on the main features of
the experimental unit.

6.2.2

Evaporators

The three effects were designed according to the Australian Standard (AS1210-1997) Pressure
Vessel code (AS, 1997) class 3. The designed vacuum pressure and temperature are 101 kPa
(or 0 kPa.abs) and 99oC respectively. Each effect (having a longitudinal axis) is made up of a
cylindrical shell with two (2.5:1) semi-ellipsoidal heads and consists of horizontal tube
bundles in the lower part of the cylinder, a vapour disengagement space above the heat
transfer tubes, a demister, a vapour outlet and; a number of ports for the saltwater streams and
instrumentation (Figure 6-19a).
The length of each effect was based on the length of the evaporator heat exchanger tubes
while the vapour disengagement space and the demister dictate the diameter of the cylinder.
The 2 mm thick cylindrical shell has an external diameter (OD) of 365 mm and is 700 mm
long (Figure 6-19c). The external height and the length of the straight flange of the 2 mm
thick semi-ellipsoidal heads are 115 mm and 43 mm, respectively. A sight glass was fitted to
227

Chapter 6

the side of the evaporators to allow visual monitoring of the saltwater level in the effects and
inspection of the boiling heat transfer process. The evaporators, down condenser, preheaters
and distillate collection tank were made out of stainless steel 316L. The Youngs modulus and
yield strength of stainless steel 316L are 193 GPa and 290 MPa respectively (MatWeb, 2006).
The equations from the Australian Standard AS1210-1997 (refer to Appendix 4) were used to
find the minimum shell thickness to ensure that the vessel can withstand the external pressure.
The semi-ellipsoidal heads dimensions were based on the manufacturers standard sizes. The
heat exchanger tubes of the evaporators were initially designed to be removable for cleaning
purposes but this was later abandoned due to the high manufacturing cost. Instead the heat
exchanger tubes were welded to the shell of the cylindrical vessel. Based on the distillate
production requirement and the modelling results (including the OHTC from the evaporator
heat transfer model see appendix 3), a total external heat exchange surface area of 1.0 m2
was chosen. There are in total 19 horizontal smooth tubes made out of stainless steel 316,
each 1 m long as shown in Figure 6-20. The OD and thickness of the tubes are 18.0 mm and
1.2 mm, respectively.
The right hand side of each effect (Figure 6-19d) consists of a 4 British Standard Milk
(BSM) vapour outlet port and a 4 BSM tube inlet plate for the hot water supply from the
solar heat source or vapour supply from the previous effect while the left hand side (Figure
6-19b) contains a 3 BSM sight glass and a 4 BSM tube outlet plate for the hot water return
or vapour/liquid mixture outlet stream. The bottom of each cylinder is fitted with two
British Standard Pipe (BSP) ports for the saltwater inlet and outlet streams. The top of the
cylinder includes two BSP ports for the pressure transducer and RTD. There is an
additional BSP port on the rear side of the cylinder to allow measurement of the saltwater
boiling temperature. The vapour produced in each effect flows to the next via 4 BSM vapour
interconnecting lines (Figure 6-21) made out of stainless steel 316. The distance between the
effects and hence the length of the interconnecting vapour lines were minimised to reduce the
temperature depression. The interconnecting vapour lines between the effects are 643 mm
long (centre-to-centre distance) whereas the vapour line between the last effect and the
condenser is 562 mm.
Needle valves were installed at the saltwater inlet port of effects 2 and 3 in order to control
the flow as well as reduce the temperature of the more concentrated brine flowing from one
effect to the other. Initially, globe valves were used to promote the flashing process but
proved to be unsuitable when dealing with very small flow rates. Needle valves offer a more
228

Chapter 6

restrictive flow and are hence well suited to control small changes in flow rates. Experimental
tests using different sized needle valves (from to BSP) were conducted at different
head pressures to measure the flow capacity performance. BSP sized needle valves were
chosen to ensure that enough brine flows from one effect to the next even with a small
differential pressure.

229

Chapter 6

(a) Schematic of evaporator

(b) Left hand side of evaporator

(c) Evaporator vessel


Figure 6-19: Effects of 3E-MEE experimental unit

230

(d) Right hand side of evaporator

Chapter 6

Figure 6-20: Tube bundles in evaporator

(a) evaporators, preheaters and condenser

(b) interconnecting vapour lines

Figure 6-21: 3E-MEE evaporators, preheaters, condenser and interconnecting vapour lines

6.2.3

Demister

A demister is required in order to remove any entrained brine droplets from the vapour stream
and hence prevent salt being carried over with the fresh water. The demister housing in the
3E-MEE, made out of stainless steel 316 is located above the heating tubes in the
disengagement space and contains Tellerettes (Figure 6-22). The demister cross-sectional area
was calculated using the Sounders-Brown equation as was done for the SSF unit (see section
5.2.4). Using Tellerettes, brine droplets are separated in the same way as with wire mesh
types. The vapour stream is deviated by the plastic packing so that the droplets cannot follow
the streamlines and therefore collide with the Tellerettes. The liquid film formed on the
demister bottom plate (baffle plate) is drained away by gravity.

231

Chapter 6

(a) demister housing

(b) demister housing filled with Tellerettes

Figure 6-22: 3E-MEE demister

6.2.4

Condenser

The vapour coming from the last effect is fully condensed by a condenser while the feed
saltwater is partly preheated. The shell and tube condenser, as shown in Figure 6-23, was
developed with simple manufacture in mind. Heat exchange tubes similar to the ones
designed for the evaporators were used. To make the vapour interconnection simple, it has
been decided that the vapour would condense inside the tubes of the condenser while the
saltwater flows outside the tubes (that is in the shell side). The outside shell diameter and
length of the condenser is 115 mm and 1 m, respectively. The condenser contains the same
number of heat exchange tubes as the evaporators and the total external heat transfer surface
area is 1.0 m2. The vapour inlet port is 4 BSM while the distillate outlet port is 1 BSP. The
saltwater to be preheated enters and exits the condenser via 1 BSP ports.

232

Chapter 6

(a) schematic of condenser

(b) condenser
Figure 6-23: 3E-MEE condenser

6.2.5

Heat recovery devices

A central design aim has been to maximise the effective reuse within the system of the heat
initially put into the saltwater from the solar thermal source so that the specific thermal energy
of the system (thermal energy input per unit volume of fresh water) is minimised. Minimising
the specific energy yields an economic benefit by minimising the required area of solar
collector. In order to maximise the heat recovery process, two feed preheaters have been
manufactured. The preheaters (Figure 6-24) have been connected to the 4 BSM tube outlet
plates of effects 2 and 3.
The saltwater is preheated by flowing inside the spiral coiled tubes (OD: 5/16, Length: 6 m)
of the preheater while the vapour/liquid mixture or liquid is condensed and/or sub cooled on
the outside of the tubes. A 2 BSM sight glass was fitted to the front of the preheater to allow
visual observation of the fresh water level and facilitate valves adjustment. The coiled tubes
233

Chapter 6

have been designed to be removable. The saltwater enters and exits the preheater via BSP
ports at the bottom of the preheater while the vapour/liquid mixture or liquid enters at the top
through a 4 BSM 90-degree elbow. The total designed external heat transfer surface area of
each preheater is 0.15 m2. The distillate from each preheaters exits through a BSP port.

(a) schematic of preheater

(b) preheater

Figure 6-24: 3E-MEE preheater

6.2.6

Non-condensable gas vents

It was observed during initial commissioning that the operation of the 3E-MEE system was
unsteady. The fresh water production would drop significantly after about 20 mins. This was
later attributed to the non-condensable gases (NCG) present in the saltwater and; released
during heating and boiling. Due to insufficient venting, the accumulation of NCG had adverse
effects on the heat transfer and performance.
In order to remove NCG, simple BSP vents (connected to the vacuum pump line) as
shown in Figure 6-25a, were fitted near the outlet of the two preheaters (Figure 6-25b) and the
condenser to allow the withdrawal of NCG from the vapour condensation space. The removal
of the NCG were made at these locations to allow the cooling of the NCG gases to the
minimum possible temperature, thereby minimising the amount of vapour that may be vented
with the gases. It is noteworthy that excessive venting will result in unnecessary vapour losses

234

Chapter 6

and a higher energy consumption of the venting system. The vents are adjusted via ball valves
depending on the rise and fall of the boiling temperature in each effect.

(a) NCG vent

(b) NCG vent fitted to preheater

Figure 6-25: 3E-MEE non-condensable gases vent

6.2.7

Pumps and tanks

Most of the pumps, tanks and instrumentation used in the SSF experimental unit were utilised
in the SP-3E-MEE project. The pumps include the single-stage liquid ring vacuum pump, the
fresh water extraction pump and the brine extraction pump. The 50 litres distillate tank and
the 220 litres brine tank were also reused for this investigation.
A 500 litres polyethylene tank was used to supply saltwater to the 3E-MEE system. Since the
thermal heat input circuit in the 3E-MEE system is separate from the feed saltwater stream,
two pumps were required. The existing Onga multistage centrifugal pump used in the SSF
unit was utilised in the 3E-MEE to circulate hot water from the gas hot water system (see
Section 6.2.9). Another stainless steel horizontal multistage pump (model: Davey HM60-06)
as shown in Figure 6-26 was installed to pump the feed saltwater through the condenser and
preheaters before introducing the saltwater in the first effect. The pump has a maximum head
of 46 m and a maximum flow rate of 80 LPM.

235

Chapter 6

Figure 6-26: 3E-MEE supply pump

The distillate from the two preheaters and condenser were collected in a 25-litres stainless
steel 316 tank. The interim distillate collection tank (Figure 6-27) is fitted with a 2 BSM
sight glass and allows the control of the distillate flow rates from each stream via ball valves.

Figure 6-27: 3E-MEE interim distillate collection tank

The three evaporators, condenser and interim distillate collection tank were held by adjustable
steel straps mounted on frames. The coefficient of expansion of stainless steel 316 is 16

m/m.oC at 20oC (AWM, 2002). Therefore if the first effect (OD: 361 mm) operates at 85oC,
the diameter will increase to:
16

( 8 5 2 0 ) 0 .3 6 1 + O D o ld = 3 6 1 .3 7 m m
O D n ew =
6
1 10

(6-65)

This is equivalent to an increase of 0.37 mm in the diametrical direction. This expansion is


insignificant and therefore can be neglected.

236

Chapter 6

6.2.8

Instrumentation and data acquisition

A number of sensors were installed on the 3E-MEE unit and connected to the data acquisition
system (which was used for the SSF rig). A number of 2-wire thin film platinum probes Pt100
resistance temperature detectors (RTD) have been used to measure the temperature at
different locations as depicted in Figure 6-34. Temperature measurement include the feed
saltwater temperature as it gets preheated, boiling and vapour temperatures in each effect,
condensation temperatures at the outlet of the tube plates, brine temperatures between the
effects and distillate temperatures. The hot water supply and return temperature in the first
effect were measured in order to calculate the heat input capacity. The ambient temperature
was also recorded.
A turbine flow transducer (model: Gems FT-110) as shown in Figure 6-28 was placed at the
inlet of the condenser to measure the total flow rate of the feed saltwater. A similar transducer
was installed on the supply hot water line of the first effect to measure the water flow rate
from the hot water system. The flow rate range is 2 to 30 LPM. The accuracy of the turbine
flowmeters is 3% of the reading (as reported by the manufacturer).

Figure 6-28: Gems turbine flow transducer

A similar turbine flow transducer with a flow rate range of 0.5 to 5 LPM was installed on each
of the distillate line (between the preheaters/condenser and the interim distillate collection
tank) to measure the fresh water production from each effect. A flow transducer was placed
on the feed saltwater line (after the condenser) to measure the flow rate of the feed saltwater
to be desalinated. Another flow transducer was installed on the reject brine concentrated line.
The flow measurements from these five transducers allow the total distillate production and
recovery ratio to be calculated.
The three flow transducers placed on the distillate lines were initially installed on the
concentrated brine stream lines between the effects. However, this was proven to be
237

Chapter 6

ineffective since at low temperatures, the hot brine flowing from one effect to the next would
start to flash after the flowmeter (due to the pressure drop across the flowmeter) and hence
affect the flow rate reading. Moreover, having a saturated mixture between the flowmeters
and the needle valves is undesirable since the needle valves are too restrictive for mixture
flows. Locating these flow transducers on the distillate lines was a better option and the flow
rates were successfully measured.
These seven flow transducers give frequency outputs. Seven frequency-to-analogue
converters similar to the ones used in the SSF rig were required to convert the frequency
outputs from the flowmeters to voltage values (acceptable by the data acquisition system).
Four calibrated pressure transducers were installed to measure the pressure in each of the
three effects and the interim distillate collection tank. More details pertaining to the
transducers can be found in Section 5.2.7.
The RTD sensors, flowmeters and pressure transducers were connected to the Yokogawa data
recorder for continuous measurements. The measurement interval was set to two seconds. The
parasitic energy consumption of the vacuum, supply and extraction pumps was measured
using the power meters as described in Section 5.2.7.
More details about the RTD, frequency to analogue converters, pressure transducers and data
recorder can be found in Section 5.2.7 since these sensors and instrumentation were also used
in the SSF rig. A three-dimensional drawing of the 3E-MEE evaporators, condenser and
preheaters is shown in Figure 6-29. Figure 6-30 shows the 3E-MEE experimental unit as
tested.

238

Chapter 6

Figure 6-29: Three-dimensional drawing of 3E-MEE evaporators, condenser and preheaters

Figure 6-30: 3E-MEE experimental unit (as tested)

239

Chapter 6

6.2.9

Coupling of 3E-MEE with heat source

The existing 47 kW gas water heater (see Section 5.2.8) was used to simulate solar-thermal
heat. However a buffer hot water tank had to be used to ensure that the evaporator in the first
effect is supplied constantly with the required flow rate and temperature. A 330 litres stainless
steel buffer tank was used for this purpose (see Figure 6-34 for a schematic of the hot water
circuit).
6.2.10

Improving the OHTC by recirculation

During the initial trials of the SP-3E-MEE unit (when Tsps = 86oC and mf = 2.32 LPM), it has
been found that the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) in the first effect was very low (~
800 W/m2.oC). This was attributed to insufficient hot water flow in the tube bundles of the
first evaporator. The flow capacity of the existing Onga supply pump was not enough and
with the dimensions of the heat exchange tubes, only transitional flow regime occurred. The
existing pump has a maximum head of 45 m and a maximum flow rate of 72 LPM but with
the pressure drop in the gas hot water heater and hot water piping, only a maximum of 22
LPM could be achieved. With this flow rate, the velocity in each tube is 0.1 m/s. This gives a
Reynolds number of 4,500 indicating transitional flow.
In order to increase the hot water flow in the tubes and hence increase the turbulence, a
number of options were considered. The idea of modifying the end caps to make the heat
exchanger multipass was abandoned due to the complexity. Replacing the existing pump
(pump 1) with a bigger capacity multistage centrifugal pump would solve the problem.
However, increasing the total flow means that the hot water temperature difference across the
heat exchanger would decrease. Having a much lower temperature difference (less than 5oC)
would reduce the accuracy of the temperature measurements since the RTD can only measure
to an accuracy of 0.3oC. Therefore, it has been decided to install another pump to recycle
part of the return hot water stream as shown in Figure 6-31. An extra RTD temperature sensor
was required in order to measure the temperature of the mixed flow (Tsp-rec) which would
allow the calculation of the flow rate of the recycled hot water. The new recirculation pump
(model: Grundfos E502304) has a maximum head of 35 m. It can deliver 4 m3 of water per
hour at a head of 26 m. The mass flow rate of recycled hot water (mrec) from pump 2 can be
determined from an energy balance.

m sp C p1 T sp s + m sp re c C p 2 T sp r = m sp + m sp re c C p 3 T s p r e c
240

(6-66)

Chapter 6

From Equation (6-66), msp-rec can be determined as follows:

m sp re c =

m s p C p 3 T sp re c C p1 T sp s

( C p 2 T sp r C p 3 T sp re c )

(6-67)

Up to a maximum flow of 100 LPM was able to be achieved with the two pumps. This
resulted in a velocity of 0.5 m/s, which gave a Reynolds number of 20,200. The effect of the
modified hot water circuit on the OHTC will be discussed later in Section 6.3.2.1.

Figure 6-31: Schematic of modified hot water circuit

6.2.11

Improving the OHTC by using twisted tapes

In order to further increase the heat transfer performance, twisted tapes were placed inside the
tubes of the evaporator of the first effect. Twisted tape are swirl flow devices that increase
turbulence and hence enhance the heat transfer rate. The 19 twisted tapes (Figure 6-32) were
made out of stainless steel 316 strip. The thickness (t), diameter (Dt) and length (L) of the
twisted tapes are 1 mm, 12.5 mm and 1 m, respectively. The pitch length, Lp (based on 180o)
is 70 mm. The twist ratio defined as the ratio of the pitch length to the tape diameter (Lp/Dt) is
therefore 5.6. Figure 6-33 shows the twisted tape in the tubes of the evaporator of the first
effect. The effect of the twisted tapes on the OHTC will be discussed later in Section 6.3.2.2.

241

Chapter 6

(a) schematic of twisted tape

(b) twisted tape inserts


Figure 6-32: Twisted tape inserts used in evaporator of first effect

Figure 6-33: Twisted tapes in tubes of evaporator

A schematic showing the position of the sensors on the 3E-MEE unit is shown in Figure 6-34.
Table 6-6 gives a description of each sensor attached to the data recorder.

242

Chapter 6

Figure 6-34: Schematic showing position of sensors on SP-3E-MEE unit

243

Chapter 6

Sensor type

Channel
number

Description

Pressure transducer [P1] Pressure in 1st effect (kPa.abs)

Pressure transducer [P2] Pressure in 2nd effect (kPa.abs)

Pressure transducer [P3] Pressure in 3rd effect (kPa.abs)

Pressure transducer [P4] Pressure in interim distillate collection tank (kPa.abs)

Flow transducer [msp]


Flow transducer
[mcw + mf]
Flow transducer [mf]

Solar hot water flow rate (LPM)

Total feed saltwater flow rate (LPM)

Feed saltwater to be desalinated (LPM)

Flow transducer [md1]

Distillate flow rate from effect 1 (LPM)

Flow transducer [md2]

Distillate flow rate from effect 2 (LPM)

Flow transducer [mb]

Reject concentrated brine flow rate (LPM)

10

RTD [Tf0]

Total feed saltwater temperature (oC)

11

RTD [Tf1]

Feed saltwater to be desalinated temperature (oC)

12

RTD [Tf2]

Feed saltwater temperature, after 1st preheater (oC)

13

RTD [Tsp]

Supply solar hot water temperature ( C)

14

RTD [Tspr]

Return solar hot water temperature ( C)

15

nd

RTD [Tf3]

Feed saltwater temperature, after 2 preheater ( C)

16

RTD

Ambient temperature (oC)

17

RTD [Tsp-rec]

Supply solar hot water temperature, after mixing (oC)

18

Flow transducer [md3]

Distillate flow rate from effect 3 (LPM)

19

RTD [Tv1]

Vapour temperature in 1st effect (oC)

20

RTD [Tv2]

Vapour temperature in 2nd effect (oC)

21

RTD [Tv3]

Vapour temperature in 3rd effect (oC)

22

RTD [T1]

Boiling temperature in 1st effect (oC)

23

RTD [T2]

Boiling temperature in 2nd effect (oC)

24

RTD [T3]
RTD [Tx1]

rd

Boiling temperature in 3 effect ( C)

25

nd

Distillate temperature from 2 preheater ( C)

26

27

RTD [Tx3]

Distillate temperature from condenser ( C)

28

RTD [Tc2]

Vapour condensation temperature in 3rd effect (oC)

29

RTD [Tc1]

Vapour condensation temperature in 2nd effect (oC)

30

RTD [Tx2]

st

Distillate temperature from 1 preheater ( C)


o

Table 6-6: Description of sensors on SP-3E-MEE unit

244

Chapter 6

6.3

3E-MEE Experimental Findings

6.3.1

Experimental procedures

In order to measure the performance of the 3E-MEE, the unit was trialled repeatedly at
different solar heat supply temperature (Tsps) in the range of 50 to 85oC. These temperature
limits were selected for the same reasons mentioned in Section 5.3.1. The feed saltwater and
the cooling water flow rates were also varied during the experimental tests in order to
investigate the effect of the flow rates on the operating temperatures, distillate production,
recovery ratio and specific thermal energy consumption.
Once the vacuum pressure in each effect was set, the solar hot water was pumped through the
tube bundles of the first evaporator. As soon as the brine temperature in the evaporator
reached the desired boiling temperature, the NCG vent and the valve on the distillate line
were opened and adjusted. After a few seconds, the vapour produced in the first effect would
start to condense inside the tubes of the second evaporator, thereby heating the brine flowing
on the outside. Similarly, as soon as the desired boiling temperature in the second effect was
reached, the NCG vent controlling the pressure in the second effect and the valve on the
distillate line were opened and adjusted. The same procedures apply for the third effect. The
needle valves between the effects were then adjusted to allow the brine to flow from one
effect to the next. When all three effects were operating at the right boiling temperatures
(although these temperatures are affected by the solar hot water and cooling water flow rates)
and no adjustment of valves were required, the steady-state measurements could be taken. The
durations of the steady-state experimental tests were 30 to 90 minutes.

6.3.2

Improving the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC)

6.3.2.1 Improving the OHTC by recirculation


As was explained earlier in Section 6.2.10, the OHTC in the first evaporator was found to be
approximately 800 W/m2.oC (when Tsps = 86oC and mf = 2.32 LPM) during the early trials.
This low value was attributed to the insufficient water flow rate (~ 22 LPM) in the tube
bundles of the evaporator. By modifying the hot water circuit, about 70 LPM (the maximum
flow that could be obtained) of hot water was recirculated using a secondary pump. This
means that a total of 92 LPM of hot water was flowing in the tube bundles. The experimental
results (Figure 6-35) showed that the OHTC in the first effect (UE1) had increased to 1,005
W/m2.oC (an increase of 26%).
245

Chapter 6

SP-3E-MEE Overall heat transfer coefficient


2,300

2 o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800

UE1

UE2

UE3

UC

700
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

Duration (min)

Tsps = 85oC, mf = 2.32 LPM

Figure 6-35: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at 86oC and 2.32 LPM (with recirculation only)

6.3.2.2 Improving the OHTC using twisted tapes


Twisted tapes have also been used in order to improve the OHTC in the first evaporator (see
Section 6.2.11). When the twisted tapes were placed inside the tubes with no recirculation
flow, the OHTC in the first evaporator (UE1) increased from 800 W/m2.oC to 1,060 W/m2.oC
(an increase of 32%) as shown in Figure 6-36.
SP-3E-MEE Overall heat transfer coefficient [No recirulation]
2,500
2,400

2 o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

2,300
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
UE1

800

UE2

UE3

UC

700
0

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.32 LPM

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56

Duration (min)

Figure 6-36: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at 86oC and 2.32 LPM (with twisted tapes only)

246

Chapter 6

Typical results at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

6.3.3

Figure 6-37, Figure 6-38, Figure 6-39, Figure 6-40, Figure 6-41, Figure 6-42 and Figure 6-43
show the typical results obtained from the 3E-MEE system when operating at a supply solar
hot water temperature (Tsps) of 86oC and a feed flow rate (mf) of 2.59 LPM. It is noteworthy
that the same calculations and analysis were performed for the remaining trials at different
temperatures and flow rates. The trials were also conducted with the twisted tapes fitted to the
first evaporator and full recirculation in order to obtain the best performance. The error range
values of the empirical results were calculated using the uncertainty analysis procedures
described in Appendix 5.
SP-3E-MEE Operating temperatures

Stop

90
85
80
75
70

Temperature ( C)

65
60
55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20

Steady-state

15
10

Tsps
T3

Tsp-rec
Tf1

Tspr
Tf0

T1

T2

0
0

10

15

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Duration (min)

Figure 6-37: SP-3E-MEE operating temperatures at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

Figure 6-37 shows the operating temperatures when the solar hot water is supplied at 86oC
(Tsps) and the flow rate of the feed saltwater to be desalinated (mf) is 2.59 LPM. Tspr is the
return solar hot water temperature, Tsp-rec is the mixed hot water supply temperature, T1 is the
boiling temperature in the first effect, T2 is the boiling temperature in the second effect, Tf0 is
the temperature of the total feed saltwater and Tf1 is the temperature of the feed saltwater to
be desalinated (just after the condenser). It is clear from the figure that the SP-3E-MEE
system reached a steady-state approximately 10 minutes after the third effect reached the
desired boiling temperature (T3). It is interesting to note that the temperature differences
between the effects were different. The temperature difference between the first and second
effects was (9.6 0.7)oC whereas the difference between the second and third effects was (8.4

0.7)oC. The feed saltwater gained (15.8 0.6)oC while flowing through the condenser. All
247

Chapter 6

the temperatures stayed uniform until the trial was stopped after an hour. The average steady-

Pressure (kPa.abs)

state results (with the corresponding error range values) are summarised in Table 6-7.
SP-3E-MEE Operating pressures

28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5

Stop

Steady-state

P1 (Effect 1)
P3 (Effect 3)
0

10

15

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

20

25

30

35

40

45

P2 (Effect 2)
P4 (Distillate tank)
50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

95

Duration (min)

Figure 6-38: SP-3E-MEE operating pressures at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

Figure 6-38 shows that the operating pressures were constant during the experimental trial.
This also means that the SP-3E-MEE was properly vented and the NCG were successfully
removed from the system. Accumulation of NCG results in an increase in the operating
pressures and deterioration in the heat transfer.
The distillate production from the different effects measured by the flow transducers are
shown in Figure 6-39. Clearly, the highest distillate production was obtained from the first
effect with an average of (0.52 0.02) LPM. The second and third effects produced an
average of (0.51 0.02) and (0.42 0.02) LPM of fresh water, respectively.

248

Chapter 6
SP-3E-MEE Distillate production
0.60

Distillate production (LPM)

0.55

0.50

0.45

0.40

D1 (Effect 1)

0.35

D2 (Effect 2)
D3 (Effect 3)
0.30
20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Duration (min)

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

Figure 6-39: SP-3E-MEE distillate production at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

The total distillate production from the SP-3E-MEE system and the derived recovery ratio (as
defined in Section 3.4.3) are illustrated in Figure 6-40. For this particular solar hot water
temperature and feed saltwater flow rate, the average total distillate production was (1.44
0.03) LPM, which resulted in a recovery ratio of (55.7 2.1)%. It is noteworthy that the
turbine flow transducers have an accuracy of 3%. The error range values were calculated
using the uncertainty analysis procedures described in Appendix 5.
SP-3E-MEE Total distillate production and Recovery ratio
1.55

70

Total distillate (md)

1.53

68

1.51

66

1.49

64

1.47

62

1.45

60

1.43

58

1.41

56

1.39

54

1.37

52

1.35

Recovery ratio (%)

Total distillate production (LPM)

Recovery ratio (RR)

50
20

25

30

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Duration (min)

Figure 6-40: SP-3E-MEE total distillate production and recovery ratio at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

249

Chapter 6

The specific thermal energy consumption (heat supplied by the solar heat source per unit mass
of distillate produced) for this three effects MEE system was calculated from the experimental
data and was found to be approximately (877 56) kJ/kg (Figure 6-41).
SP-3E-MEE Specific thermal energy consumption

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

940

920

900

880

860

840

820
20

25

30

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Duration (min)

Figure 6-41: SP-3E-MEE specific thermal energy consumption at 86oC and 2.59
LPM

Heat recovery devices incur additional capital costs and it is therefore important to analyse the
performance of these devices in order to assess their merits. By performing heat energy
balances using the equation derived earlier (see Section 6.1.2.2); the heat flow from the
condenser and preheaters to the feed saltwater can be calculated. In addition the determination
of the solar heat input allow the total preheat energy input to be expressed as a percentage of
the total heat input. The required thermodynamics properties (specific heat at constant
pressure and latent heat of vaporisation) were evaluated using the equations in Appendix 1.
The heat flow in the SP-3E-MEE unit is depicted in Figure 6-42. The figure shows that the
heat flows from the condenser, first preheater and second preheater are (2.85 0.14), (3.63
0.16) and (1.81 0.14) kW, respectively. The solar heat input was (21.41 1.30) kW.
Therefore, the preheating in the condenser and preheaters contributed approximately (27.9
1.5)% of the total heat input. It is worthy to note that around (14.24 0.78) kW was lost with
the rejected cooling water (this will be discussed in more detail later).

250

Chapter 6
SP-3E-MEE Heat flow
30
28
26
24

Heat flow (kW)

22

30.0%

Feed preheating in condenser


Feed preheating by first preheater
Feed preheating by second preheater
Solar heat to Effect 1
Rejected heat in cooling water
Total feed preheating
Total preheating (% of total heat input)

29.5%
29.0%
28.5%

20
18

28.0%

16
27.5%

14
12

27.0%

10
8

26.5%

6
4

Total preheating (% of total heat input)

32

26.0%

2
0

25.5%

20
25
30
Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Duration (min)

Figure 6-42: SP-3E-MEE heat flow at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

The OHTC of the condenser and each evaporator was derived using the following equations.

UE1 =

Uc =

(
(

msp Cpsp

)
)

Tsps T1
ln
AE1
Tspr T1

(6-68)

UE2 =

D1 c1
(Tc1 T2 ) AE 2

(6-69)

UE3 =

D3 v3
(Tc2 T3 ) AE 3

(6-70)

(mf + mcw ) Cp (Tf1 Tf0 )

( Tf1 - Tf0 )

Ac
ln ( Tc 3 - Tf0 ) / ( Tc 3 - Tf1 )

(6-71)

The derived OHTC for the three effects and condenser is presented in Figure 6-43. The
OHTC in the condenser (UC) is (1039 103) W/m2.oC. The OHTC in the first effect (UE1) is
around (1311 122) W/m2.oC as compared to the values of (2170 192) and (2021 201)
W/m2.oC for the second (UE2) and last effect (UE3) respectively. It is noteworthy that the
combination effects of the twisted tapes and full recirculation has increased the OHTC in the
first effect to (1,311 122) W/m2.oC (which is an increase of ~ 64%). As discussed in
251

Chapter 6

Sections 6.2.10 and 6.2.11, the lower OHTC in the first effect (as compared to the other two
effects) is due to the low flow rate and important hot water thermal convective resistance.

SP-3E-MEE Overall heat transfer coefficient


2,500
2,400

2 o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

2,300
2,200
2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900

UE1

UE2

UE3

UC

800
20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Duration (min)

Tsps = 86oC, mf = 2.59 LPM

Figure 6-43: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

The average results from the steady-state trial at 86oC and 2.59 LPM are shown in Table 6-7.
Average
value

Description

Pressure in 1st effect, P1 (kPa.abs)

21.72 0.16

Pressure in 2nd effect, P2 (kPa.abs)

14.94 0.16

rd

Pressure in 3 effect, P3 (kPa.abs)

10.16 0.16

Pressure in interim distillate collection tank, P4 (kPa.abs)

9.14 0.16

Solar hot water flow rate, msp (LPM)

22.05 0.68

Recirculation hot water flow rate, msp-rec (LPM)

57.94 4.58

Total feed saltwater flow rate, [mcw + mf] (LPM)

15.53 0.48

Feed saltwater to be desalinated, mf (LPM)

2.59 0.08

Distillate flow rate from effect 1, md1 (LPM)

0.52 0.02

Distillate flow rate from effect 2, md2 (LPM)

0.51 0.02

Distillate flow rate from effect 3, md3 (LPM)

0.42 0.02

Reject concentrated brine flow rate, mb (LPM)

1.21 0.04

Total feed saltwater temperature, Tf0 (oC)

14.5 0.4

Feed saltwater to be desalinated temperature, Tf1 (oC)


st

Feed saltwater temperature, after 1 preheater, Tf2 ( C)


252

30.3 0.5
50.4 0.5

Chapter 6

Feed saltwater temperature, after 2nd preheater, Tf3 (oC)

60.4 0.5

86.4 0.5

Supply solar hot water temperature, Tsps ( C)


o

72.5 0.5

Return solar hot water temperature, Tspr ( C)


o

Supply solar hot water temperature, after mixing, Tsp-rec ( C)


st

62.2 0.5

Boiling temperature in 1 effect, T1 ( C)


nd

76.4 0.5

Boiling temperature in 2 effect, T2 ( C)

52.6 0.5

Boiling temperature in 3rd effect, T3 (oC)

44.2 0.5

Vapour temperature in 1st effect, Tv1 (oC)

61.4 0.5

Vapour temperature in 2nd effect, Tv2 (oC)

51.9 0.5

Vapour temperature in 3rd effect, Tv3 (oC)

43.7 0.5

Vapour condensation temperature in 2nd effect, Tc1 (oC)

61.1 0.5

Vapour condensation temperature in 3rd effect, Tc2 (oC)

51.6 0.5

Distillate temperature from condenser, Tc3/ Tx3 (oC)

40.1 0.5

nd

Distillate temperature from 2 preheater, Tx1 ( C)


st

56.5 0.5

Distillate temperature from 1 preheater, Tx2 ( C)

43.3 0.5

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

55.7 2.1

Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth (kJ/kg)

877 56

OHTC in 1st effect, UE1 (W/m2.oC)

1311 122

OHTC in 2nd effect, UE2 (W/m2.oC)

2170 192

OHTC in 3rd effect, UE3 (W/m2.oC)

2021 201

OHTC in condenser, UC (W/m2.oC)

1039 103

Heat flow from condenser (kW)


Heat flow from first preheater (kW)
Heat flow from second preheater (kW)
Solar heat input (kW)
Rejected heat in cooling water (kW)

2.85 0.14
3.63 0.16
1.81 0.14
21.41 1.30
14.24 0.78

Table 6-7: SP-3E-MEE average steady-state results (with error range values) for
trial at 86oC and 2.59 LPM

253

Chapter 6

6.3.4

SP-3E-MEE at varying heat source temperature and constant feed flow rate

6.3.4.1 Procedures
The SP-3E-MEE was tested at varying heat source temperatures (50oC, 55oC, 60oC, 65oC,
75oC and 85oC) while keeping the feed saltwater (to be desalinated) flow rate constant at
approximately 2.0 LPM. The empirical results at different solar hot water supply temperatures
(Tsps) are provided in the following sub sections.

6.3.4.2 Operating temperature


Figure 6-44 shows the operating temperatures at varying solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)
while the feed flow rate was maintained constant at 2 LPM (for Tsps in the range of 61 to
86oC). It is noteworthy that the SP-3E-MEE system was unstable while operating at
temperatures less than 56oC. The supply and inter-effects valves had to be adjusted numerous
times to maintain constant water level in the evaporators. In addition the distillate production
rates at these low temperatures (less than 56oC) were very small. Consequently the distillate
valves had to be adjusted constantly thereby affecting the accuracy of the flow rate steadystate measurements. While working at Tsps of 56oC, the feed saltwater flow rate was adjusted
to 1.63 LPM. The feed saltwater flow rate was maintained at 1 LPM when working at Tsps of
49oC.
SP-3E-MEE Operating temperatures at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)

80
75
70
65
60

Temperature ( C)

55
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10

Tsp-rec
Tsp-rec [2]

Tspr
Tspr [2]

T1
T1 [2]

T2
T2 [2]

T3
T3 [2]

Tf1
Tf1 [2]

Tf0
Tf0 [2]

0
45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

Figure 6-44: SP-3E-MEE operating temperatures at varying solar hot water temperature
(with error bars shown)

254

Chapter 6

6.3.4.3 Distillate production and recovery ratio


It can clearly be seen from Figure 6-45 that for a constant feed flow rate the recovery ratio
increases as the Tsps increases. The maximum empirical recovery ratio was about (72.7
2.7)% equivalent to a daily distillate production of (2,090 43) litres for a feed flow rate of
(2.0 0.06) LPM. The error bars (defined by the error range values calculated using the
uncertainty analysis procedures described in Appendix 5) and best fit lines are also shown in
the figure. The error bars in the x-axis direction (X error bars) show the error range values in
the measurement of the Tsps while the error bars in the y-axis direction (Y error bars) show the
distillate production or recovery ratio empirical error range values
SP-3E-MEE Total distillate production and Recovery ratio at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)

90

1.40

80

1.20

70

1.00

60

0.80

50

0.60

40

Md
Md [2]
RR
RR [2]
RR (Best fit line)
Md (Best fit line)

0.40

0.20

Recovery ratio (%)

Total distillate production (LPM)

1.60

30

20

0.00

10
45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

Figure 6-45: SP-3E-MEE total distillate production and recovery ratio at varying solar hot
water temperature (with error bars shown)

6.3.4.4 Specific thermal energy consumption


The empirical results confirm that the specific thermal energy consumption decreases with the
Tsps for a constant feed flow rate of 2 LPM (Figure 6-46). For this set of conditions, the
specific thermal energy consumption at 61oC and 86oC are (1,005 106) kJ/kg and (810 54)
kJ/kg, respectively.

255

Chapter 6
SP-3E-MEE Specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

1,500
1,400
1,300
1,200
1,100
1,000
900
800

Specific Energy
700

Specific Energy [2]


Specific Energy (Best fit line)

600
45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

90

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

Figure 6-46: SP-3E-MEE specific thermal energy consumption at varying solar hot
water temperature (with error bars shown)

6.3.4.5 Overall heat transfer coefficients


SP-3E-MEE Overall heat transfer coefficient at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
2,500

2 o

Overall heat transfer coefficient (W/m . C)

2,300
2,100

UE1

UE2

UE3

Uc

UE2 (Best fit line)

UE3 (Best fit line)

UE1 (Best fit line)

Uc (Best fit line)

1,900
1,700
1,500
1,300
1,100
900
700
55

60

65

70

75

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

80

85

90

Figure 6-47: SP-3E-MEE OHTC at varying solar hot water temperature (with error
bars shown)

The OHTC decreases as the solar pond supply temperature (Tsps) is reduced (Figure 6-47).
The OHTC in the first effect varied between (1,167 189) and (1,337 130) W/m2.oC. The
maximum OHTC obtained was (2,243 203) W/m2.oC. This occurred in the second effect
when operating at Tsps of (86.4 0.5)oC.

256

Chapter 6

6.3.4.6 Heat flow


Figure 6-48 shows the heat flows in the SP-3E-MEE system at varying Tsps. The feed
saltwater preheating in the condenser and preheaters contributed up to (26.6 2.3)% of the
total heat input. This occurred at a Tsps of (61.4 0.5)oC. However, at the same temperature,

Heat flow (kW)

around (7.35 0.63) kW was lost with the rejected cooling water.
SP-3E-MEE Heat flow at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)

22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Feed preheating in condenser


Feed preheating by first preheater
Feed preheating by second preheater
Solar heat to Effect 1
Rejected heat in cooling water
Rejected heat in cooling water (Best fit line)
Solar heat to Effect 1 (Best fit line)

55

60

65

70

75

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

80

85

90

Figure 6-48: SP-3E-MEE heat flow at varying solar hot water temperature (with
error bars shown)

The average steady-state results at varying Tsps (between 60 and 86oC) are shown in Table
6-8.

257

Chapter 6

Solar heat supply temperature (Tsps)


86.4
76.4
66.4
61.4
Pressure in 1st effect, P1 (kPa.abs)
22.84 0.16 17.47 0.16 13.70 0.16 11.91 0.16
Pressure in 2nd effect, P2 (kPa.abs)
15.84 0.16 12.64 0.16 10.47 0.16 9.30 0.16
Pressure in 3rd effect, P3 (kPa.abs)
10.90 0.16 8.28 0.16 7.30 0.16 6.71 0.16
Pressure in interim distillate collection tank, P4 (kPa.abs)
10.08 0.16 8.23 0.16 7.44 0.16 6.72 0.16
Solar hot water flow rate, msp (LPM)
21.91 0.67 21.32 0.65 21.16 0.65 21.13 0.65
Recirculation hot water flow rate, msp-rec (LPM)
71.07 5.58 76.37 6.74 74.78 8.38 71.04 9.14
Total feed saltwater flow rate, [mcw + mf] (LPM)
19.81 0.61 18.07 0.55 14.98 0.46 15.00 0.46
Feed saltwater to be desalinated, mf (LPM)
2.00 0.06 2.03 0.06 1.94 0.06 2.00 0.06
Distillate flow rate from effect 1, md1 (LPM)
0.52 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.26 0.01 0.21 0.01
Distillate flow rate from effect 2, md2 (LPM)
0.48 0.02 0.40 0.02 0.27 0.01 0.20 0.01
Distillate flow rate from effect 3, md3 (LPM)
0.45 0.02 0.37 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.22 0.01
Reject concentrated brine flow rate, mb (LPM)
0.55 0.03 0.86 0.03 1.16 0.03 1.37 0.04
Total feed saltwater temperature, Tf0 (oC)
16.7 0.4
16.9 0.4
16.8 0.4
21.5 0.4
o
Feed saltwater to be desalinated temperature, Tf1 ( C)
27.4 0.5
26.5 0.5
24.9 0.5
33.3 0.5
st
o
Feed saltwater temperature, after 1 preheater, Tf2 ( C)
46.9 0.5
42.7 0.5
34.2 0.5
52.3 0.5
Feed saltwater temperature, after 2nd preheater, Tf3 (oC)
52.1 0.5
46.9 0.5
44.3 0.5
61.7 0.5
Supply solar hot water temperature, Tsps (oC)
76.4 0.5
66.4 0.5
61.4 0.5
86.4 0.5
o
Return solar hot water temperature, Tspr ( C)
65.4 0.5
58.1 0.5
54.2 0.5
73.1 0.5
o
Supply solar hot water temperature, after mixing, Tsp-rec ( C) 76.3 0.5
67.8 0.5
59.9 0.5
55.8 0.5
o
Boiling temperature in 1st effect, T1 ( C)
57.1 0.5
51.4 0.5
48.2 0.5
63.5 0.5
Boiling temperature in 2nd effect, T2 (oC)
48.7 0.5
44.2 0.5
41.7 0.5
54.2 0.5
Boiling temperature in 3rd effect, T3 (oC)
39.9 0.5
36.4 0.5
34.5 0.5
46.3 0.5
o
Vapour temperature in 1st effect, Tv1 ( C)
56.3 0.5
50.6 0.5
47.4 0.5
62.8 0.5
o
Vapour temperature in 2nd effect, Tv2 ( C)
48.0 0.5
43.5 0.5
41.1 0.5
53.4 0.5
o
Vapour temperature in 3rd effect, Tv3 ( C)
38.8 0.5
35.8 0.5
33.6 0.5
45.6 0.5
Vapour condensation temperature in 2nd effect, Tc1 (oC)
55.9 0.5
50.3 0.5
47.1 0.5
62.5 0.5
Description

258

Chapter 6

Vapour condensation temperature in 3rd effect, Tc2 (oC)


Distillate temperature from condenser, Tc3/ Tx3 (oC)
Distillate temperature from 2nd preheater, Tx1 (oC)
Distillate temperature from 1st preheater, Tx2 (oC)
Recovery ratio, RR (%)
Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth (kJ/kg)
OHTC in 1st effect, UE1 (W/m2.oC)
OHTC in 2nd effect, UE2 (W/m2.oC)
OHTC in 3rd effect, UE3 (W/m2.oC)
OHTC in condenser, UC (W/m2.oC)
Heat flow from condenser (kW)
Heat flow from first preheater (kW)
Heat flow from second preheater (kW)
Solar heat input (kW)
Rejected heat in cooling water (kW)
Total distillate, md (LPM)

47.7 0.5
43.2 0.5
40.8 0.5
53.2 0.5
36.5 0.5
33.5 0.5
30.4 0.5
42.5 0.5
50.7 0.5
43.9 0.5
40.0 0.5
56.4 0.5
40.4 0.5
36.0 0.5
27.9 0.5
46.3 0.5
57.4 2.2
40.2 1.6
31.6 1.4
72.7 2.7
841 63
945 88
1,005 106
810 54
1,337 130 1,267 143 1,197 170 1,167 189
2,243 203 1,905 194 1,541 184 1,347 182
2,125 224 1,729 163 1,425 154 1,271 148
965 147
947 170
1,088 136 1,009 136
1.65 0.10 1.51 0.10 1.30 0.09 1.13 0.10
2.64 0.12 2.75 0.13 2.20 0.11 1.30 0.10
1.31 0.10 0.74 0.10 0.56 0.09 1.42 0.10
19.63 1.24 16.28 1.16 12.30 1.10 10.60 1.07
14.72 0.94 11.96 0.82 8.70 0.65 7.35 0.63
1.45 0.03 1.16 0.03 0.78 0.02 0.63 0.02

Table 6-8: SP-3E-MEE average steady-state results (with error range values) at varying Tsps

259

Chapter 6

6.3.5

Parasitic electrical energy

The main parasitic electrical energy requirements of the 3E-MEE unit are for the liquid-ring
vacuum pump, the saltwater supply pump, the hot water circulation pump and extraction
pumps. The same vacuum pump used to initially evacuate all the tanks was operated
continuously in order to remove the non-condensable gases (NCG). However, this vacuum
pump is oversized for removal of NCG. The electrical energy was measured using power
meters (see Section 5.2.7) over the duration of each trial.
The average parasitic electrical energy requirements are presented in Table 6-9. The total
average electrical energy consumption is 12.7 kWh / m3. This is equivalent to 45.7 kJ / kg,
which is 5.6% of the total thermal energy consumption (810 kJ / kg) when the SP-3E-MEE
operates at 86oC and 2 LPM (with a distillate production of 2060 litres/day) (see Figure 6-45
and Figure 6-46). It is noteworthy that the electrical energy requirements would reduce
significantly with a much larger MEE system with more effects. This electrical energy
requirement will be adjusted for larger units analysed in Chapter 8.

Liquid Ring Vacuum


Supply + Circulation
Brine Extraction
Distillate Extraction

SP-3E-MEE Average Electrical Energy


Consumption
(KWhe per m3 of distillate)
5.9
6.7
0.04
0.1

TOTAL

12.7

Pump Equipment

Table 6-9: SP-3E-MEE average parasitic energy per m3 of distillate product

6.3.6

Demister effectiveness and quality of distillate

The 3E-MEE unit was tested with saltwater at a salinity level of up to 47,000 ppm TDS. As
explained in Section 5.3.6 (for the SSF trials), the saltwater to be desalinated was prepared by
mixing industrial grade salt with freshwater. The quality of the fresh water obtained during
the SP-3E-MEE trials was less than 10 ppm TDS, when the saltwater level in the evaporators
was kept to a minimum (the saltwater just covering the tube bundles).
It has been found that splashing could occur if the water level is too high or too low. When
the water level was too high, therefore being too close to the demister housing, splashing
occurred and some saltwater was carried over to the vapour interconnecting pipes affecting
260

Chapter 6

the quality of the fresh water produced. The quality of the fresh water has been found to be
around 200 ppm TDS in these conditions. If the water level is too low, not covering the upper
tubes completely, the saltwater will also splash as the solar hot water flows inside the tubes
bundles. This situation also needs to be avoided to prevent scaling on the outside surface of
the tubes. Since the height of the disengagement vapour space could not be increased in
practice and another baffle plate could not be welded inside the cylinder, the water level in the
evaporators had to be carefully monitored to avoid splashing and ensure that the fresh water is
less than 10 ppm TDS.

6.3.7

Comparison with theoretical solar 3E-MEE model

The empirical data were compared with the predictions from the SP-MEE-FF simulation and
the model validated. It is noteworthy that the same conditions as those observed during the
trials were applied to the modelling; for instance the same boiling temperatures (T1, T2 and
T3), solar pond supply temperature (Tsps) and solar pond mass flow rate (msp) as those
obtained during the experiments were assumed in the modelling. For the purpose of
comparison, the empirical results obtained during the trials when the feed saltwater flow rate
was maintained at approximately 2.0 LPM (with Tsps in the range 61 to 86oC) will be used.
Figure 6-49, Figure 6-50, Figure 6-51, Figure 6-52, Figure 6-53, Figure 6-54, Figure 6-55 and
Figure 6-56 illustrate the comparative analysis. The error bars in the x-axis direction (X error
bars) showing the error range values in the measurement of Tsps are not shown in the figures
since the same Tsps value was assumed in the modelling. The error bars in the y-axis direction
(Y error bars) were calculated for the different variables using the uncertainty analysis
procedures described in Appendix 5.
The total distillate production and recovery ratio at varying Tsps, together with the lines of best
fit, are presented in Figure 6-49 and Figure 6-50, respectively. The Y error bars show the
empirical error range values. It is clear from the figures that the modelling results obtained are
within the error ranges, indicating a good agreement. In fact, the simulation results were
above the empirical data values; it appears that the simulation over predicted the distillate
production and hence recovery ratio. A possible reason for the over prediction is the fact that
the simulation ignores the suction of vapour with the NCG. A small amount of vapour (vented
with the NCG) condensing in the transparent flexible vacuum hose lines was visually
observed during the trials. This however had negligible effect on the performance. The

261

Chapter 6

maximum distillate production and recovery ratio differences between the empirical values
and the predictions are 1.3% and 2.6%, respectively.
SP-3E-MEE Comparative Total distillate production at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)

1.60
1.50

Total distillate production (LPM)

1.40
1.30
1.20
1.10
1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70

Experimental results

0.60

Experimental results (Best fit line)

Simulation results
Simulation results (Best fit line)

0.50
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps (oC)

Figure 6-49: SP-3E-MEE comparative distillate production at varying Tsps (with error bars
shown)
SP-3E-MEE Comparative Recovery ratio at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
80%

Experimental results
Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)
Simulation results (Best fit line)

75%
70%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

65%
60%
55%
50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps (oC)

Figure 6-50: SP-3E-MEE comparative recovery ratio at varying Tsps (with error bars shown)

Heat losses to the surroundings were negligible during the trials since the SP-3E-MEE unit
was insulated and located indoors. The derived solar heat input (Figure 6-51) and hence
specific thermal energy consumption (Figure 6-52) from the simulation was higher than the
empirical values but still within the empirical error bars, showing a good agreement. It is

262

Chapter 6

noteworthy that the specific energy consumption error bars are between 6.6 and 10.5% of the
measured value (equivalent to 54 and 106 KJ/kg, respectively).
SP-3E-MEE Comparative Solar heat input at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
22
21
20
19

Solar heat input (kW)

18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11

Experimental results

10

Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)

Simulation results (Best fit line)

8
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps (oC)

84

86

88

90

Figure 6-51: SP-3E-MEE comparative solar heat input at varying Tsps (with error bars
shown)
SP-3E-MEE Comparative Specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
1,200
Experimental results

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

1,150

Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)

1,100

Simulation results (Best fit line)

1,050
1,000
950
900
850
800
750
700
56

58

60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps (oC)

80

82

84

86

88

90

Figure 6-52: SP-3E-MEE comparative specific thermal energy consumption at varying Tsps (with
error bars shown)

The predicted vapour temperatures were also found to be within the error ranges of the
measured empirical values (Figure 6-53).

263

Chapter 6
SP-3E-MEE Comparative Vapour temperatures (Tvi) at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
66

Tv1 (Experimental results)


Tv1 (Simulation results)
Tv2 (Experimental results)
Tv3 (Experimental results)
Tv2 (Simulation results)
Tv3 (Simulation results)

Vapour temperatures [Tv 1, Tv 2 and Tv3] ( C)

64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

86

88

90

Solar pond supply temperature, Tsps (oC)

Figure 6-53: SP-3E-MEE comparative vapour temperatures (Tvi) at varying Tsps (with error
bars shown)

As clearly illustrated in Figure 6-54, Figure 6-55 and Figure 6-56, all of the OHTC simulation
results fit well within the error ranges of the empirical data. The largest empirical error
(16.2% of the measured value) occurred for the derived OHTC in the first effect (UE1) at a
solar pond supply temperature (Tsps) of 61.4oC.
SP-3E-MEE Comparative OHTC in the first effect (UE1) at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
1,500
1,450
1,400

2 o

OHTC, U E1 (W/m . C)

1,350
1,300
1,250
1,200
1,150
1,100

Experimental results

1,050

Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)

1,000

Simulation results (Best fit line)


950
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

82

84

86

88

90

Figure 6-54: SP-3E-MEE comparative OHTC in first effect (UE1) at varying Tsps (with error
bars shown)

264

Chapter 6
SP-3E-MEE Comparative OHTC in the second effect (UE2) at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
2,550

Experimental results

2,450

Simulation results

2,350

Experimental results (Best fit line)

2,250

Simulation results (Best fit line)

2 o

OHTC, UE2 (W/m . C)

2,150
2,050
1,950
1,850
1,750
1,650
1,550
1,450
1,350
1,250
1,150
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

82

84

86

88

90

Figure 6-55: SP-3E-MEE comparative OHTC in second effect (UE2) at varying Tsps (with
error bars shown)
SP-3E-MEE Comparative OHTC in the third effect (UE3) at varying Tsps (constant feed flow rate)
2,500
2,400
2,300
2,200

2 o

OHTC, U E3 (W/m . C)

2,100
2,000
1,900
1,800
1,700
1,600
1,500
1,400
1,300

Experimental results

1,200

Simulation results
Experimental results (Best fit line)

1,100

Simulation results (Best fit line)

1,000
60

62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

Solar pond supply temperature (Tsps)

82

84

86

88

90

Figure 6-56: SP-3E-MEE comparative OHTC in third effect (UE3) at varying Tsps (with error
bars shown)

Overall, the comparative analysis showed that the simulated results were within the error
ranges (uncertainty range representing the limits of measurement errors) of the empirical data.
The model can therefore be used for further analysis and performance evaluation of solar
MEE systems. Table 6-10 shows the simulated results obtained at varying solar pond supply
temperature (Tsps) when the feed saltwater flow rate was maintained at approximately 2.0
LPM. The empirical results with error ranges are shown in Table 6-8.

265

Chapter 6

Solar heat supply temperature (Tsps)


86.4
76.4
66.4
61.4
Pressure in 1st effect, P1 (kPa.abs)
22.69
16.88
12.80
10.95
Pressure in 2nd effect, P2 (kPa.abs)
14.54
11.15
8.89
7.81
Pressure in 3rd effect, P3 (kPa.abs)
9.54
6.97
5.82
5.27
Pressure in interim distillate collection tank, P4 (kPa.abs)
Solar hot water flow rate, msp (LPM)
92.98
97.69
95.95
92.17
Recirculation hot water flow rate, msp-rec (LPM)
Total feed saltwater flow rate, [mcw + mf] (LPM)
15.95
15.33
12.43
11.95
Feed saltwater to be desalinated, mf (LPM)
1.98
1.99
1.92
1.98
Distillate flow rate from effect 1, md1 (LPM)
0.47
0.37
0.25
0.19
Distillate flow rate from effect 2, md2 (LPM)
0.49
0.39
0.26
0.21
Distillate flow rate from effect 3, md3 (LPM)
0.50
0.41
0.28
0.23
Reject concentrated brine flow rate, mb (LPM)
0.52
0.82
1.13
1.34
Total feed saltwater temperature, Tf0 (oC)
21.5
16.7
16.9
16.8
Feed saltwater to be desalinated temperature, Tf1 (oC)
40.0
32.5
21.0
18.0
st
o
Feed saltwater temperature, after 1 preheater, Tf2 ( C)
43.2
35.5
24.1
20.4
Feed saltwater temperature, after 2nd preheater, Tf3 (oC)
47.8
39.4
27.5
23.1
Supply solar hot water temperature, Tsps (oC)
76.3
67.8
59.9
55.8
o
Return solar hot water temperature, Tspr ( C)
73.1
65.3
58.0
54.1
Supply solar hot water temperature, after mixing, Tsp-rec (oC)
o
Boiling temperature in 1st effect, T1 ( C)
63.5
57.1
51.4
48.2
Boiling temperature in 2nd effect, T2 (oC)
54.2
48.7
44.2
41.7
o
Boiling temperature in 3rd effect, T3 ( C)
46.3
39.9
36.4
34.5
o
Vapour temperature in 1st effect, Tv1 ( C)
62.8
56.4
50.7
47.6
Vapour temperature in 2nd effect, Tv2 (oC)
53.3
48.0
43.5
41.1
o
Vapour temperature in 3rd effect, Tv3 ( C)
45.0
38.9
35.6
33.8
Vapour condensation temperature in 2nd effect, Tc1 (oC)
62.4
56.0
50.3
47.2
o
Vapour condensation temperature in 3rd effect, Tc2 ( C)
52.9
47.6
43.1
40.7
Distillate temperature from condenser, Tc3/ Tx3 (oC)
44.6
38.5
35.2
33.4
Distillate temperature from 2nd preheater, Tx1 (oC)
43.7
35.7
24.6
20.9
o
Distillate temperature from 1st preheater, Tx2 ( C)
40.4
32.7
21.6
18.5
Recovery ratio, RR (%)
73.8
58.8
41.0
32.3
Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth (kJ/kg)
851
880
981
1,049
OHTC in 1st effect, UE1 (W/m2.oC)
1,428
1,370
1,307
1,269
OHTC in 2nd effect, UE2 (W/m2.oC)
2,338
1,985
1,598
1,420
OHTC in 3rd effect, UE3 (W/m2.oC)
2,230
1,865
1,515
1,340
OHTC in condenser, UC (W/m2.oC)
1,750
1,331
700
580
Heat flow from condenser (kW)
2.49
2.12
0.54
0.16
Heat flow from first preheater (kW)
0.43
0.41
0.40
0.33
Heat flow from second preheater (kW)
0.62
0.53
0.44
0.36
Solar heat input (kW)
20.77
17.18
12.91
11.17
Rejected heat in cooling water (kW)
17.52
14.22
10.77
9.16
Total distillate, md (LPM)
1.46
1.17
0.79
0.64
Description

Table 6-10: SP-3E-MEE simulation results at varying Tsps and constant feed flow rate

266

Chapter 6

6.3.8

Scaling effect in evaporators

As mentioned in Section 2.4.1, distillation systems such as MEE are frequently affected by
scaling, which occurs when substances like carbonates and sulphates found in saltwater
precipitate out. Scaling reduces the effectiveness of the evaporators by increasing the thermal
resistance, thereby reducing the heat transfer. Consequently, the evaporation rate is drastically
reduced and cleaning becomes essential to restore the process efficiency. There are three main
culprits in MEE processes. The hard scale which consists mainly of calcium sulphate (CaSO4)
is very difficult to remove from the heat exchange surfaces but can be avoided by operating
the evaporator within the solubility limits of CaSO4. This can be achieved by keeping the
boiling temperatures low and checking the salinity of the saltwater in each effect. Figure 6-57
shows the solubility limits of calcium sulphate and an example of the operating temperatures
and salinities of the SP-3E-MEE unit. The empirical values at the highest operating
temperatures from Table 6-8 were used for this example. It is clear from the figure that the
operation is well below the solubility limits.
Calcium sulphate solubility and SP-3E-MEE operating temperatures
180,000
165,000

CaSO4.2H2O

150,000

Salt Concentration (ppm)

135,000

CaSO4.0.5H2O

120,000

CaSO4

105,000
90,000
rd

3 effect

75,000
60,000
45,000

nd

effect

st

30,000

1 effect

15,000
0
30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

Boiling temperature ( C)

Figure 6-57: Calcium sulphate solubility and operating temperatures for MEE system. Data for
solubility limits obtained from (El-Dessouky and Ettouney, 1999)

The precipitation of soft scale which consists mainly of magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2) and
calcium carbonate (CaCO3) can be prevented through the addition of scale-inhibiting
chemicals. Two scale-inhibiting chemical types are used: polyphosphates (most commonly
used) and polyelectrolytes (Spiegler and El-Sayed, 1994).

267

Chapter 6

The limited movement of the boiling saltwater around the submerged tubes could lead to a
high rate of scale formation. The SP-3E-MEE system has not been tested continuously with
saltwater due to the limited availability of salt and waste disposal issues. Consequently, the
effect of scale on the performance of the submerged evaporators in the SP-3E-MEE unit still
remains an open question. This issue need to be addressed as a high priority for further
research and development on this SP-3E-MEE system.

6.4

MEE Conclusions

This chapter has presented the work done on solar multi-effect evaporation (MEE) systems
leading to a better understanding of the solar-MEE systems when operating at temperatures
less than 90oC.
A mathematical / theoretical analysis of two different MEE configurations has been
completed. One configuration uses falling-film evaporators and employs the parallel-flow
feed configuration (SP-MEE-P); and the other uses submerged tubes and a forward-feed
configuration (SP-MEE-F). The simulation program written in Visual Basic and using Excel
as the interface was developed to allow estimation of key parameters for a range of different
conditions. The models (based on a number of assumptions as explained in Section 6.1.1)
allow the heat exchange area of the evaporators, the overall heat transfer coefficient, the
distillate production, the thermal energy consumption and the various operating temperatures
to be determined. The computer models were developed in such a way that they could be
applied to other solar-thermal technologies such as evacuated tube solar collectors (ETSC).
The model showed that the distillate production and hence recovery ratio increase with the
solar heat supply temperature (Tsps). The simulation results obtained from the SP-MEE-P
modelling (consisting of two to four effects) have been used to predict the specific thermal
energy consumption for larger numbers of effects (up to 18). The simulation results showed
that there is a significant decrease in the energy consumption up to nine effects. The gains
diminish as the number of effects is further increased. The specific thermal energy
consumptions for SP-MEE-P systems consisting of 12 and 18 effects have been found to be
226 kJ/kg and 141 kJ/kg, respectively.
Overall, the SP-MEE-P (using falling film) outperformed the SP-MEE-FF (using submerged
tubes). The difference in the distillate production and hence specific thermal energy
268

Chapter 6

consumption varied between 2 and 14% (the latter at Tsps of 50oC). The OHTC of SP-MEE-P
(using falling film) evaporators obtained has been found to be up to three times the OHTC of
SP-MEE-FF (using submerged tubes). The low OHTC in submerged tube evaporation is the
result of the hydrostatic water level suppressing the boiling heat transfer in the lower portion
of the tube bundles. The vapour bubbles forming on the outside surface of the tubes must
percolate through the saltwater to the surface liquid.
An experimental three-effect multi-effect evaporation unit (SP-3E-MEE) for use with solar
thermal heat at temperatures in the 50-85oC range has been designed using the SP-MEE-FF
computer model for performance measurement and evaluation. The design of the 3E-MEE
was based on the use of submerged tubes and a forward-feed arrangement since it has been
found to be simpler and easier to manufacture than a similar-sized SP-MEE-P using the
horizontal tubes falling film (HTFF). The 3E-MEE unit was designed to produce up to 2,300
litres of fresh water per day when the hot water from the solar pond is supplied at 85oC. The
three evaporators, condenser and preheaters were made out of stainless steel 316.
It was observed during initial commissioning that the operation of the 3E-MEE system was
unsteady. The fresh water production would drop significantly after about 20 mins. This was
later attributed to the non-condensable gases (NCG) present in the saltwater and released
during heating and boiling. Due to insufficient venting, the accumulation of NCG had adverse
effects on the heat transfer and performance. In order to remove NCG, simple vacuum vents
were fitted near the outlet of the two preheaters and condenser. The removal of the NCG were
made at these locations to allow the cooling of the NCG gases to the minimum possible
temperature, thereby minimising the amount of vapour that may be vented with the gases.
Moreover, during the initial trials of the SP-3E-MEE unit, it has been found that the overall
heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) in the first effect was very low (~ 800 W/m2.oC when Tsps is
85oC). This was attributed to insufficient hot water flow in the tube bundles of the first
evaporator. In order to increase the hot water flow in the tubes and hence increase the
turbulence, a number of options were considered as described in Section 6.2.10. Another
pump was installed to recycle part of the return hot water stream which increased the OHTC
in the first effect to 1,005 W/m2.oC. In order to further increase the heat transfer performance,
twisted tapes were placed inside the tubes of the evaporator of the first effect (see Section
6.2.11). Using twisted tape without recirculation increased the OHTC from 800 W/m2.oC to

269

Chapter 6

1,060 W/m2.oC. It has also been found that the combined effects of the twisted tapes and full
recirculation increased the OHTC in the first effect to 1,311 W/m2.oC (that is, by ~ 64%).
In order to measure the performance of the 3E-MEE, the unit was trialled repeatedly at
varying solar heat supply temperatures (Tsps) in the range of 50 to 85oC. The experimental
results showed that the operating pressures were constant during the experimental trial. This
means that the SP-3E-MEE was properly vented and the NCG were successfully removed
from the system. The specific thermal energy consumption (heat supplied by the solar heat
source per unit mass of distillate produced) for this three effects MEE system was found to be
(877 56) kJ/kg when operating at Tsps of 86oC and feed flow rate of (2.59 0.08) LPM.
Also, the preheating in the condenser and preheaters was found to have contributed
approximately (27.9 1.5)% of the total heat input. However, (14.24 0.78) kW of heat was
lost with the rejected cooling water. There is clearly scope here for further research on the use
of the heat in the rejected cooling water and thus design improvements.
The SP-3E-MEE system was unstable while operating at temperatures less than 56oC. The
supply and inter-effects valves had to be adjusted numerous times to maintain constant water
level in the evaporators. In addition the distillate production rates at these low temperatures
were very small. Consequently the distillate valves had to be adjusted constantly thereby
affecting the accuracy of the flow rate steady-state measurements. It is therefore
recommended to install automatic inter-effect flow control valves for future solar MEE
system designed to work at less than 60oC.
The maximum empirical recovery ratio was about (72.7 2.7)%, equivalent to a daily
distillate production of (2,090 43) litres for a feed flow rate of (2.0 0.06) LPM. The
measured parasitic electrical energy was 12.7 kWh / m3. This is equivalent to 45.7 kJ/kg,
which is 5.6% of the total thermal energy consumption (810 kJ/kg) when the SP-3E-MEE
operates at 86oC and 2 LPM (with a distillate production of 2,060 litres/day). This is much
lower than the SP-SSF unit due to the much higher recovery ratio and lower specific thermal
energy consumption.
The quality of the fresh water obtained during the SP-3E-MEE trials was less than 10 ppm
TDS, when the saltwater level in the evaporators was kept to a minimum (the saltwater just
covering the tube bundles). It has been found that splashing could occur if the water level is
too high or too low.
270

Chapter 6

The SP-3E-MEE unit has been used to validate the computational modelling. The same
conditions as those observed during the experiments were applied to the modelling. The
comparative analysis showed that the modelling results obtained were within the error ranges
of the empirical data, indicating a good agreement. The model can therefore be used with
confidence for further analysis and performance evaluation of solar MEE systems. The solar
MEE system will be later compared with the solar MSF system (previously presented and
evaluated in Chapter 5) in Chapter 8.
Distillation systems such as MEE are frequently affected by scaling, which occurs when
substances like carbonates and sulphates found in saltwater precipitate out. Although the SP3E-MEE unit was operated within the solubility limits of CaSO4, the limited movement of the
boiling water around the submerged tubes, which caused a lower OHTC, could also leads to a
high rate of scale formation. However, the SP-3E-MEE system has not been tested
continuously with saltwater due to the limited availability of salt and waste disposal issues.
Consequently, the effect of scale on the performance of the submerged evaporators in the SP3E-MEE unit still remains an open yet very important question.

271

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

INTEGRATED SOLAR COLLECTOR AND


EVAPORATION (ISCE) SYSTEM

This chapter introduces a novel system in which the ISCE becomes at one and
the same time both the solar absorber and the first effect of the MEE system.
This chapter also presents the computer model developed and the experimental
studies conducted to demonstrate the feasibility of the concept.

7.1

Conventional Evacuated Tube Solar Collectors (ETSC) coupled to


an Evaporator

There are various types of solar thermal collectors, such as flat plates, evacuated tubes,
parabolic troughs and solar towers. Flat-plate and evacuated-tube solar collectors are typically
used for domestic and light industry applications to generate solar hot water. Parabolic
troughs, solar dishes and solar towers are generally used in solar power plants where solar
heat at higher temperature is used to generate electricity (see Section 2.8.2.4).
Solar hot water systems are used in many ways (for domestic use or supplying a lowtemperature thermal desalination system) and usually consist of the solar collector, a heat
transfer fluid and a thermally insulated storage tank including a heat exchanger (if the fluid
circulating through the collector is not the same liquid being used to heat the process) as
shown in Figure 7-1.

Figure 7-1: Conventional solar hot water system

272

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

The coupling options between renewable energy sources and desalination technologies were
identified in Section 3.1. This research focussed on low-temperature applications (less than
90oC) using evacuated-tube solar collectors (ETSC) and salinity-gradient solar ponds (SGSP).
Figure 7-2 shows a schematic of a conventional ETSC (without heat storage) coupled with a
MEE unit using horizontal falling film tubes and a forward feed arrangement. The ETSC
heats the fluid, which is then pumped in a discrete circuit to heat the saltwater in a separate
evacuated cylinder that is, a discrete evaporator to produce vapour and more concentrated
salt solution. The main drawbacks are the need for a pump and a controller to adjust the flow
rate of the working fluid depending on the temperature gradient across the solar collector.

273

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-2: The conventional ETSC and separate evaporator (ETSC-MEE using horizontal falling film tubes and a forward feed arrangement)

274

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.2

The Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation (ISCE) System

The Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporator (ISCE) is a novel system consisting of a
number of evacuated tubes connected to a custom-made evaporator (Figure 7-3). Solar
radiation is absorbed by the evacuated-tube solar collector and transferred directly to the
saltwater to be desalinated in the tubes, rather than via a heat transfer fluid and a heat
exchanger in a separate vessel, namely the first effect in a conventional solar-thermal MEE
system. The in-flowing saltwater in the ISCE is heated in the evacuated tube collector to its
boiling temperature and partly evaporated. The out-flowing saltwater is more concentrated
than the in-flowing stream.

Figure 7-3: The Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation (ISCE) system principle

One application of the ISCE is a design for a standalone single-effect solar thermal
desalination system where the salt-free vapour produced is condensed directly into fresh
water. Another application is where the salt-free vapour is used as a heat source in a solarthermal multi-effect evaporation (MEE) desalination (or other separator/concentrator) system
and then condensed. The ISCE when coupled with an MEE becomes at one and the same time
both the solar absorber and the first effect of the MEE system.
The key novel feature compared to conventional solar-thermal evaporation systems (such as
the system shown in Figure 7-2) is that the collection of solar energy and its use to heat the
saltwater from which water is to be evaporated are accomplished in a single piece of
apparatus, rather than two separate pieces of apparatus.

275

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

The main advantages of this integrated arrangement are:


very low losses in the transfer of heat from the solar collector surface to the saltwater to

be heated
avoidance of the need for a pump and secondary circuit of water to transfer heat from the

solar collector to the saltwater to be heated, with consequent cost savings and lowered
parasitic electricity demand (to run the pump)
phase separation and production of vapour are done in the same apparatus as the

collection of solar heat, avoiding the need for a separate evacuated cylinder with
associated internal heat exchanger
The space between the two concentric glass tubes of each evacuated tube is under vacuum to
reduce heat losses (see Section 3.3.2.1). The evacuated tubes (as manufactured) are designed
so that their inner region containing the water to be heated operates at atmospheric or above
atmospheric pressure. From the literature review, there is no mention of evacuated tubes being
operated at negative pressure. It is noteworthy that by reducing the pressure of the inner
region, the pressure differential between the inner region and the space between the inner and
outer tubes is reduced. If the pressure of the inner region is the same as the vacuum pressure
between the tubes ( 0.05 Pa.abs), there is actually no pressure differential. Operating the
ISCE under vacuum means that evaporation can take place at low temperature (less than
100oC).

7.3

Modelling of a Small-Scale ISCE System

7.3.1

Introduction

There are a number of modelling, simulation and experimental studies of solar hot water
systems (used for domestic purposes or desalination) available in the literature including
studies by Morrison and Tran (1984), Hermann et al. (2002), Badran and Al-Tahaineh (2005),
Morrison et al. (2005) and Tang et al. (2006). In all these studies, the solar collectors have
been used in a discrete circuit, in most cases requiring a circulation pump.
By contrast, in the ISCE system, the collection of solar energy and its use for phase separation
and production of vapour are done in the same apparatus. The ISCE system includes the
following:
276

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

A number of evacuated tubes

A custom-made evaporator consisting of:


o A feed saltwater distribution system
o A vapour disengagement space
o A demister to remove any entrained brine droplets from the vapour
o A venting system to remove the non-condensable gases (NCG) that are dissolved in
the feed saltwater and any air leaking into the system.

A condenser

A brine heat recovery exchanger

Fresh water and reject brine collection tanks.

A theoretical analysis of the ISCE has been completed within the present project. The
simulation program written in Visual Basic and using Excel as the interface was developed to
allow estimation of key parameters for a range of different conditions. The mathematical
model is based on the following assumptions:

Subcooling of the condensate or superheating of the vapour has negligible effect on the
system energy balance and is therefore not taken into account

The latent heat of vaporisation v is evaluated at the saturation temperature

The specific heat at constant pressure, Cp, is constant and evaluated at the average
temperature of the liquid streams

The amount of vapour being vented with the NCG is negligible

The temperature of the rejected brine is assumed to be equal to the brine boiling
temperature.

7.3.2

Theoretical model

The schematic of the ISCE (together with the variables used in the equations) is shown in
Figure 7-4. The general principle of the ISCE was explained in Section 7.2.

277

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-4: Schematic of standalone single-effect ISCE

278

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

As reported earlier (see Section 3.3.2), there are three main types of evacuated tubular solar
collectors (ETSC): direct flow, U-pipe and heat pipe. U-pipe ETSCs are not suitable for direct
contact with saltwater since the heat-carrying U-tube pipe is made of copper and therefore is
prone to corrosion. In addition, since the ISCE would be designed to work under vacuum, the
diameter of the heat-carrying pipe is too small to accommodate phase change and vapour
flow. In regard to heat-pipe ETSCs, a number of heat transfer manifolds are available in
stainless steel. However, the manifolds are too small for the disengagement space required.
Having a custom-made heat transfer manifold for the heat-pipe ETSC would be too costly.
For these reasons, only direct-flow ETSCs are suitable for ISCEs.
The efficiency of ETSCs is typically in the range 50-65% and the ETSC performance
variables (which can be used to determine the efficiency at a particular temperature) can be
based on the gross area, aperture area or absorber area. In this analysis, the efficiency
calculations are based on the absorber area, which is defined as the cross-sectional area of the
inner tube measured using the outside diameter (that is, the area intercepted by the incident
radiation normal to the axis of the cylindrical tube). If the ETSC is fitted with compound
parabolic concentrators (CPC), then the entire circumferential surface area of the inner tube is
used instead of the diameter to calculate the absorber area since the concentrator panel reflects
incident light to the underside of the tubes as well.
As explained in Section 4.2.1, The ETSC efficiency can be calculated using Equation (4-16) if
the three performance variables (usually obtained from the manufacturer) are available. In the
absence of the ETSC performance variables, the efficiency can be calculated using Equation
(4-17).
The governing mathematical equations of the ISCE model are derived from mass balances,
heat energy balances and heat transfer characteristics.
The overall mass balance is

mf = md + mb

(7-1)

The heat energy balance in the evaporator is defined as

(H A ab ) = mf Cp1 (T Tf 2 ) + md v
279

(7-2)

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

In Equation (7-2), the term on the left hand side is the total amount of energy available (taking
into account the conversion efficiency); the first term on the right hand side is the amount of
heat gained by the feed saltwater and the second term is the amount of heat used to generate
vapour. In this analysis, the temperature of the rejected brine (Tb1) is assumed to be equal to
the brine boiling temperature (T).
The heat energy balance for the brine heat recovery exchanger is

mf Cp2 (Tf 2 Tf1 ) = mb Cp3 (Tb1 Tb2 )

(7-3)

The heat transfer for the brine heat recovery exchanger is defined as

mf Cp2 (Tf 2 Tf1 ) = mb Cp3 (Tb1 Tb2 ) = Abr U br ( LMTD )br

(7-4)

where

(LMTD )br =

( Tb2 - Tf1 ) ( Tb1 - Tf2 )


ln ( Tb2 - Tf1 ) / ( Tb1 - Tf2 )

(7-5)

The condenser heat energy balance equation is

md c = mcwCp4 (Tcw2 Tcw1 )

(7-6)

The heat transfer in the condenser is defined as

md c = Ac U c ( LMTD )c

(7-7)

where

(LMTD )c =

( Tcw 2 - Tcw1 )
ln ( Tc - Tcw1 ) / ( Tc - Tcw 2 )

(7-8)

The vapour temperature is defined as

Tv = T ( BPE )
where BPE is the boiling point elevation given by Equation A1-14 (Appendix 1).

280

(7-9)

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

The vapour condensation temperature is

Tc = Tv Tdemister Theat loss

(7-10)

where Tdemister is the temperature drop due to the pressure loss in the demister and Theat loss
is the temperature drop due to heat losses to the surroundings (since the ISCE is located
outdoors).
The recovery ratio can be found from:

RR =

md
mf

(7-11)

The specific thermal energy consumption can be determined from the following equation:

Eth =

(H A ab )
md

(7-12)

The heat transfer effectiveness ( ) of the brine recovery heat exchanger can be determined
from the following correlation, adapted from Kays and London (1984).

C f (Tf 2 Tf1 )
Cb (Tb1 Tb2 )
Q
=
=
=
Qmax Cmin (Tb1 Tf1 ) Cmin (Tb1 Tf1 )

(7-13)

where Q is the actual heat transfer rate in the heat exchanger; Qmax is the maximum possible
heat transfer rate; Cf and Cb are the heat capacity rates (in W/oC) of the feed saltwater and the
rejected brine, respectively. Cmin is the smaller of Cf and Cb. Cmax is the larger value of Cf and
Cb.
The capacity ratio (c) is defined as

c=

Cmin
Cmax

281

(7-14)

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

The number of transfer units (NTU) can be found from

NTU =

U br Abr
Cmin

(7-15)

The brine heat recovery exchanger is assumed to have a counter-flow configuration. If the
number of transfer units (NTU) and the capacity ratio (c) are known, the following alternative
correlation (to Equation (7-13)) by Kays and London (1984) can be used to determined the
heat transfer effectiveness

1 exp NTU (1 c )

1 c exp NTU (1 c )

(7-16)

In this ISCE model, there are six independent equations for six unknown variables as shown
in Table 7-1.
Unknown variables
Equations
Tf2

md

Tb2

Tcw2

Uc

(7-1)
(7-2)

(7-3)

(7-4) incorporating (7-5)

(7-6)

(7-7) incorporating (7-8)

Table 7-1: ISCE modelling unknown variables in equations

282

mb

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

In order to solve the non-linear equations, an iterative solution using a trial value for Tf2 is
required. This temperature Tf2 is then refined by an iterative procedure. The procedures for
solving the unknown variables are shown in Table 7-2.
Step

Equations

Solve for

Using variables

(7-2)

md

H, Aab, , mf, T, Tf2 (trial value)

(7-1)

mb

mf, md

(7-3)

Tb2

mf, Tf1, Tf2, mb, Tb1

(7-6)

Tcw2

(7-7) and (7-8)

Uc

md, mcw, Tcw1


md, Ac, Tcw1, Tcw2, Tc

Table 7-2: ISCE modelling solution procedures

The simulation model calculates the specific heat capacity (Cp) at constant pressure, the latent
heat of vaporisation ( ) and the BPE based on Equations A1-1, A1-2 and A1-14,
respectively.
An iterative solution is required to determine the performance characteristics of the ISCE. The
Visual Basic program requires as an initial input a trial temperature value for Tf2, which is
then refined and final solution values determined by an iterative procedure. The convergence
criterion is based on the residual of Equation (7-4). The iteration stops when both sides of the
equations are equal: that is, in practice when the residual is less than a preset small value. An
iteration error of 0.001% (representing the percentage difference between the right hand side
and left hand side of Equation (7-4); based on the right hand side value) has been used. If the
residual is a positive value, Tf2 is increased; otherwise it is decreased. The key input values to
the solver and the output parameters for the ISCE simulation are shown in Table 7-3.

283

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Variables
name

Units

Total global solar radiation on the inclined ETSC

W/m2

Inner diameter of evacuated tubes


Exposed length of each evacuated tubes
Number of evacuated tubes
Ambient temperature

d
L
Nt
Ta

m
m
o
C

Input parameters required by simulation

Temperature of boiling brine


Temperature of feed saltwater
Temperature of preheated feed saltwater (trial value)
Temperature of rejected brine
Mass flow rate of feed saltwater
Mass flow rate of cooling water
Temperature of cooling water inlet stream
Total heat exchange area of brine heat recovery exchanger
Overall heat transfer coefficient of brine heat recovery exchanger
Total heat exchange area of condenser
Temperature drop in demister
Temperature drop due to heat losses to surroundings
Specify if ETSC is fitted with CPC
Output parameters from simulation

Vapour saturation temperature


Temperature of condensing vapour
Mass low rate of distillate produced
Mass flow rate of rejected concentrated brine
Temperature of sub-cooled rejected brine
Temperature of cooling water outlet stream
Overall heat transfer coefficient of condenser
Temperature of preheated feed saltwater (final value)
Fraction of input brine converted to fresh water (Recovery ratio)
Heat supplied by solar pond per unit mass of total distillate produced
(specific thermal energy consumption)
Efficiency of ETSC
Amount of energy used for brine heating
Amount of energy used for vaporisation
Number of transfer units of brine heat recovery exchanger
Heat transfer effectiveness of brine heat recovery exchanger

T
Tf1
Tf2
Tb1
mf
mcw
Tcw1
Abr
Ubr
Ac
Tdemister

Theat loss

Variables
name
Tv
Tc
md
mb
Tb2
Tcw2
Uc
Tf2
RR

284

C
C
o
C
o
C
kg/s
kg/s
o
C
m2
W/m2.oC
m2
o
C
o
C
o

Units
o

C
C
kg/s
kg/s
o
C
o
C
W/m2.oC
o
C
%
o

Eth

kJ/kg

%
W
W
%

Eheating
Evap
NTU

Table 7-3: Input and output parameters in ISCE modelling

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.3.3

Technical performance evaluation

7.3.3.1 Simulation input parameters


The ISCE computer model has been used to find the performance of the single-effect
desalination system under different conditions. The following parameters were used in this
evaluation:
o The ETSC consists of eight tubes having an inner diameter (d) of 0.047 m; The exposed

length (L) is 1.7 m


o The ETSC is inclined at 42 degrees from horizontal
o The ambient temperature is 18oC
o The brine heat recovery exchanger has a total area (Abr) of 0.3 m2
o The condenser has a total heat exchange area (Ac) of 0.15 m2
o The temperature of the feed saltwater (Tf1) is 20oC
o The salinity of the feed saltwater is 30,000 ppm
o The temperature of the cooling water inlet (Tcw1) is 20oC
o The mass flow rate of the cooling water (mcw) is 2.5 LPM
o The temperature drop in the demister ( Tdemister ) is 0.5oC
o The temperature drop due to heat loss to the surroundings ( Theat loss ) is 0.5oC
o The iteration error was set to 0.001% (representing the percentage difference between the

right hand side and left hand side of Equation (7-4); based on the right hand side value).
The effect of salinity on the physical properties such latent heat of evaporation and specific
heat at constant pressure is taken into account in the simulation performance analysis using
the correlations defined in Equations A1-1 and A1-2.

7.3.3.2 Efficiency of ETSC


In order to evaluate the performance of the ISCE, the specifications of the direct-flow
(thermosyphon) evacuated tubes are required. The three performance variables for the directflow ETSC (based on the absorber area) were adapted using the specifications of similar tubes
from Linuo (2002). The performance variables are a1 = 0.651, a2 = 1.52 W/m2.oC and a3 =
0.01 W/m2.oC2. Using Equation (4-16) from Chapter 4, the efficiency can be found by
substituting the performance variables, the solar radiation, H (in W/m2) and the temperature
difference (Tm Ta). It is noteworthy that in the ISCE, Tm is equal to the brine boiling

285

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

temperature (T). The efficiency curves of the direct flow ETSC for different insolation levels
together with the operating temperature range are shown in Figure 7-5.

ISCE solar collector performance curves for different insolation [ambient Temp = 18 C]
70%
Operating range
65%
60%
55%
50%

Efficiency (%)

45%
40%
35%
30%

H = 200 W/m^2

25%

H = 300 W/m^2

20%

H = 400 W/m^2

15%

H = 600 W/m^2

10%

H = 800 W/m^2

5%

H = 1000 W/m^2

0%
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

DeltaT [Tm - Ta] ( C)

Figure 7-5: ISCE solar collector performance curve for different insolation (ambient
temperature = 18oC)

7.3.3.3 System temperatures


ISCE operating temperatures at varying Insolation
65
60
55

Temperatures ( C)

50
45
40
35

Tf1
Tf2
Tb1
Tb2
Tcw1
Tcw2

30
25
20
15
200

300

400

500

600

700
2

Solar radiation, H (w/m )

800

900

1000

with CPC, T = 60 C, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-6: ISCE system temperatures at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, T
= 60oC, mf = 0.1 LPM)

Figure 7-6 shows the systems temperatures when the ISCE (fitted with CPC reflectors) was
simulated at a boiling temperature of 60oC and a feed flow rate of 0.1 LPM. It can be seen that
maximum feed preheating (represented by the Tf2) occurred at the lowest insolation. At low
286

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

insolation, less distillate is produced thereby increasing the amount of rejected brine available
for preheating. The temperature difference across the condenser varied from 1 to 10oC (the
latter at the higher insolation). The exit temperature of the reject brine from the brine heat
recovery counter-flow exchanger (Tb2) was close to the temperature of the feed water (Tf1).

7.3.3.4 Distillate production and recovery ratio


The hourly distillate production rate and recovery ratio (when operating at boiling
temperatures of 40, 60 and 80oC) derived from the computer simulation is presented as a
function of solar radiation in Figure 7-7 and Figure 7-8, respectively. The distillate production
and hence recovery ratio increases with solar radiation, when the feed saltwater flow rate is
maintained uniform. It is interesting to note that more distillate is obtained when the ISCE
operates at lower boiling temperatures. Lowering the boiling temperatures by 20oC caused an
increase (between 10 and 90%) in the distillate production and recovery ratio. This is due to
the characteristics of the ETSC. At low boiling temperatures, the temperature difference (Tm
Ta) is lower leading to an increase in the solar collector efficiency (see Figure 7-5).
Consequently, more solar heat is available for vaporisation.
ISCE hourly distillate production at varying Insolation
2.0

T = 40 deg

Hourly Distillate production (Litres per hour)

1.8

T = 60 deg
T = 80 deg

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
200

300

400

500

600

700
2

Solar radiation, H (w/m )

800

900

1000

with CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-7: ISCE hourly distillate production at varying insolation (ISCE fitted with
CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM)

The maximum hourly distillate production rates at boiling temperatures of 40, 60 and 80oC
are 1.78, 1.63 and 1.46 litres per hour, respectively. The corresponding recovery ratios are
29.6%, 27.2 % and 24.4%, respectively.

287

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE recovery ratio at varying Insolation
35%

T = 40 deg

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

30%

T = 60 deg
T = 80 deg

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%
200

300

400

500

600

700
2

Solar radiation, H (w/m )

800

900

1000

with CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-8: ISCE recovery ratio at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM)

The relationship between the distillate production (and therefore recovery ratio) and insolation
was found to be linear. This linear relationship can be deduced from Equation (7-2). is a
function of H (the insolation) only since the ETSC performance variables, T (which is equal
to Tb1) and Tamb are fixed. Therefore, the term on the left hand side has only H as a variable.
The first term on the right hand side is the amount of heat gained by the feed saltwater; the
only unknown variable in this term is Tf2 since mf and T (which is equal to Tb1) are inputs.
Tf2 can be expressed as a function of mf, md, Tf1, Tb1 and Tb2 using Equation (7-1) and
Equation (7-3) as follows.

mf Cp1 (Tb1 Tf 2 ) = mf Cp5 (Tb2 Tf1 ) + md Cp3 (Tb1 Tb2 )

(7-17)

By substituting Equation (7-17) in Equation (7-2), the following correlation can be obtained.

(H A ab ) = mf Cp5 (Tb2 Tf1 ) + md Cp3 (Tb1 Tb2 ) + v

(7-18)

Tb2 is dependent on the effectiveness of the brine heat recovery heat exchanger. It is clear
from Equation (7-18) that the relationship between md and H is linear. It is noteworthy that if
the brine heat recovery exchanger is oversized (that is, the heat transfer surface area is large),
then Tb2 approaches Tf1 as can be seen in Figure 7-6. As a result, more heat would be
available for evaporation.

288

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-9 illustrates how the ISCE solar collector efficiency varies at varying insolation and
boiling temperatures. It is clear that the ETSC efficiency increases as the boiling temperature
is reduced. As shown in the figure, the difference between the efficiency values at different
boiling temperatures is significant at low insolation.
ISCE solar collector efficiency at varying Insolation
65%
60%
55%

ETSC Efficiency (%)

50%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%

T = 40 deg

10%

T = 60 deg

5%
0%
200

T = 80 deg
300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

with CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM

Solar radiation, H (w/m )

Figure 7-9: ISCE solar collector efficiency at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with
CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM)

7.3.3.5 Specific thermal energy consumption and solar collector efficiency


ISCE Specific thermal energy consumption at varying Insolation
2,600

T = 40 deg

2,590

T = 60 deg

Specific thermal energy consumption, E th


(kJ/kg)

2,580

T = 80 deg

2,570
2,560
2,550
2,540
2,530
2,520
2,510
2,500
2,490
2,480
2,470
2,460
200

300

400

500

600

700
2

Solar radiation, H (w/m )

800

900

1000

with CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-10: ISCE specific thermal energy consumption at varying insolation (ISCE is fitted with
CPC, mf = 0.1 LPM)

289

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-10 shows that the specific thermal energy consumption values (solar heat per unit
mass of distillate) in the ISCE system were almost constant. There was a slight increase in the
specific energy at insolation less than 500 W/m2. The reason for the uniform specific thermal
energy is the fact that the same percentage of total energy was used for brine heating at
different insolation. At 40oC, around 3% of the total heat was used for brine heating while at
80oC; approximately 10% was allocated to brine heating. At insolation less than 500 W/m2,
there was a small increase in the amount of heat used for brine heating thereby affecting the
uniformity. The approximate specific thermal energy consumption at boiling temperatures of
40, 60 and 80oC are 2,495, 2,530 and 2,560 kJ/kg, respectively.

7.3.3.6 ISCE performance at varying feed flow rates


ISCE hourly distillate production and recovery ratio at varying feed flow rates
1.5

100%

Distillate production
Recovery ratio
Series5

Hourly Distillate production (Litres per hour)

1.3
1.2
1.1

90%
80%
70%

1.0
0.9

60%

0.8

50%

0.7
0.6

40%

0.5

30%

0.4
0.3

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

1.4

20%

0.2

10%

0.1
0.0

0%
0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Hourly Feed saltwater flow rate, mf (Litres per hour) with CPC, T = 60oC, U = 150 W/m2.oC
br

Figure 7-11: ISCE hourly distillate production and recovery ratio at varying feed flow rates
(ISCE is fitted with CPC, T = 60oC, H = 800 W/m2)

The performance of the ISCE system at varying feed flow rates (when operating at a boiling
temperature of 60oC with an insolation of 800 W/m2) is shown in Figure 7-11. The overall
heat transfer coefficient of the brine heat recovery exchanger was maintained at 150 W/m2.oC
for this particular analysis. Clearly, by reducing the feed flow rate, more energy is available
for vaporisation (see Equation (7-2)). Consequently, this results in an increase in the distillate
production and therefore improves the recovery ratio and specific thermal energy
consumption. It is noteworthy that for this set of conditions; operating the ISCE at a feed flow
rate of 1.36 litres per hour would result in a recovery ratio of 100%. If the feed flow rate is
decreased below 1.36 litres per hour, then there would be a surplus of energy available. The

290

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

recovery ratio will remain at 100%; however, the ISCE could run dry due to the high
evaporation rate.
It is clear from Figure 7-11 that there is an optimal feed flow rate for a given set of conditions
(boiling temperature and insolation). Figure 7-12 illustrates the optimal feed flow rates for
three insolation levels (600, 800 and 1000 W/m2). Clearly, the optimum feed flow rate
increases with insolation. With a recovery ratio of 100%, the feed flow rates at insolation of
600, 800 and 1000 W/m2 are 1.01, 1.36 and 1.89 litres per hour.
ISCE hourly distillate production at varying feed flow rates (for different insolation)

2.0
1.8

Hourly Distillate production


(Litres per hour)

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4

H = 600 W/m^2
H = 800 W/m^2
H = 1000 W/m^2

0.2
0.0
0

Hourly Feed saltwater flow rate, mf (Litres per hour)

10

11

12
o

with CPC, T = 60 C

Figure 7-12: ISCE optimum feed flow rates for different insolation (ISCE is fitted with CPC, T =
60oC)

It is important however that the salinity of the reject brine does not exceed the solubility limits
of calcium sulphate as was illustrated earlier in Figure 6-57 (Section 6.3.8). The solubility
limits of calcium sulphate when operating at 60oC is approximately 90,000 ppm. In a singleeffect system, the reject brine salinity will reach 90,000 ppm if the recovery ratio is
approximately 67 % (with a feed saltwater salinity of 30,000 ppm).
Figure 7-13 shows the reject brine salt concentration at varying feed flow rate (for an
insolation of 800 W/m2). By taking into account the solubility limit constraints, the optimum
feed flow rate at insolation of 600, 800 and 1000 W/m2 are 1.42, 2.03 and 2.64 litres per hour.

291

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE Reject brine salt concentration and recovery ratio at varying feed flow rates
310,000

100%

290,000

90%
80%

250,000
230,000

Reject brine salinity


Recovery ratio

210,000

70%
60%

190,000
170,000

50%

150,000

40%

130,000
110,000

30%

90,000

20%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

Reject brine salt concentration (ppm)

270,000

70,000
10%

50,000
30,000

0%
0

9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Hourly Feed saltwater flow rate, mf (Litres per hour) with CPC, T = 60oC, U = 150 W/m2.oC
br

Figure 7-13: ISCE reject brine salt concentration and recovery ratio at varying feed flow rates
(ISCE is fitted with CPC, T = 60oC, H = 800 W/m2)

Figure 7-14 shows that the specific thermal energy consumption decreases as the feed flow
rate is reduced. The minimum specific thermal energy consumption obtained is 2,525 kJ/kg.
ISCE Specific thermal energy consumption at varying feed flow rates
5,000

Specific thermal energy consumption, E th (kJ/kg)

4,800
4,600
4,400
4,200
4,000
3,800
3,600
3,400
3,200
3,000
2,800
2,600
2,400
2,200
0

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Hourly Feed saltwater flow rate, mf (Litres per hour)

2 o

with CPC, T = 60 C, Ubr = 150 W/m . C

Figure 7-14: ISCE specific thermal energy consumption at varying feed flow rates (ISCE is fitted
with CPC, T = 60oC, H = 800 W/m2)

292

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.3.3.7 ISCE performance without CPC


Figure 7-15 shows the difference in the hourly distillate production rates at varying insolation
when the ISCE is not fitted with CPC reflectors. When the ISCE is fitted with CPC reflectors,
the increase in the distillate production is three-fold since the heat input is directly
proportional to the solar collection area. The efficiencies calculations were based on the
absorber area which is defined as the cross-sectional area of the inner tube measured using the
outside diameter (total absorber area of 0.64 m2 for the stand-alone unit consisting of eight
tubes). If the ETSC is fitted with CPC, then the entire circumferential surface area of the inner
tube is used instead of the diameter to calculate the absorber area (equivalent to a total
absorber area of 2.01 m2).
ISCE hourly distillate production at varying Insolation (T = 60 deg)
2.0

without CPC
Hourly Distillate production (Litres per hour)

1.8

with CPC

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
200

300

400

500

600

700
2

Solar radiation, H (w/m )

800

900

1000

T = 60 C, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-15: ISCE hourly distillate production at varying insolation (T = 60oC, mf = 0.1 LPM)

7.3.3.8 Typical daily performance


The simulation model has been used to determine the daily performance of the ISCE unit in
summer and winter, when operating at a boiling temperature of 60oC and feed saltwater flow
rate of 0.1 LPM. The ETSC is inclined at 42 degrees from horizontal. The analysis was based
on solar radiation data for Melbourne location on 5th January and 9th June for summer and
winter performances, respectively. The half-hourly solar radiation distribution was based on
the analysis detailed in Appendix 6.

293

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

On 5th January, the length of the day is 14.54 hours. The sun is at its highest position at 1.20
pm (taking into account daylight savings). The sunrise and sunset time (determined using
Equation (A6-5) and Equation (A6-6)) are 6.04 am and 8.36 pm, respectively. Using Equation
(A6-8), the maximum solar radiation on that day is 987 W/m2. The cumulative distillate
production for that particular day was found to be 13.74 litres as shown in Figure 7-16. This is
equivalent to a specific distillate production (distillate production per solar collector area) rate
of 6.84 L/m2.
ISCE typical performance in Summer (5th January in Melbourne, Australia)
16

1000

Cumulative distillate production


Instantaneous distillate production

14

900

Solar radiation

10

600

500
400

300

700

Solar radiation (W/m )

Distillate production (Litres)

800
12

4
200
2

100

0
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Time of Day

19

20

21

22

23

24

with CPC, T = 60 C, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-16: ISCE typical daily performance in summer 5th January in Melbourne, Australia

Similarly, on 9th June, the length of the day is 9.42 hours. The sun is at its highest position at
12.20 pm. The sunrise and sunset time are 7.38 am and 5.02 pm, respectively. The maximum
solar radiation on that day is 555 W/m2. The cumulative distillate production for 9th June was
found to be 4.16 litres (Figure 7-17). This is equivalent to a specific distillate production
(distillate production per solar collector area) rate of 2.07 L/m2.

294

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE typical performance in Winter (9th June in Melbourne, Australia)
4.5

600

Cumulative distillate production


550

Instantaneous distillate production

4.0

Solar radiation

500
450
400
350

2.5

300
2.0

250

1.5

200

3.0

Solar radiation (W/m )

Distillate production (Litres)

3.5

150

1.0

100
0.5

50

0.0

0
1

10

11

12

13

14

Time of Day

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

with CPC, T = 60 C, mf = 0.1 LPM

Figure 7-17: ISCE typical daily performance in winter 9th June in Melbourne, Australia

295

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.4

The ISCE Experimental Desalination System

7.4.1

Development of the ISCE experimental rig

An experimental single-effect integrated solar collector and evaporation (ISCE) desalination


system has been designed using the computer model. The aim of the experimental
investigation was to measure and evaluate the performance of the unit and prove the
feasibility of the concept. The empirical results are compared with the modelling predictions.
Due to a limited budget, the ISCE unit was designed to be just large enough for reasonable
performance measurement. The experimental ISCE as shown in Figure 7-18 uses a flooded
configuration and has been designed to work under vacuum at low temperature (less than
90oC).

Figure 7-18: Experimental ISCE unit (before fitting reflectors and insulation)

In the flooded configuration, the evacuated tubes are completely filled with saltwater through
feed tubes and the evaporator is partially filled just enough to cover the top opening of the
evacuated tubes. The cold saltwater is preheated by the hot reject concentrated brine before
entering the evaporator. Solar radiation is absorbed by the evacuated tubes and transferred to
the preheated saltwater in the tubes. The in-flowing saltwater is heated to its boiling
temperature and partly evaporated by boiling. The vapour produced passes through the
demister before being condensed into fresh water. The following sections explain the main
characteristics of the experimental rig.
296

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.4.2

Evaporator

In order to keep the capital cost to a minimum, the evaporator was constructed by welding
two separate existing cylindrical tanks and modified to suit the ISCE design. The designed
vacuum pressure and temperature of the evaporator are 101 kPa (or 0 kPa.abs) and 99oC,
respectively. The mechanical strength of the welded evaporator was verified using the
Australian Standard (AS1210-1997) Pressure Vessel code (AS, 1997). It has been found that
the evaporator would collapse under full vacuum. Therefore, a stiffener (reinforcing ring) was
welded in the middle of the evaporator next to the circumferential weld seam to strengthen the
vessel. The designed radial depth and thickness of the stiffener are 30 and 6 mm, respectively.
The evaporator (Figure 7-19) was made out of stainless steel 316L and consists of eight tube
connections, a vapour disengagement space, a demister, a vapour outlet and; a number of
ports for the saltwater streams and instrument cabling. The 2 mm thick cylindrical shell has an
external diameter (OD) of 365 mm and is 1190 mm long. The external height and the length
of the straight flange of the 2 mm thick ellipsoidal heads are 110 mm and 40 mm,
respectively. The right hand side of the evaporator (Figure 7-20b) consists of a 4 British
Standard Milk (BSM) vapour outlet port while the left hand side (Figure 7-20a) contains a 3
BSM sight glass to allow visual monitoring of the saltwater level in the evaporator. The
bottom of the cylinder is fitted with two British Standard Pipe (BSP) ports for the
instrument cabling and saltwater outlet stream. The top of the cylinder has two BSP ports
for the pressure transducer and non-return pressure relief valve. The non-return pressure relief
spring valve allows the vapour produced while the system is not in operation to escape,
thereby preventing the pressure inside the vessel to go above atmospheric. When the system is
used, the pressure relief valve closes automatically with the vacuum pressure. The rear of the
evaporator consists of eight swagelock tube fittings for the feed tubes.

Figure 7-19: ISCE Evaporator (front view)

297

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

(a) Left hand side of evaporator

(b) Right hand side of evaporator

Figure 7-20: ISCE Evaporator (side view)

The evaporator has eight special airtight tube connections, and together with the silicon
rubber rings holds the tubes in position and prevents vacuum leaks (Figure 7-21).

(a) Special tube connection

(b) Inner silicon ring

(c) Outer silicon ring

(d) Evacuated tube fitted

Figure 7-21: Tube connection with silicon rubber ring

298

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.4.3

Demister

The demister housing (similar to the one in the SP-3E-MEE unit see Section 6.2.3) made
out of stainless steel 316 is located above the baffle plate in the vapour disengagement space
and contains Tellerettes (Figure 7-22). The demister cross-sectional area of the demister was
calculated using the Sounders-Brown equation as was done for the SP-SSF and SP-3E-MEE
experimental units (see Section 5.2.4).

(a) Baffle plate and perforated plate

(b) Demister (Tellerettes)

Figure 7-22: Demister housing

7.4.4

Evacuated tubes solar collectors

In the standalone experimental ISCE, eight evacuated tube were used. The outer diameter of
the outer tube is 58 mm while the outer diameter of the inner tube is 47 mm. The tubes are 1.8
m long; however only 1.7 m is exposed when connected to the evaporator and plastic cups
bottom support on the aluminium lower track (shown in Figure 7-23). The centre-to-centre
distance between the evacuated tubes is 165 mm.

Figure 7-23: Bottom tube support

299

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

It is noteworthy that from the literature review, there is no mention of evacuated tubes being
operated at sub-atmospheric pressure. It is noteworthy that by reducing the pressure of the
inner region, the pressure differential between the inner region and the space between the
inner and outer tubes is reduced.

7.4.5

Reflector

One of the advantages of evacuated tubes over the flat-plate type is that the profile of the
round tube means that the collector is always perpendicular to the sun's rays thereby
maximising the amount of solar radiation the collector is exposed to. If the ISCE is not fitted
with reflectors, the total absorber area is 0.64 m2. To improve the efficiency of ETSC, metal
reflectors are usually fitted under the tubes so that the sunlight falling between the tubes is not
wasted. Many types of metal reflector made out of corrosion-resisting polished aluminium or
stainless steel are available. Chow et al. (1984) compared a number of reflector shapes. A
very efficient reflector called the compound parabolic concentrator (CPC) is made up of two
parabolic shaped reflectors welded together (Figure 7-24). Mills et al. (1986) and Grass et al.
(2004) analysed different CPC designs. If the ISCE is fitted with CPC, the total absorber area
would be 2.01 m2.

(a) CPC reflector being manufactured

(b) CPC arrangement

Figure 7-24: CPC reflector (IVT, 2008)

With simple manufacture in mind, a semi-circular concentric reflector (with a diameter of 150
mm and 1720 mm long) made of polished stainless steel 304-BA has been designed (Figure
7-25). The semi-circular reflectors were made by cutting in half polished stainless steel 304BA cylindrical pipe cladding. The standard length of the pipe cladding was 1220 mm.
300

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Therefore two pieces (1220 mm and 500 mm) had to be tack welded together to suit the
required length. The reflectors were fixed to a support frame to avoid distortion (as shown in
Figure 7-26). The evacuated tubes separation is 165 mm while the distance between the tubes
and the reflector is 75 mm.
Analysing the performance of the semi-circular shaped reflectors requires tedious
mathematical calculations. Ray tracing softwares like OptiCAD and CIRCE could also be
used to analyse the performance of reflectors by calculating the path of solar rays on the
reflecting surfaces. However, this was beyond the scope of this research. A total absorber area
of ~ 1.92 m2 was found by experimental measurements (see Section 7.5.5.2).

(a) Schematic of reflector and support frame

(b) Reflector fitted behind tubes

Figure 7-25: Semi-circular reflector

301

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-26: Schematic of semi-circular reflectors and support frame

302

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.4.6

Manifold and feed tubes

A manifold has been designed to prevent preferential flow into the evacuated tubes (Figure
7-27a). The manifold consists of a pipe with eight swagelock tube fittings for the feed
tubes. Nylon black feed tubes ( OD, 0.18 ID, maximum operating temperature: 100oC)
have been used to introduce the preheated saltwater to the bottom of the evacuated tubes
(Figure 7-27b). Feeding cold saltwater directly to the bottom of the tubes improves the heat
transfer by not relying completely on natural convection. The flow is driven by the difference
in pressure between atmospheric and the inside of the evaporator. In addition, using the feed
tubes, the evacuated tubes could be flushed if salt accumulates at the bottom of the evacuated
tubes while the system is not in operation. It is noteworthy that the temperature inside the
evacuated tubes can rise above 100oC (and even reach temperatures above 150oC) without
liquid. It is therefore important that the tubes are always filled with liquid to avoid the nylon
feed tubes from melting.

(a) Manifold and feed tubes

(b) Interior view of evaporator

Figure 7-27: Manifold and feed tubes

7.4.7

Condenser

In order to minimise the manufacturing costs, one of the heat recovery devices (preheaters)
used on the SP-3E-MEE unit (see Section 6.2.5) has been used as a condenser in the ISCE (as
shown in Figure 7-28). The cooling water flows inside the spiral coiled tubes (OD: 5/16,
Length: 6 m) of the condenser while the vapour condenses on the outside of the tubes. The
external heat transfer surface area of the condenser is 0.15 m2. The distillate from the
condenser exits through a BSP port. The NCG vent on the condenser is connected to the
vacuum pump line to allow the withdrawal of NCG from the vapour condensation space.

303

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-28: Condenser fixed to evaporator

7.4.8

Heat recovery devices

It takes large amounts of solar energy to evaporate water and generate vapour (~ 2346 kJ/kg
at 65oC). Therefore, the reuse of the energy must be maximised. The experimental standalone
single-effect ISCE consists of a brine heat recovery counterflow heat exchanger (Figure 7-29)
to recover the heat from the reject hot concentrated brine. The feed saltwater is preheated by
flowing in the 4 shell side of the heat exchanger while the reject concentrated brine flows
inside the spiral coiled tubes (OD: 5/16, Length: 12 m). The fluids enter and exit the heat
exchanger via ports. The external heat transfer surface area of the brine heat recovery heat
exchanger is 0.3 m2.

Figure 7-29: Brine heat recovery heat exchanger

7.4.9

Insulation and support frame

Conventional solar hot water tanks, imported from China are normally insulated with 50 mm
polyurethane foaming 141B (having a thermal conductivity of 0.019 W/m.oC), which
provides excellent insulation performance, but is far from environmentally friendly. The ISCE
304

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

was insulated with 26 mm of Armaflex insulation sheets (having a thermal conductivity of


0.038 W/m.oC). Another insulation material worth using is Rock wool (having a thermal
conductivity of ~ 0.035 W/m.oC). Rock wool is non-flammable, can handle high temperature
and is environmentally friendly as it is a natural, recycle material.
The evaporator, manifold and bottom tube support was mounted on an existing frame inclined
at 42 degrees (Figure 7-30).

Figure 7-30: ISCE frame tilted at 42o

7.4.10

Vacuum pump and tanks

The ISCE works under vacuum to vaporised saltwater at temperatures less than 90oC. An
electric vacuum pump is used to put the system under vacuum. The vacuum pump is operated
continuously to maintain the low pressure in the system and also removes the dissolved noncondensable gases (NCG) from the evaporator. However, a very small vacuum pump is
needed for continuous operation and the pump could be solar-powered to make the system
completely zero emissions.
The feed saltwater comes from a 23-litres stainless steel 316 open tank while the distillate
from the condenser and the reject concentrated brine are collected in two 23-litres stainless
steel 316 tanks. The fresh water and reject brine tanks were fitted with vents connected to
the vacuum line. This ensures that the pressure in the tanks is lower than the pressure in the

305

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

evaporator; thereby allowing liquid drainage by gravity. Figure 7-31 shows the ISCE
experimental unit as tested.

(a) Front view

(b) Rear view


Figure 7-31: ISCE unit (as tested)

7.4.11

Instrumentation and data acquisition

A number of sensors were installed on the ISCE unit and connected to the Datataker DT500
Series 2 data acquisition system (which was also used for the solar pond experimental studies
see Section 3.5.2). A number of T-type thermocouples, having an accuracy of (1.0oC or
0.75% of the temperature reading); whichever is greater, have been used to measure the
temperature at different locations as depicted in Figure 7-34. The DT500 has a thermocouple
measurement accuracy of (0.16% of the temperature reading + 1.2oC). Temperature
measurements include the ambient temperature, feed saltwater temperature, boiling and
vapour temperature in the evaporator, condensation temperature, reject concentrated brine and
distillate temperatures. Four thermocouples were also placed in the first evacuated tube to
allow measurement of the saltwater at different positions in the tube (390 mm, 830 mm, 1345
mm and 1700 mm from the tube opening).
A visual flowmeter (model: Key Instruments MR3000) as shown in Figure 7-32 was placed
on the fresh water line to measure the distillate production flow rate. The flow rate range is
306

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

0.004 to 0.05 LPM. The accuracy of the flowmeter is 4% of full-scale (as reported by the
manufacturer). Another visual flowmeter (model: Parker Hannifin S8002) was placed at the
inlet of the condenser to measure the cooling water flow rate. The flow meter which has a
flow rate range of 1.5 to 10 LPM and an accuracy of 2% can be seen in Figure 7-33. A
similar visual flowmeter (having a flow rate range of 0.07 to 0.55 LPM and an accuracy of
2%) was placed on the reject brine line to measure the reject concentrated brine flow rate.
As a double check of the flow rate values, vertical graduated clear tubes were attached
externally to the freshwater and brine tanks. The flow rates were determined by measuring the
volumetric difference in water level over a known amount of time.

(a) flowmeter

(b) dimensional drawing

Figure 7-32: Key Instruments MR3000 visual flowmeter

307

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

(a) flowmeter

(b) dimensional drawing

Figure 7-33: Parker S8002 visual flowmeter

A calibrated pressure transducer was installed on top of the evaporator to measure the
pressure (between 0 and 50 kPa.abs) in the evaporator. More details pertaining to the pressure
transducer can be found in Section 5.2.7. When connected to the 2.5V voltage range (with a
resolution of 0.1 mV) on the DT500, the measurement accuracy is (0.16% of the full-scale
reading + 0.7 mV).
A portable pyranometer (model: SolData 105HP) was placed next to the evacuated tubes at
the same tilt angle to measure the incoming solar radiation (direct plus diffuse solar
irradiance) in W/m2. The pyranometer unit gives a voltage output (100 mV corresponds to
1000 W/m2). When connected to the 250 mV voltage range (with a resolution of 0.01 mV)
on the DT500, the measurement accuracy is (0.06% of the full-scale reading + 0.063 mV).
The thermocouples, pressure transducer and pyranometer were connected to the Datataker
DT500 data recorder for continuous measurements. The measurement interval was set to five
seconds. A schematic showing the position of the sensors on the ISCE unit is shown in Figure
7-34. Table 7-4 gives a description of each sensor attached to the data recorder.

308

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-34: Schematic showing the position of the sensors on the ISCE unit

309

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Sensor type

Description

Channel
number

Thermocouple [T]

Temperature of feed saltwater (oC)


Temperature of preheated feed saltwater inside brine heat
recovery exchanger (oC)
Temperature of preheated saltwater (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [1700 mm from
the tube opening] (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [1345 mm from
the tube opening] (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [830 mm from
the tube opening] (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [390 mm from
the tube opening] (oC)
Temperature of boiling brine (oC)

Thermocouple [Tv]

Vapour saturation temperature in evaporator (oC)

Thermocouple [Tc]

Vapour condensation temperature (oC)

10

Thermocouple [Td]

Temperature of distillate (oC)

11

Thermocouple [Tf1]
Thermocouple [Tfx]
Thermocouple [Tf2]
Thermocouple [Tev1]
Thermocouple [Tev2]
Thermocouple [Tev3]
Thermocouple [Tev4]

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Thermocouple [Tcw2] Temperature of cooling water outlet stream (oC)

12

Thermocouple [Tcw1] Temperature of cooling water inlet stream (oC)

13

Thermocouple [Tb1]
Thermocouple [Tb2]
Thermocouple [Ta]

Temperature of rejected brine (oC)


Temperature of sub-cooled rejected brine [after heat
exchanger] (oC)
Ambient temperature (oC)

Pressure transducer [P] Pressure inside evaporator (kPa.abs)


Radiation [H]

Total global solar radiation on the inclined ETSC (W/m2)

Flowmeter [md]

Mass flow rate of distillate production (LPM)

Flowmeter [mb]

Mass flow rate of reject concentrated brine (LPM)

Flowmeter [mcw]

Mass flow rate of cooling water (LPM)


Table 7-4: Description of sensors on ISCE unit

310

14
15
16
17
18
visual
only
visual
only
visual
only

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.5

ISCE Experimental Findings

7.5.1

Experimental procedures

In order to prove the ISCE concept, the unit was trialled at different boiling temperatures and
insolation. Since the unit was tested outdoors in real conditions during the winter season, the
challenge was to get reliable steady-state performance measurements. This proved to be
difficult due to the unpredictable variation and limited availability of solar radiation during
winter. Nevertheless, enough steady-state empirical measurements were obtained to assess the
feasibility of the concept.
Once the vacuum pressure in the evaporator was set, the feed saltwater was introduced in the
evacuated tubes via the nylon feed tubes. As soon as the saltwater temperature in the
evaporator reached the desired boiling temperature, the NCG vent was opened and adjusted.
After a few seconds, the vapour produced would start to condense. The cooling water flow
rate was adjusted to obtain a reasonable cooling water temperature differential. The reject
concentrated brine flow rate was also adjusted to allow enough preheating of the feed
saltwater in the brine recovery heat exchanger. Steady-state measurements were taken when
the evaporator was operating at a uniform boiling temperature (although this is partly affected
by the incoming solar radiation) and no adjustments of valves were required.

7.5.2

Air temperature inside evacuated tubes

Before installing the nylon feed tubes, the ISCE unit was checked for air leakage. The
evacuated tubes were without liquid and the air temperature inside the evacuated tubes and
the evaporator was measured. Figure 7-35 shows the temperature variation over 5 days in July
2008 where Tev1, Tev2, Tev3 and Tev4 are the four thermocouples placed in the first
evacuated tube to allow measurement of the temperature at different positions (390 mm, 830
mm, 1345 mm and 1700 mm from the tube opening, respectively); T is the temperature in the
lower part of the evaporator; Tv is the vapour temperature in the evaporator; and Ta is the
ambient temperature. It can be seen from the figure that the temperature inside the tubes rose
above 150oC. It is therefore important that the tubes are always filled with liquid to avoid the
nylon feed tubes (which can withstand temperatures up to 100oC see Section 7.4.6) from
melting.

311

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE Experimental air temperatures

Temperature ( C)

200
190

Tev1

Tev2

180
170
160

Tev3

Tev4

Tev5

150
140
130
120

Ta

Tv

110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66

72

78

84

90

96

102

108

114

Duration (hours)

Figure 7-35: ISCE air temperature inside evacuated tubes

7.5.3

Water temperature inside evacuated tubes

Figure 7-36 shows how the water temperatures inside the evacuated tubes varied (over 4 days
in mid-August 2008) when the ISCE unit was not in operation (that is, the system was at
atmospheric pressure).

ISCE Experimental water temperatures


45
40

Tev2

Tev3

Tev4

Tev5

Ta

Tv

30

Temperature ( C)

35

Tev1

25
20
15
10
5
0
0

12

18

24

30

36

42

48

54

60

66

72

78

84

Duration (hours)

Figure 7-36: ISCE water temperature inside evacuated tubes

312

90

96

102

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.5.4

Typical results

7.5.4.1 Operating temperatures


The typical operating temperatures obtained from the ISCE unit during testing are shown in
Figure 7-37, Figure 7-38, Figure 7-39 and Figure 7-40. Figure 7-37 shows how the ambient
temperature (Ta), boiling temperature (T) and insolation (H) varied during the trial. Clearly,
the solar radiation was not uniform during most of the trial, thereby affecting the boiling
temperature and performance measurements. The operation of the ISCE was steady for
approximately 15 min only when the insolation was constant as illustrated in the figure.

ISCE Experimental Ambient temperature and Insolation


60

1,000

58
56
54

900

T
Ta
H

800

700

44
42
40

600

38
36

Steady-state

Steady-state
500

34
32
30

48
46

Insolation (W/m )

Temperature ( C)

52
50

400

28
26

300

24
22
20
o

200
0

10

15

20

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Duration (min)

Figure 7-37: ISCE experimental ambient temperature and insolation

Figure 7-38 shows how the saltwater temperature in the tubes varies with depth. The
temperature difference (mainly due to the hydrostatic pressure depression) between the
saltwater at the bottom of the tubes (represented by Tev1) and the fluid in the evaporator (T)
was approximately 4oC.

313

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE Experimental temperatures (in tubes)
60

Steady-state

55

Tev1
Tev3
Tev5
Ta

45

Temperature ( C)

50

Tev2
Tev4
T

40
35
30
25
20
15
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Duration (min)

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

Figure 7-38: ISCE experimental temperatures (in tubes)

ISCE Experimental temperatures (brine heat recovery exchanger)


60

Steady-state

55
50

Temperature ( C)

45

Tf1

Tfx

Tf2

Tb1

Tb2

40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
o

10

15

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Duration (min)

Figure 7-39: ISCE brine heat recovery exchanger experimental temperatures

The heat from the hot reject concentrated brine was used to preheat the feed saltwater flowing
in the brine heat recovery exchanger. The temperature of the reject brine (Tb1) entering the
heat exchanger was 1oC to 1.5oC lower than the boiling temperature (T) as shown in Figure
7-39. In the simulation, Tb1 was assumed to be equal to T. It is noteworthy that the reject
brine flow rate had to be adjusted numerous times (using the manual valve) with changing
insolation. In addition, the valve had to be fully closed whenever distillate production was
interrupted (due to significant changes in insolation).
314

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-40 shows the variation of boiling temperature (T), vapour saturation temperature (Tv)
and vapour condensation temperature (Tc) with time. The temperature difference between T
and Tc was up to 0.5oC during the steady-state period. This temperature difference could be
much larger for commercial ISCE unit with longer vapour connecting lines.

ISCE Experimental Boiling and Vapour temperature


60
58
56

Steady-state

54
52

50

Tv

Temperature ( oC)

48

Tc

46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
0

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Duration (min)

Figure 7-40: ISCE experimental boiling and vapour temperatures

7.5.4.2 Operating pressure


Figure 7-41 shows how the pressure varied during the trial. It is noteworthy that the boiling
temperature (T) is directly affected by the operating pressure. When the insolation decreases,
less energy is available for evaporation. Hence, less distillate is produced. The amount of
NCG present in the system is lower. Therefore, the NCG vent needs to be adjusted. Adjusting
the NCG vent continuously (with a simple manual ball valve) proved to be difficult with large
variation in insolation. An automatic pressure regulating system would be more suitable for
the ISCE (if designed to work at varying insolation); however, this would be more costly.

315

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE Experimental operating Pressure
20
19
18
17

Steady-state

16
15

Pressure (kPa.abs)

14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

32

34

36

38

40

Duration (min)

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

Figure 7-41: ISCE experimental operating pressure

Steady-state results at boiling temperature of 49oC and feed flow rate of 6.3
litres per hour

7.5.5

7.5.5.1 Operating temperatures and insolation


ISCE Experimental Ambient temperature and Insolation (Steady-state)
60

1,000

58
56
54

900

800

700

44
42

Ta

40

600

38
36

500

34
32
30

48
46

Insolation (W/m )

Temperature ( C)

52
50

400

28
26

300

24
22
20

200
10

11

12

13

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Duration (min)

Figure 7-42: ISCE experimental ambient temperature and insolation (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres
per hour)

The boiling temperature and insolation during the steady-state period are illustrated in Figure
7-42. The insolation was approximately (927 1) W/m2 while the ambient and boiling
temperatures were (26.0 1.6)oC and (48.8 1.6)oC, respectively. The error range values of
316

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

the empirical results were calculated using the uncertainty analysis procedures described in
Appendix 5. The feed flow rate was kept uniform at 6.3 litres per hour.

7.5.5.2 Distillate production and recovery ratio


The distillate production and the recovery ratio are illustrated in Figure 7-43 and Figure 7-44,
respectively. When operating at a boiling temperature of ~ 49oC, feed flow rate of 6.3 litre per
hour and insolation of ~ 927 W/m2, the average distillate production was (1.39 0.16) litres
per hour, which resulted in a recovery ratio of (22.1 2.6)%. It is noteworthy that the
distillate and reject concentrated brine flow rates were measured manually using vertical
graduated clear tube attached to the tanks since the readings from the visual flowmeters were
inaccurate (due to fluctuating insolation).
Two plots are shown in the figures. The average values (represented by a straight line) were
determined by measuring the volumetric difference in water level (using the vertical
graduated clear tube attached externally to the fresh water tank) over the steady-state duration
whereas the derived values were determined using Equation (7-2). Since the exact absorber
area (when the ISCE is fitted with semi-circular reflectors) to be used in theoretical
calculations was unknown (see Section 7.4.5), a trial area was assumed in Equation (7-2).
This area was then refined until the average difference between the distillate production rates
from the two plots were within 1%. From this analysis, the absorber area was found to be
approximately 1.92 m2.
ISCE Experimental Distillate production (Steady-state)
1.80

Distillate production (Litres per hour)

Derived
Measured

1.70

1.60

1.50

1.40

1.30

1.20

1.10
10
o

11

12

13

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Duration (min)

Figure 7-43: ISCE experimental distillate production (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per hour)

317

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

ISCE Experimental Recovery ratio (Steady-state)


26%

Derived
Measured

Recovery ratio (%)

25%

24%

23%

22%

21%

20%
10

11

12

13

14

15

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Duration (min)

Figure 7-44: ISCE experimental recovery ratio (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per hour)

7.5.5.3 Specific thermal energy consumption


The specific thermal energy consumption (solar heat per unit mass of distillate produced) was
calculated from the steady-state experimental data and was found to be approximately (2,764

314) kJ/kg (Figure 7-45).

ISCE Experimental Specific thermal energy consumption (Steady-state)

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

3000
2900
2800
2700
2600
2500
2400
2300
2200
2100
2000
10
o

11

12

13

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Duration (min)

Figure 7-45: ISCE experimental specific thermal energy consumption (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres
per hour)

318

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.5.5.4 Heat flow


By performing heat energy balances using the equation derived earlier; the heat flow in the
ISCE unit can be determined. The required thermodynamics properties (specific heat at
constant pressure and latent heat of vaporisation) were evaluated using the equations in
Appendix 1. The total solar heat available was (1,081 6) W. Figure 7-46 shows that the feed
saltwater heating accounted for approximately ~ 13.7% of the total amount of solar energy
available (taking into account the conversion efficiency). By using the brine heat recovery
exchanger, around (87 17) W was recovered during the steady-state period.
Around (934 105) W was lost with the cooling water. It is noteworthy that part of this
wasted heat (~ 148 W out of the total of 934 W in this case) can be used to preheat the feed
saltwater, thereby maximising the use of solar heat for evaporation. Although the ISCE was
also designed to work in this alternative mode (see schematic in Figure 7-34), this principle
was not tested due to time constraints. If the ISCE is coupled with an MEE unit, then the
vapour produced in the ISCE would be used as the heat source in the first effect of the MEE
(to be discussed later).

ISCE Experimental Heat flow (Steady-state)


30%

Energy saved by preheating


Total solar energy available
Energy used for brine heating
Heat rejected in cooling water
Brine heating %

1500
1400
1300
1200

25%

Hest flow (W)

1100

20%

1000
900
15%

800
700
600

10%

500

Brine heating (%)

1600

400
300

5%

200
100
0

0%
10

11

12

T = 49 C, mf = 6.3 litres per hour

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

Duration (min)

Figure 7-46: ISCE experimental heat flow (T = 49oC, mf = 6.3 litres per hour)

The derived OHTC for the brine heat recovery exchanger and condenser were found to be (48

3) and (200 14) W/m2.oC, respectively. The average steady-state results (with the
corresponding error range values) are summarised in Table 7-5.

319

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Temperature of feed saltwater, Tf1 (oC)


Temperature of preheated feed saltwater inside brine heat recovery
exchanger, Tfx (oC)
Temperature of preheated saltwater, Tf2 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [1700 mm from the tube
opening], Tev1 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [1345 mm from the tube
opening], Tev2 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [830 mm from the tube
opening], Tev3 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [390 mm from the tube
opening], Tev4 (oC)
Temperature of boiling brine, T (oC)
o

16.7 1.6
29.1 1.6
28.6 1.6
52.8 1.6
52.7 1.6
52.3 1.6
50.0 1.6
48.8 1.6
48.7 1.6

Vapour saturation temperature in evaporator, Tv ( C)


o

48.6 1.6

Vapour condensation temperature, Tc ( C)


o

20.6 1.6

Temperature of distillate, Td ( C)
o

18.7 1.6

Temperature of cooling water outlet stream, Tcw2 ( C)


o

16.7 1.6

Temperature of cooling water inlet stream, Tcw1 ( C)


o

47.2 1.6

Temperature of rejected brine, Tb1 ( C)


o

19.0 1.6

Temperature of sub-cooled rejected brine, Tb2 ( C)


o

26.0 1.6

Ambient temperature, Ta ( C)

13.58 0.18

Pressure inside evaporator, P (kPa.abs)


2

Total global solar radiation on the inclined ETSC, H (W/m )


Mass flow rate of distillate production [measured value], md (Litres
per hour)
Mass flow rate of distillate production [derived value], md (Litres per
hour)
Mass flow rate of reject concentrated brine, mb (Litres per hour)
Mass flow rate of cooling water, mcw (LPM) visual flowmeter

927 1
1.39 0.16
1.41 0.03
4.90 0.16
6.5 0.2

Efficiency of evacuated tubes (%)

(60.8 0.3)%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

(22.1 2.6)%

Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth (kJ/kg)

2,764 314

Total solar energy available (W)

1081 6

Energy used for brine heating (W)

148 17

Energy saved by preheating (W)

87 17
934 105

Heat rejected in cooling water (W)


OHTC of brine heat recovery exchanger, Ubr (W/m2.oC)
OHTC of condenser, Uc (W/m2.oC)

48 3
200 14

Table 7-5: ISCE average steady-state results (with error range values) for T = 49oC and mf
= 6.3 litres per hour

320

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Steady-state results at boiling temperature of 34oC and feed flow rate of 4.5
litres per hour

7.5.6

Figure 7-47 shows the operating temperatures and insolation when the ISCE was operated at a
boiling temperature of 34oC and feed flow rate of 4.5 litres per hour. The empirical values
obtained during the steady-state period of 20 min (as identified in the figure) was used for
performance evaluation. The graphical empirical steady-state results are illustrated in Figure
7-48, Figure 7-49, Figure 7-50, Figure 7-51 and Figure 7-52.

ISCE Experimental Ambient temperature and Insolation


50

1,000

48
46
44

900

Steady-state

800

700

34

38
36

Insolation (W/m )

Temperature ( C)

42
40

32
30

600

28
26

500

24

T
Ta
H

22
20
18

400

16

300

14
12
10

200
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

85

Duration (min)

T = 34 C, mf = 4.5 litres per hour

Figure 7-47: ISCE experimental temperatures and insolation (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour)

1,000

900

800

600

500

700

400

300

200
20

Ta

Insolation (W/m )

Temperature ( C)

ISCE Experimental Ambient temperature and Insolation (Steady-state)


60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
21

22

23

24

25

T = 34 C, mf = 4.5 litres per hour

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Duration (min)

Figure 7-48: ISCE steady-state experimental temperatures and insolation (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5
litres per hour)

321

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

ISCE Experimental temperatures [in tubes] (Steady-state)


60

Tev1

Tev2

55

Tev3

Tev4

50

Tev5

Ta

Temperature ( C)

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Duration (min)

T = 34 C, mf = 4.5 litres per hour

Figure 7-49: ISCE experimental temperatures [in tubes] (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour)

ISCE Experimental temperatures [brine heat recovery exchanger] (Steady-state)


50

45

Temperature ( C)

40

Tf1

Tfx

Tf2

Tb1

Tb2

35

30

25

20

15

10
20
o

21

22

23

24

T = 34 C, mf = 4.5 litres per hour

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Duration (min)

Figure 7-50: ISCE brine heat recovery exchanger experimental temperatures (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5
litres per hour)

322

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *
ISCE Experimental Distillate production (Steady-state)
1.40

Derived
Distillate production (Litres per hour)

1.38

Measured

1.36
1.34
1.32
1.30
1.28
1.26
1.24
1.22
1.20
20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Duration (min)

T = 34 C, mf = 4.5 litres per hour

Figure 7-51: ISCE experimental distillate production (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour)

ISCE Experimental Heat flow (Steady-state)


10.0%

1000
900

9.0%

Energy saved by preheating


Total solar energy available
Energy used for brine heating
Heat rejected in cooling water
Brine heating %

Hest flow (W)

700
600
500

8.0%

7.0%

6.0%

400
300

Brine heating (%)

800

5.0%

200
4.0%
100
0

3.0%
20

21

22

23

24

25

T = 34 C, mf = 4.5 litres per hour

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

Duration (min)

Figure 7-52: ISCE experimental heat flow (T = 34oC, mf = 4.5 litres per hour)

The average steady-state results (with the corresponding error range values) when the ISCE
was operating at a boiling temperature of 34oC and feed flow rate of 4.5 litres per hour are
summarised in Table 7-6.

323

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Temperature of feed saltwater, Tf1 (oC)


Temperature of preheated feed saltwater inside brine heat recovery
exchanger, Tfx (oC)
Temperature of preheated saltwater, Tf2 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [1700 mm from the tube
opening], Tev1 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [1345 mm from the tube
opening], Tev2 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [830 mm from the tube
opening], Tev3 (oC)
Temperature of saltwater in evacuated tube [390 mm from the tube
opening], Tev4 (oC)
Temperature of boiling brine, T (oC)
o

12.7 1.6
25.0 1.6
24.5 1.6
39.3 1.6
38.9 1.6
38.2 1.6
37.1 1.6
33.8 1.6
33.5 1.6

Vapour saturation temperature in evaporator, Tv ( C)


o

29.4 1.6

Vapour condensation temperature, Tc ( C)


o

18.8 1.6

Temperature of distillate, Td ( C)
o

17.4 1.6

Temperature of cooling water outlet stream, Tcw2 ( C)


o

15.4 1.6

Temperature of cooling water inlet stream, Tcw1 ( C)


o

32.9 1.6

Temperature of rejected brine, Tb1 ( C)


o

16.1 1.6

Temperature of sub-cooled rejected brine, Tb2 ( C)


o

16.3 1.6

Ambient temperature, Ta ( C)

8.26 0.18

Pressure inside evaporator, P (kPa.abs)


2

Total global solar radiation on the inclined ETSC, H (W/m )


Mass flow rate of distillate production [measured value], md (Litres
per hour)
Mass flow rate of distillate production [derived value], md (Litres per
hour)
Mass flow rate of reject concentrated brine, mb (Litres per hour)
Mass flow rate of cooling water, mcw (LPM) visual flowmeter

792 1
1.32 0.11
1.32 0.02
3.18 0.11
6.5 0.2

Efficiency of evacuated tubes (%)

(61.4 0.4)%

Recovery ratio, RR (%)

(29.3 2.6)%

Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth (kJ/kg)

2,553 214

Total solar energy available (W)

934 6

Energy used for brine heating (W)

49 12

Energy saved by preheating (W)

62 12

Heat rejected in cooling water (W)

890 75

OHTC of brine heat recovery exchanger, Ubr (W/m2.oC)


OHTC of condenser, Uc (W/m2.oC)

38 5
471 23

Table 7-6: ISCE average steady-state results (with error range values) for T = 34oC and mf =
4.5 litres per hour

324

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.5.7

Parasitic electrical energy

The only parasitic electrical energy requirement in the ISCE unit is for the vacuum pump,
which is used to evacuate the evaporator and tanks; and continuously remove the NCG. The
electrical energy was not measured in this experimental investigation since the vacuum pump
is oversized for this small-scale ISCE unit. The electrical energy requirement for this
particular unit is negligible. It is noteworthy however that the electrical energy need to be
taken into account for much larger system. The vacuum pump can be sized by calculating the
amount of dissolved air in the saltwater at the required operating pressure and temperature.

7.5.8

Comparison with theoretical ISCE model

A comparison between the empirical data obtained and the ISCE simulation predictions was
performed and the model validated. The same experimental values obtained for the following
variables were applied to the modelling:
o

Absorber area, Aab

Insolation, H

Ambient temperature, Ta

Boiling temperature, T

Feed saltwater temperature, Tf1

Reject concentrated brine temperature, Tb1

Cooling water inlet temperature, Tcw1

Feed saltwater mass flow rate, mf

Cooling water mass flow rate, mcw

Vapour saturation temperature, Tv

For the purpose of comparison, the empirical results presented earlier (see Section 7.5.5 and
Section 7.5.6) will be used. Table 7-7 shows the comparison. For case I (with a boiling
temperature of 49oC and feed flow rate of 6.3 litres per hour), the simulated value of Tb2 was
found to be much higher than the average value obtained during the trial. Consequently, a
lower predicted value was obtained for Ubr. This difference is due to the low assumed average
value of Tf2 (~ 28.6oC) in the modelling. Clearly from Figure 7-39, Tf2 increased from 26oC
to 36oC (indicating that the valve was somehow adjusted). If Ubr value is fixed instead in the
modelling using the same value obtained in the trial, then Tf2 would be 34.9oC which is close
to the maximum value obtained during the steady-state period. It is noteworthy that the

325

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

temperature variation was more uniform in case II (see also Figure 7-50). Consequently, the
modelling was able to predict accurately all the performance values.
It is clear from the comparative analysis that the modelling results obtained (except for Tb2
and Ubr in case I) are within the error ranges (uncertainty range representing the limits of
measurement errors) of the empirical data, indicating a good agreement. The model was
validated and can therefore be used for further analysis and performance evaluation of standalone ISCE systems.

326

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Parameters

Empirical results Simulation results Empirical results Simulation results


(case I)
(case I)
(case II)
(case II)

Simulation input variables

Feed saltwater flow rate, mf (Litres per hour)

6.3

6.3

4.5

4.5

48.8 1.6

48.8

33.8 1.6

33.8

1.920

1.920

1.920

1.920

927 1

927

792 1

792

Ambient temperature, Ta (oC)

26.0 1.6

26.0

16.3 1.6

16.3

Temperature of feed saltwater, Tf1 (oC)

16.7 1.6

16.7

12.7 1.6

12.7

Temperature of rejected brine, Tb1 (oC)

47.2 1.6

47.2

32.9 1.6

32.9

Temperature of cooling water inlet stream, Tcw1 (oC)

16.7 1.6

16.7

15.4 1.6

15.4

Mass flow rate of cooling water, mcw (LPM) visual flowmeter

6.5 0.2

6.5

6.5 0.2

6.5

(60.8 0.3)%

60.8

(61.4 0.4)%

61.4

Vapour saturation temperature in evaporator, Tv (oC)

48.7 1.6

48.8

33.5 1.6

33.8

Vapour condensation temperature, Tc (oC)

48.6 1.6

47.8

29.4 1.6

29.4

Temperature of preheated saltwater, Tf2 (oC)

28.6 1.6

28.6

24.5 1.6

24.5

Temperature of cooling water outlet stream, Tcw2 (oC)

18.7 1.6

18.7

17.4 1.6

17.4

Temperature of sub-cooled rejected brine, Tb2 (oC)

19.0 1.6

31.8*

16.1 1.6

16.3

Mass flow rate of distillate production md (Litres per hour)

1.39 0.16

1.41

1.32 0.11

1.31

Mass flow rate of reject concentrated brine, mb (Litres per hour)

4.90 0.16

4.88

3.18 0.11

3.19

(22.1 2.6)%

22.4

(29.3 2.6)%

29.2

2,802 314

2,764

2,553 214

2,556

Temperature of boiling brine, T (oC)


Absorber Area, Aab (m2)
Total global solar radiation on the inclined ETSC, H (W/m2)

Simulation output variables

Efficiency of evacuated tubes (%)

Recovery ratio, RR (%)


Specific thermal energy consumption, Eth (kJ/kg)

327

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Total solar energy available (W)

1081 6

1081

934 6

934

Energy used for brine heating (W)

148 17

148

49 12

49

48 3

17*

38 5

36

200 14

207

471 23

454

OHTC of brine heat recovery exchanger, Ubr (W/m2.oC)


OHTC of condenser, Uc (W/m2.oC)

Table 7-7: ISCE comparative analysis

328

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.6

ISCE comparison with other systems

7.6.1

ISCE compared with solar stills

Solar-thermal heat systems have been used in different ways to power thermal desalination
plants, such as a simple solar still desalination unit coupled with a solar collector (Figure
7-53) where the flow is driven by natural convection.

Figure 7-53: Schematic of solar still coupled with a solar collector

Badran and Tahaineh (2005) investigated the effect of coupling a 1.05 m2 flat-plate solar
collector to a 1 m2 solar still. The experimental results show that the average daily water
production varied between 2.92 and 3.25 litres during the month of October (Figure 7-54a).
The ambient temperature varied between 20 and 30oC during the trials. Their analysis also
showed that the flat-plate solar collector increased the distillate production by 36% (Figure
7-54b).

(a) effect of average daily insolation (solar still only)

(b) setup comparisons

Figure 7-54: Solar still flat plate system fresh water production (Badran and Al-Tahaineh, 2005)

329

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

In order to perform a meaningful comparison between this solar still flat plate system and
the ISCE unit, the same operating conditions (such as temperatures, insolation and tilt angle)
experienced during their trials need to be applied to the ISCE modelling. Unfortunately, these
data were not available.
For rough comparison purposes, the specific daily distillate production (distillate production
per flat-plate collector area) from this solar still flat plate system at average daily insolation
values of 350 W/m2 and 700 W/m2 (using linear interpolation with the values obtained from
Figure 7-54a) are 2.80 L/m2 and 3.21 L/m2, respectively.
With a total absorber area of 2.01 m2, the specific distillate production rates from the ISCE
unit (when operating at a boiling temperature of 60oC and feed saltwater flow rate of 0.1
LPM) obtained from the modelling for a particular day in summer (average daily insolation of
700 W/m2) and winter (with an average daily insolation of 350 W/m2) were found to be 6.84
L/m2 and 2.07 L/m2, respectively. Clearly, at the low insolation of 350 W/m2, the ISCE
produced 26% less distillate as compared to the solar still flat plate system. However at an
insolation of 700 W/m2, the ISCE produced twice as much distillate as the solar still - flat
plate system. It is expected that the total annual production from the ISCE will be much more
than the solar still flat plate system since the round evacuated tube in the ISCE means that
the collector is always perpendicular to the sun's rays thereby maximising the amount of solar
radiation the collector is exposed to throughout the day.

7.6.2

ISCE compared with PV-RO

Another useful comparative analysis would be to compare the solar collection area needed by
the ISCE unit and a PV-RO system with similar distillate production. This analysis however
was beyond the scope of the present research study.

330

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.7

ISCE coupled to Solar MEE

By coupling the ISCE system to an MEE system, it acts as both the solar-thermal collector
(which is the primary energy source for the whole system) and as the first effect. A schematic
design for such a system using a forward-feed MEE system with a condenser/preheater at
each effect is shown in Figure 7-55.
In this system, the feed saltwater, which is part of the total intake of saltwater, is partially
preheated in the condenser by the vapour coming from the last effect of the MEE. The feed is
then further heated progressively by the feed preheaters before it enters the ISCE. The inflowing saltwater is heated to its boiling temperature by solar radiation and is then partly
evaporated. The vapour produced in the ISCE is used as the heat source in the first effect of
the MEE desalination unit operating at a lower pressure. The remaining brine from the ISCE
enters the first effect of the MEE as the feed.
The key advantages of the ICSE coupled to a solar MEE system are clear:
o The economy of combining the solar collector and evaporator into a single unit
o The elimination of heat losses from the separate hot water circuit between the collector

and evaporator
o Avoidance of the need for a pump and the associated electrical consumption.

One disadvantage of the ICSE concept compared to the conventional arrangement with
storage is that storage of solar heat is not possible with the ICSE. However, more likely with
the ICSE concept used for desalination the system would be sized to produce fresh water to
the maximum when solar radiation is present, and the fresh water would be stored to gain a
surplus for use when there is insufficient sunlight.
It is noteworthy that the comparative analysis of a conventional solar-MEE system with the
ISCE coupled to a solar-MEE was beyond the scope of the present study. However, there is
clearly scope here for further research.

331

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Figure 7-55: ISCE coupled to an MEE desalination system concept

332

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

Table 7-8 below summarises the main advantages and disadvantages of the ISCE compared to
other conventional solar-thermal desalination systems. It is noteworthy that further work is
needed to compare the ISCE unit with alternative conventional solar-thermal desalination
systems as listed in the table.

ISCE

Elimination of secondary
water circuit, pump and all
associated controls thus
reducing capital and
maintenance costs.
Simpler operation than a
conventional solar
collector system with a
discrete circuit
Elimination of heat losses
from a separate hot water
Advantages
circuit between the solar
collector and evaporator
The phase separation and
vapour formation takes
place in the same
apparatus as the solar
collector rather than in a
separate evacuated
cylinder with associated
internal heat exchanger
resulting in less heat losses
Compared with a
conventional arrangement,
storage of solar heat is not
possible. However, the
system can be sized to
produce excess distillate
Disadvantages production to meet
demand for periods of low
insolation
Additional costs for proper
venting of the integrated
solar collector and
evaporator

Solar still coupled


with solar collectors

Conventional solar
collector system with
discrete circuit and
separate evaporator

Simple, portable, easy


to operate
desalination system
for small-scale
applications

Excess solar heat can


be stored for nighttime operation or to
provide hot water on
cloudy days

No parasitic energy

With most forms of


solar stills, the heat of
condensation is
rejected from the
system as waste heat.
Very low productivity
per unit area of solar
collector

Separate hot water


circuit and associated
pumps and heat
exchangers increases
the capital cost

Not economic for


medium or largescale systems

Table 7-8: Summary of the main advantages and disadvantages of the ISCE compared
to conventional solar-thermal desalination systems

333

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.8

Other ISCE Design Configurations

Within the general concept of the ISCE itself, and using an evacuated glass tube collector as a
common feature, a number of alternative design variations have been identified. These
alternative designs are described in the following subsections. Analysing, designing,
constructing and testing these alternative designs were beyond the scope and resources of the
present research project. There is, however, a promising opportunity here for further research
and development on the ISCE concept.
7.8.1

ISCE using falling-film principle

Another collector configuration in an ISCE is to employ a falling-film principle rather than


completely filling the inner tube with saltwater. Parallel-connected evacuated tubes, open at
both ends, are connected to two manifold pipes, as shown in Figure 7-56. The saltwater enters
the evacuated tubes at the top. In the special weir distribution device, the saltwater is evenly
distributed into the heating tubes. A thin film enters the heating tube and it flows downwards
at boiling temperature and is partially evaporated. This thin film gives a higher heat-transfer
coefficient from the inner glass tube to the fluid. The mixture of liquid and vapour both flow
downwards in a parallel flow. Finally, the concentrated brine and the vapour are separated in
the separator.

Figure 7-56: ISCE using falling-film concept

334

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

The special distribution device (Figure 7-57) must be designed very carefully to achieve even
product wetting of the heating surface of the tubes. If the heating surfaces are not wetted
sufficiently, dry patches will occur.

Figure 7-57: Examples of special distribution device

7.8.2

ISCE using rising-film principle

Another configuration employs the rising-film principle (Figure 7-58). The arrangement of
the evacuated tubes is similar to that of the falling-film except that, in this particular case, a
cylindrical spacer is placed inside the inner tube such that less fluid is heated as compared to a
completely flooded system. This also improves the heat transfer coefficient from the inner
glass tube to the saltwater. The saltwater would enter the evacuated tubes from the bottom and
as it heats, vapour will begin to form. The mixture, operating on a thermosiphon principle,
will flow upwards in parallel flow. Finally, the concentrated brine and the vapour are
separated in the separator.

Figure 7-58: ISCE using rising-film concept

335

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.8.3

Integrated solar collector membrane distillation (ISCMD) concept

As explained in Section 2.8.6, the driving force in membrane distillation is the difference in
vapour pressure of the saltwater across the membrane rather than the total pressure. The
vapour pressure is created by heating the saltwater and the membrane which is hydrophobic
only allows water vapour to pass through into the air gap. The distillate is collected by
condensing the vapour on the cool surface.
Another potential application of the ISCE is a design for an integrated solar collector
membrane distillation (ISCMD) system using open-ended solar evacuated tubes (Figure
7-59). In the ISCMD concept, the saltwater to be desalinated would be heated directly by the
evacuated tube solar collectors as it moves up the tubes. The diameter of the evacuated tubes
and the flow rate of the fluids must be designed carefully to avoid heating the saltwater above
the temperature that the membrane can withstand. The advantages of this new concept are:
simultaneous heating and distillation at low temperatures, and little pre-treatment required as
compared to reverse osmosis (RO).

Figure 7-59: Schematic of the integrated solar collector membrane distillation


(ISCMD) concept

336

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

7.9

ISCE Conclusions

This chapter has presented a novel system, namely the integrated solar collector and
evaporator (ISCE) consisting of a number of evacuated tubes connected to a custom-made
evaporator with associated equipment, that can produce water vapour directly from the
inflowing saltwater at low temperature (less than 90oC). One application of the ISCE is a
design for a standalone single-effect solar thermal desalination system where the salt-free
vapour produced is condensed directly into fresh water. Another application is where the saltfree vapour is used as a heat source in a solar-thermal multi-effect evaporation (MEE)
desalination system and then condensed. The ISCE when coupled with an MEE becomes at
one and the same time both the solar absorber and the first effect of the MEE system, thus
improving the system efficiency and yielding net cost savings.
The key novel feature compared to conventional solar-thermal evaporation systems is that the
collection of solar energy and its use to heat the saltwater from which water is to be
evaporated are accomplished in a single piece of apparatus, rather than two separate pieces of
apparatus; resulting in very low losses in the transfer of heat from the solar collector surface
to the saltwater to be heated and avoiding the need for a pump and secondary circuit with
consequent cost savings.
Evacuated tubes are designed so that their inner region containing the water to be heated
operates at atmospheric or above atmospheric pressure. From the literature review, there is no
mention of evacuated tubes being operated at negative pressure. By reducing the pressure of
the inner region, the pressure differential between the inner region and the space between the
inner and outer tubes is reduced. In the initial stage of research and development, the inner
region of a single evacuated tube was subjected to sub-atmospheric pressure and tested to
ensure that the tubes were suitable and performance were not affected. After reviewing the
three main types of evacuated tubular solar collectors - direct flow, U-pipe and heat pipe only direct-flow (thermosyphon) ETSCs were found to be suitable for the ISCE concept.
A mathematical / theoretical analysis of the ISCE system has been completed. The simulation
program written in Visual Basic and using Excel as the interface was developed to allow
estimation of key parameters for a range of different conditions. The modelling results
showed that the distillate production and hence recovery ratio increases with solar radiation,
when the feed saltwater flow rate is maintained uniform. More distillate is obtained when the
ISCE operates at lower boiling temperatures. This is due to the characteristics of the ETSC.
337

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

At low boiling temperatures, the temperature difference (Tm Ta) is lower leading to an
increase in the solar collector efficiency; thereby increasing the amount of solar heat available
for vaporisation. Results showed that there is an optimal feed flow rate for a given set of
conditions (boiling temperature and insolation). The optimum feed flow rate increases with
insolation. It is important at high recovery ratios however to check the salinity of the reject
brine and ensure that it does not exceed the solubility limits of calcium sulphate.
The simulation model has been used to determine the daily performance of the ISCE unit
(with a total absorber area of 2.01 m2) in summer and winter, when operating at a boiling
temperature of 60oC and feed saltwater flow rate of 0.1 LPM. The daily cumulative distillate
production for a particular day in summer and winter were found to be 13.74 litres and 4.16
litres, respectively.
An experimental single-effect ISCE desalination system has been designed using the
computer model developed. The aim of the experimental investigation was to measure and
evaluate the performance of the unit and prove the feasibility of the concept. The empirical
results were compared with the modelling predictions. The custom-made evaporator was
made out of stainless steel 316L and has eight special airtight tube connections. Semi-circular
concentric reflector made of polished stainless steel 304-BA were used as reflectors.
In order to prove the ISCE concept, the unit was trialled at different boiling temperatures and
insolation. Since the unit was tested outdoors in real conditions during the winter season, the
challenge was to get reliable steady-state performance measurements. This proved to be
difficult due to the unpredictable variation and limited availability of solar radiation during
winter. Nevertheless, enough steady-state empirical measurements were obtained to assess the
feasibility of the concept. In addition, adjusting the NCG vent continuously (with a simple
manual ball valve) proved to be difficult with large variation in insolation. An automatic
pressure regulating system would be more suitable for the ISCE (if designed to work at
varying insolation).
When operating at a boiling temperature of ~ 49oC, feed flow rate of 6.3 litre per hour and
insolation of ~ 927 W/m2, the average distillate production was (1.39 0.16) litres per hour,
which resulted in a recovery ratio of (22.1 2.6)%. The specific thermal energy consumption
(solar heat per unit mass of distillate produced) was calculated from the steady-state
experimental data and was found to be approximately (2,764 314) kJ/kg. The total solar heat
available was (1,081 6) W. The feed saltwater heating accounted for approximately ~ 13.7%
338

Chapter 7 * CONFIDENTIAL *

of the total amount of solar energy available (taking into account the conversion efficiency).
By using the brine heat recovery exchanger, around (87 17) W was recovered during the
steady-state period. Around (934 105) W was lost with the cooling water. It is noteworthy
that part of this wasted heat (~ 148 W out of the total of 934 W in this case) can be used to
preheat the feed saltwater, thereby maximising the use of solar heat for evaporation. Although
the ISCE was also designed to work in this alternative mode, this principle was not tested due
to time constraints.
The ISCE unit has been used to validate the computer modelling. The same conditions as
those observed during the experiments were applied to the modelling. The comparative
analysis showed that the modelling results obtained were within the error ranges of the
empirical data, indicating a good agreement. The model developed can therefore be used with
confidence for further analysis and performance evaluation of ISCE system.
The specific distillate production rate from the ISCE unit was found to be higher than that of a
similar-sized solar still flat plate system at high insolation. It is expected that the total
annual production from the ISCE will be much more than the solar still flat plate system
since the round evacuated tube in the ISCE means that the collector is always perpendicular to
the sun's rays thereby maximising the amount of solar radiation the collector is exposed to
throughout the day.
If the ISCE is coupled with an MEE unit, then the vapour produced in the ISCE is used as the
heat source in the first effect of the MEE. Further work is needed to compare the ISCE unit
with alternative conventional solar-thermal desalination systems as listed in the table.
Within the general concept of the ISCE itself, and using an evacuated glass tube collector as a
common feature, a number of alternative design variations were identified: ISCE using
falling-film principle rather than flooded configuration, ISCE using rising-film principle and a
design for an integrated solar collector membrane distillation (ISCMD) system using open
ended solar evacuated tubes. It is noteworthy that analysing, designing, constructing and
testing these alternative designs were beyond the scope and resources of the present research
project. There is, however, a promising opportunity here for further research and development
on the ISCE concept.

339

Chapter 8

EVALUATION OF DESALINATION SYSTEMS

In this chapter, the solar desalination systems studied in this research project
are compared using a triple bottom line methodology with conventional
desalination systems powered by energy from fossil fuels and other renewableenergy based systems.

8.1

Introduction

The MSF and MEE solar desalination technologies investigated in the present study are
compared in this chapter with each other and alternative options according to a range of
criteria, covering technical performance, economics, environmental and social impacts. Some
of these criteria (previously defined in Section 3.4) are as follows:
o Salinity levels
o Fresh water production
o Recovery ratio
o Specific thermal energy consumption
o Specific electrical energy consumption
o Cooling water requirements
o Solar collection area
o Unit costs of fresh water produced based on lifecycle analysis
o Emission intensity

The comparative analysis presented is based on the theoretical and experimental studies
described in Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. For the purpose of comparison, the salt concentration
and temperature of the feed saltwater are assumed to be 36,500 ppm and 20oC, respectively.

8.2

Comparative Technical Evaluation of Solar Desalination Systems


Studied

8.2.1

Maximum number of stages in solar-MSF

A three-year prediction of the lower convective zone (LCZ) for a typical salt-gradient solar
pond (SGSP) in Melbourne indicated that the pond would reach a minimum temperature of
62.1oC in winter (see Section 4.1.7). The temperature of flashing brine in the final stage of an
MSF system must not exceed 30oC to avoid a drastic increase in the stage volume and
340

Chapter 8

dimensions (see Section 5.1.3.3). As mentioned in Chapter 5, the number of stages in an MSF
system is limited by the temperature difference between the top brine temperature (TBT) and
the temperature of the brine in the last effect (Tn). A minimum of 2oC temperature drop per
stage (representing the temperature driving force for heat transfer) is necessary to have an
acceptable heat transfer area for the condenser/preheater. Therefore, if a solar MSF system
operates at a low TBT of 60oC in winter (worst case scenario) and the flashing brine in the
last stage is limited to 30oC, the maximum number of stages is 15. Note that if the analysis is
based on summer only with an operating temperature of 80oC, the maximum number of stages
would be 25.
8.2.2

SP-MSF comparative chemical and parasitic electrical energy

Treatment of the feed saltwater to be desalinated includes addition of chemicals to control


scaling and corrosion. It has been found from the theoretical analysis (see Section 5.1.3 and
Section 5.1.4) that SP-MSF-C and SP-MSF-M have similar chemical consumption rate. The
chemical consumption of SP-MSF-OT system was found to be directly related to the total
feed saltwater flow rate and hence between 4 and 6 times higher than SP-MSF-C and SPMSF-M. Excessive chemical consumption will adversely affect the operating cost of SPMSF-OT. However, the increase in operating costs has to be weighed against the savings in
capital cost due to the elimination of the heat rejection section and recycle pump.
In order to evaluate the effect of the plant capital cost and pre-treatment cost, the relative
water cost (SP-MSF-OT versus SP-MSF-C) based on a lifecycle analysis was estimated. The
following parameters were assumed in the evaluation:

The SP-MSF-OT and SP-MSF-C consist of 15 and 18 stages respectively. The extra
three stages in the SP-MSF-C represent the heat rejection section

The capital cost of the stages is 80% of the total plant cost. The remaining 20% accounts
for the cost of the pumps and associated controls

The specific thermal energy of SP-MSF-OT is 20% higher than that of SP-MSF-C

The recovery ratios of SP-MSF-OT and SP-MSF-C are 18% and 45%, respectively

The SP-MSF-C system consumes 30% more parasitic electrical energy due to the extra
brine recycle pump

The electrical energy consumption is 3 kWh per m3 of distillate

The maintenance cost is 2% of the plant capital cost

The labour cost during operation is AUD $0.096 per m3 of distillate

Conventional electricity is AUD $0.14 per kWh.


341

Chapter 8

In the evaluation, the cost of pre-treatment which depends on the feed salinity and type of pretreatment was varied between AUD $0.01 and $0.1 per m3 (reflecting the range found in the
literature) for different plant capital cost (between AUD $1,500 and $3,000 per m3). The
water cost was based on the present value of all costs over the lifetime of the unit (25 years),
at 5% real discount rate, divided by the total production of fresh water over that time. The
relative water cost was found by calculating the ratio of the water costs from the two systems.
Figure 8-1 shows that the SP-MSF-OT system is more economic than SP-MSF-C for a plant
cost of AUD $1,500 per m3 when the pre-treatment cost is less than AUD $0.05 per m3. As
the plant capital cost increases, the SP-MSF-OT becomes more economically favourable (due
to the elimination of the heat rejection section). Clearly, more precise estimates of the capital
and pre-treatment costs are required in order to determine the most economical MSF
configuration for a particular set of conditions.
Relative water cost at varying pre-treatment cost (for different plant capital cost)

Relative water cost (SP-MSF-OT/SP-MSF-C)

1.20

1.15

1.10

Plant cost = $1500 per m^3


Plant cost = $2000 per m^3
Plant cost = $2500 per m^3
Plant cost = $3000 per m^3

1.05

1.00

0.95

0.90

0.85

0.80
0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

0.07

0.08

0.09

0.10

0.11

Pre-treatment cost ($/m )

Figure 8-1: Relative water cost at varying pre-treatment cost (for different plant
capital cost)

8.2.3

MSF condenser material comparative analysis

In the SP-SSF system, due to the low thermal conductivity, the heat exchange area of HDPE
had to be four times (1.88 m2) that of Cu-Ni 90/10 (0.46 m2) see Section 5.2.5 and Section
5.3.7. The approximate capital cost of Cu-Ni 90/10 tubes is AUD $80.15 per m2 while HDPE
plastic tubes (excluding return bends) costs AUD $14.70 per m2. In order to obtain the same
heat transfer as Cu-Ni 90/10 (due to the higher specific heat exchange area), the true cost of
HDPE is AUD $60.10 per m2. Clearly, HDPE is still 25% cheaper than Cu-Ni for the same
342

Chapter 8

heat transfer. It is noteworthy that HDPE tubes require support since they are flexible and
tend to soften at high temperature. However, unlike Cu-Ni, HDPE heat exchangers are not
subject to corrosion, oxidation or chemical attacks. Plastic heat exchangers have a longer life
regardless of the environment. Obviously, by considering these factors and the associated
reduction in antiscalant and corrosion inhibitors; the HDPE condenser may thus have an
advantage over the more expensive metal condensers provided the required area space is
available.

8.2.4

Maximum number of effects in solar-MEE

The total number of effects in the solar-MEE system is limited by the total temperature range
(T1 Tn) available and the minimum allowable temperature difference between one effect and
the next (this gives the minimum value for Teffect ). The temperature driving force per effect
( Teffect ) affects the heat transfer coefficient and hence dictates the heat transfer area. In the
solar-MEE system, the lowest temperature is limited by the temperature of the available
cooling water while the highest temperature is limited by the solar heat supply temperature as
well as the scale potential of the saltwater. Teffect has to be at least higher than the boiling
point elevation (BPE) since the latter represents the equilibrium condition. BPE increases with
temperature and are typically within the range of 0.1oC to 1.0oC (see Section A1.14
appendix 1). However, the temperature drops due to the demister ( Tdemister ) and connecting
lines also need to be added ( Tline ) - see Section 6.1.2.1. In the case of submerged tubes, the
temperature drop due to the hydrostatic pressure depression ( Thydro ) must be included (see
Section 6.1.2.2). By assuming a temperature drop of 0.5oC, 0.4oC and 0.6oC for Tdemister ,
Tline and Thydro , respectively; Teffect can be as small as 2.5oC. Therefore, if a solarMEE

system operates at a low boiling temperature of 60oC in winter (worst case scenario) and the
temperature in the last effect is limited to 30oC, the maximum number of effects is 12. It is
noteworthy that the inter-effect temperature difference can be reduced to 1.9oC by using
falling-film evaporators (since there is no hydrostatic pressure drop), making it possible to
have up to 16 effects.

8.2.5

Cooling water requirements

All solar-thermal desalination technologies have requirements for cooling water. Some use
part of the incoming saltwater stream for cooling, while others use a separate cooling water
stream whether drawn from the same source as the water to be desalinated or another source.
343

Chapter 8

In the solar-MSF systems, there is no rejected cooling water stream whereas in the solarMEE, part of the heat energy is lost with the rejected cooling water. Further research and
design improvement in order to make use of the heat in the cooling water would improve the
specific thermal energy consumption and hence improve the solar-MEE performance.

8.2.6

Recovery ratio comparative analysis

From the theoretical analysis of the different solar-MSF systems, it has been found that the
recovery ratio can be up to 45-48% depending on the feed saltwater and recycle brine flow
rates (see Section 5.1.3 and Section 5.1.4). The maximum theoretical recovery ratios obtained
for the solar-MEE systems were found to be between 62-70% (see Section 6.1.4.3 and Section
6.3.4.3). Clearly, solar-MEE systems result in a much higher recovery ratio due to the
combination of boiling and flashing heat transfer processes; and better heat recovery.

8.2.7

Specific thermal energy requirements


Comparative Specific thermal energy consumption at varying number of
o
effects/stages (solar heat supply temperature of 85 C)
55%

Solar-MEE
Solar-MSF
MEE % savings

4,000

50%
45%

3,500
40%
3,000

35%

2,500

30%

2,000

25%
20%

1,500

15%
1,000
10%
500

MEE savings in specific thermal energy (%)

Specific thermal energy consumption (kJ/kg)

4,500

5%

0%
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

Number of Effects/Stages

Figure 8-2: Comparative specific thermal energy consumption

A comparative analysis of the specific thermal energy consumption of solar-MSF


(conventional) and solar-MEE (parallel flow) systems for up to 18 stages/effects is illustrated
in Figure 8-2. It can be seen from the figure that the solar-MEE system uses up to 55% less
energy than the solar-MSF for the same number of stages/effects (141 kJ/kg versus 311 kJ/kg
for 18 stages/effects). For instance, a solar-MEE system consisting of seven effects would
give the same performance as a 12 stage solar-MSF system. The savings in the specific
thermal energy consumption result in a lower number of required effects, thereby reducing the
344

Chapter 8

capital cost. For the desired operating temperatures, a maximum of 15 stages was required in
the solar-MSF (Section 8.2.1). It is noteworthy that the same performance can be obtained
from a solar-MEE system with eight effects.
8.2.8

Preferred thermal desalination technology

Based on the theoretical and experimental studies conducted in this research project together
with the technical comparative evaluation presented in this chapter; it is clear that solar-MEE
system is the preferred thermal desalination process for use with a low-temperature heat
source. Solar-MEE systems are much more efficient than the solar-MSF processes for the
same conditions, requiring less effects/stages for the same thermal energy consumption.
Solar-MSF would only be favourable if the feed concentration salinity and operating
temperature are high since solar-MEE systems are prone to scaling if they are not operated
within the solubility limits of calcium sulphate (see Section 6.3.8). For example, if the feed
saltwater has a salt concentration of 45,000 ppm TDS and the TBT or boiling temperature is
80oC, the solar-MEE would be operating very close to the solubility limits and hence the
solar-MSF system would be preferable to avoid degrading performance. Table 8-1
summarises the advantages and disadvantages of solar-MSF and solar-MEE processes.
Solar-MSF
Most proven and reliable. Extensive
experience in construction and operation.

Solar-MEE
The top boiling temperature can be as
low as 55 C, which helps reduce
corrosion and scaling, and allows the
use of low-grade waste heat.

Less susceptible to scaling at high salt


concentration and operating temperatures.

Better thermal performance


compared to MSF. Much higher
recovery ratio can be obtained, as
high as 70%.

Advantages

Much easier to start-up since solarMEE process will always be


composed of less stages/effects for
the same performance.
In MSF, the heat is transferred to the
liquid inside the tubes. Therefore, the heat
transfer coefficients attained are low.
Disadvantages Thus, the heat transfer surface is greater.

MEE is more susceptible to scaling


and therefore need to be operated at
low boiling temperatures and
salinities

Higher energy consumption. Recovery


Ratio limited to about 48%.
Table 8-1: Summary of the technical and energy advantages and disadvantages of the solar-MSF and
solar-MEE systems

345

Chapter 8

8.3

Technical Evaluation of Preferred Solar Desalination System

8.3.1

Low-temperature solar heat sources

8.3.1.1 Salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP)


The salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) modelling (described earlier in Section 4.1) was used
to predict the performance of a SGSP in Melbourne coupled with the solar-MEE system. The
thicknesses of UCZ, NCZ and LCZ were assumed to be 0.2 m, 1.1 m and 1 m, respectively.
The assumed salt concentrations in the UCZ and LCZ were 25 and 220 kg/m3, respectively.
The pond started operation at the equinox (September 22) and heat extraction started after 485
days (on May 1st of the second year of operation) since the temperature patterns are the same
after the first year of operation. Figure 8-3 shows the three-year prediction of the ponds
performance. The required solar pond collection area was found by trial and error until the
LCZ temperature was higher than the supply hot water temperature requirements.

250

130

200

120

150

110

100

SGSP temperature

50
0

90

(50)

Temperature ( C)

100

80

300

Solar Radiation (W/m )

SGSP-MEE performance (Three-year prediction)


140

(100)

70

(150)

Average ambient

60

LCZ (No Load)

50

LCZ (Operating)

(200)
(250)
(300)

Supply hot water

40

Supply hot water

30

(350)

Supply solar hot water temperature

(400)

Average insolation

(450)

20

(500)

10

(550)

(600)

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

660

720

780

840

900

960 1020 1080

Day from start of pond operation

Figure 8-3: SGSP-MEE three-year prediction performance with heat extraction


starting on day 485

The required SGSP solar collection area for the three-effect solar-MEE system was found to
be 1,020 m2. Table 8-2 summarises the average LCZ and supply hot water temperatures.

346

Chapter 8

Month

May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January
February
March
April

Average LCZ
temperature

Supply hot water


temperature to
solar-MEE

91
86
81
75
68
64
64
64
68
75
81
86

80
80
75
70
65
60
60
60
65
70
75
80

Table 8-2: Solar-MEE - SGSP average LCZ and supply solar hot water
temperatures

It is noteworthy that the solar-MEE unit works at only 41% of the peak rated capacity in
winter due to the large seasonal difference in SGSP energy output (directly affected by the
variation in insolation). Operating the SGSP-MEE unit in locations with high solar radiation
and little seasonal difference in insolation (such as Alice Springs, Northern Territory;
Broome, Western Australia; and Port Augusta, South Australia) will increase the desalination
capacity factor. The summer-winter ratio of the global solar radiation on a horizontal surface
for Melbourne is approximately 2.9 as compared to 1.8 and 1.5 for Alice Springs and Broome,
respectively.

8.3.1.2 Evacuated tubular solar collector (ETSC) and thermal energy storage (TES)
The performance of the solar-MEE system coupled with evacuated tube solar collectors
(ETSC) and a thermal storage tank has also been investigated. Since the SGSP is a combined
solar collector and storage system, the analysis of the ETSC includes the coupling of a
thermal energy storage system (TES). The thermal energy is stored in an insulated tank in the
form of sensible heat. The heat transfer fluid (HTF) was chosen to be water at a storage
temperature of 90oC.
The modelling of the ETSC was described in Section 4.2. The performance variables of the
heat pipe ETSC (model: Apricus) used in this analysis can be found in Section 4.2.1.

347

Chapter 8

The technical specifications of the ETSC are as follows:


o There are 30 tubes per bank
o Each tube is 1.8 m long
o The external diameter of the outer tube is 58 mm
o The absorber area per bank is 2.4 m2
o The gross area is 4.35 m2
o The ETSC is tiled at the local latitude for Melbourne (38o).

Since water has a specific heat capacity of 4,203 J/kg.oC at a temperature of 90oC, the thermal
energy density is 1.168 kWh / m3.oC. The ETSC is coupled to the TES tank in the same way
as the conventional solar hot water system shown in Figure 7-1 (Chapter 7). The analysis was
based on Melbourne solar radiation for a surface tilted at local latitude and the ambient
temperature data (see the detailed analysis in Appendix 6). The temperature gain across the
ETSC was assumed to be 30oC while the temperature drop in the secondary circuit (supply
and return hot water to solar-MEE system) is 20oC. Therefore, with the assumed temperature
differential of 20oC, the TES tank has a thermal storage capacity of 23.35 kWh / m3. The daily
thermal heat loss from the TES tank was assumed to be 1% of the current capacity.
A Visual Basic simulation program was written to determine the required volume of the TES
tank for different ETSC collection areas. The program requires as inputs the operating
temperatures, the specifications of the ETSC, the average monthly heat requirements and an
initial trial TES volume. The TES volume is then refined automatically by the program to
ensure that the thermal energy in the tank is also greater than or equal to zero.
If the thermal energy available from the ETSC is greater than the energy requirements, then
the excess energy is stored in the TES tank (assuming that the TES thermal capacity has not
been exceeded). However, if the thermal energy required cannot be delivered directly by the
ETSC, then the TES supply the remaining thermal heat. Figure 8-4, Figure 8-5, Figure 8-6
and Figure 8-7 illustrate the ETSC-TES-MEE performance.

348

Chapter 8
Volume of T.E.S tank at varying ETSC collection area
1400
1300

1100

Volume of T.E.S Tank (m )

1200

1000
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640
2

Area of ETSC (m )

Figure 8-4: Volume of TES tank at varying ETSC collection area for the three-effect solar-MEE
system

Figure 8-4 shows how the required TES volume varies with the ETSC collection area to
satisfy the thermal demand from the three-effect solar-MEE system. Clearly as the ETSC
collection area is increased less thermal storage is required. It is noteworthy that if there was
no thermal energy storage, the ETSC collection area would have been 1,217 m2 in order to
satisfy the demand in winter.
In the economic analysis to be presented later, the capital cost of the TES tank and associated
controls was assumed to be 20% of the cost of the ETSC. Each ETSC (model: Apricus; type:
heat pipe with 30 tubes) cost approximately AUD (2008) $1,450. Figure 8-5 shows the total
capital cost at varying ETSC collection area (for different TES tank cost percentages). The
figure shows that the cheapest option is to have a small ETSC but a large TES tank (see also
Figure 8-4). However, having a large TES tank would result in a longer lead time (since the
TES tank would have to be charged over a longer period due to the much bigger thermal
capacity). Also, the heat losses would be greater.

349

Chapter 8
Total capital cost at varying ETSC areas (for different cost percentages)
$550

Total Capital cost of ETSC + Tank ($ x 10 )

15%
$500

20%
25%

$450

30%
35%

$400

40%
45%

$350
$300
$250
$200
$150
$100
200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400 420 440 460 480 500 520 540 560 580 600 620 640
2

Area of ETSC (m )

Figure 8-5: Total capital cost at varying ETSC areas (for different TES tank cost percentages)

Table 8-3 shows the three-effect MEE system average daily thermal energy demand and
supply hot water temperature for different months of the year.

Month

Average daily
thermal energy
demand (kWh)

Supply hot water


temperature to
solar-MEE

417
417
373
329
286
242
242
242
286
329
373
417

80
80
75
70
65
60
60
60
65
70
75
80

May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
January (as from second year)
February (as from second year)
March (as from second year)
April (as from second year)

Table 8-3: ETSC-TES-MEE average daily thermal energy demand and supply hot
water temperature (for three-effect solar-MEE system)

A three-year prediction of the three-effect ETSC-TES-MEE system (when coupled with a


ETSC having a collection area of 504 m2) in Melbourne is shown in Figure 8-6. In order to
satisfy the demand in winter time, the TES must have a thermal capacity of 13,033 kWh. This
results in a TES volume of 558 m3. It is noteworthy that the TES tank reduces the ETSC solar
collection area by ~ 59%.

350

Chapter 8
Solar-MEE - ETSC performance (Three-year prediction) [ETSC area = 504 m2]
16,000

2,000

Heat required by solar-MEE

Heat supplied by T.E.S tank

Heat stored in T.E.S tank

Heat supplied by ETSC


14,000

1,600
12,000
1,400
10,000

1,200
1,000

8,000

800

6,000

600
4,000
400

Thermal energy in T.E.S tank (kWh)

Daily average energy (kWh / day)

1,800

Heat available from ETSC

2,000

200
0

0
0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

660

720

780

840

900

960 1020 1080

Duration (Days)

Figure 8-6: ETSC-TES-MEE three-year prediction performance (ETSC area = 504 m2). The
vertical scale for heat stored in the tank is on the right hand side, and is in kWh, not kWh/day
as for the other curves.

The TES volume required is quite large. This is due to large seasonal difference in the solar
radiation for Melbourne. If the ETSC-TES-MEE system is installed in locations with high
solar radiation and little seasonal difference in insolation (such as Alice Springs, Northern
Territory; Broome, Western Australia; and Port Augusta, South Australia), the required TES
volume would be much smaller. The summer-winter ratio of the global solar radiation on a
tilted surface for Melbourne is approximately 2.3 as compared to 1.5 and 1.4 for Alice
Springs and Broome, respectively.
Figure 8-7 shows the performance during the first year of the solar-MEE operation. In order
to have a meaningful comparison between the SGSP-MEE and the ETSC-TES-MEE systems,
the thermal energy demand was applied to the same days (in both simulations) during the
simulated year (starting at 120 days from the beginning of the year). The figure shows that the
TES supplies 13,033 kWh of thermal energy for 81 days only (22% of the year) from May 1st
to July 21st. This gives a daily average thermal energy of 6.7 kWh.

351

Chapter 8
Solar-MEE - ETSC performance [ETSC area = 504 m2]
16,000

2,000

Heat required by solar-MEE

Heat supplied by T.E.S tank

Heat stored in T.E.S tank

Heat supplied by ETSC


14,000

1,600
12,000
1,400
10,000

1,200
1,000

8,000

800

6,000

600
4,000
400

Thermal energy in T.E.S tank (kWh)

Daily average energy (kWh / day)

1,800

Heat available from ETSC

2,000

200
0

0
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

390

420

450

480

Duration (Days)

Figure 8-7: ETSC-TES-MEE performance during first year of solar-MEE operation (ETSC
area = 504 m2)

The energy required by the solar-MEE is shown in Table 8-3. Figure 8-7 shows that thermal
energy demand begins 120 days from the start of operation. The average daily demand
between day 120 and 180 is 417 kWh / day. The ETSC can only supply between 173 and 400
kWh/day during that period (depending on the incoming insolation). The thermal energy
required cannot all be delivered directly by the ETSC. Therefore, the TES (which has been
charged previously) must supply between 17 and 244 kWh/day to make up for the difference.
Between day 181 and 211, the demand is 373 kWh / day. The ETSC produces between 218
and 466 kWh / day during that period. The ETSC energy production exceeds the demand on
day 201 (indicated by the TES minimum thermal energy value). After day 201 the ETSC
directly supplies the entire demand, with any excess heat is stored in the TES tank. If the TES
is fully charged, the excess energy is wasted.

Figure 8-8 shows the TES tank thermal energy profiles for different ETSC collection areas,
which consequently result in different TES thermal capacity. The figures show that the supply
of thermal energy occurs for a longer period when less ETSC collection area is used. Less
thermal energy (provided by the ETSC) will be wasted at low ETSC collection area. Also,
there is a thermal energy residual at low ETSC collection area (or high TES thermal capacity).

352

Chapter 8
TES tank thermal energy distribution [ETSC area = 240 m2]

TES tank thermal energy distribution [ETSC area = 360 m2]


25,000
Thermal energy in T.E.S tank (kWh)

Thermal energy in T.E.S tank (kWh)

35,000
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
0

20,000

15,000

10,000

5,000

0
0

30

60

90

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450

30

60

90

Duration (Days)

Duration (Days)

(a) ETSC area = 240 m2

(b) ETSC area = 360 m2


TES tank thermal energy distribution [ETSC area = 600 m2]

TES tank thermal energy distribution [ETSC area = 480 m2]

12,000
Thermal energy in T.E.S tank (kWh)

16,000
Thermal energy in T.E.S tank (kWh)

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450

14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0

10,000

8,000

6,000

4,000

2,000

0
0

30

60

90

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450

Duration (Days)

30

60

90

120 150 180 210 240 270 300 330 360 390 420 450
Duration (Days)

(d) ETSC area = 600 m2

(c) ETSC area = 480 m

Figure 8-8: TES tank thermal energy distribution for different ETSC collection areas (threeeffect MEE system)

8.3.2

Estimated performance of small, medium and large-scale solar-MEE


desalination systems

8.3.2.1 Plant capacities


In order to investigate the technical performance of solar-MEE systems, three different plant
capacities were considered (small-, medium- and large-scale units). The three-effect solarMEE unit investigated in this research project (see Chapter 6) will be used to represent the
small-scale solar-MEE system. The medium- and large-scale units have a maximum distillate
production of 200 kL/day and 15 ML/day, respectively. It is noteworthy that the distillate
capacity of the large-scale unit considered here is approximately one-tenth of that of the
Kwinana SWRO system in Perth, Australia (see Section 2.8.4.1); the performance of which
will be compared later. Note that the medium- and large-scale units consist of twelve effects
for the reasons mentioned in Section 8.2.4.

353

Chapter 8

8.3.2.2 SGSP-MEE systems


Using the solar-MEE and SGSP simulation models, the performance of the SGSP-MEE
systems have been determined as shown in Table 8-4.

Performance indicator

Small-scale

Medium-scale

Large-scale

12

12

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Fresh water production rate

840 - 2045

82.2 200

6.2 15

L/day

kL/day

ML/day

810 1,030

226 287

226 287

30 65%

28 68%

28 68%

482 kL

47.2 ML

3.54 GL

12.7

1.5

1.5

Evaporator area (m )

27.3

2,046

Length of evaporator (m)

3.5

16

0.365

1.0

5.0

Diameter of tubes (mm)

18

25

31

Total number of tubes per evaporator

19

100

1,313

1,020 m2

27,779 m2

2.083 km2

0.8 1.8

3.0 6.4

3.0 6.4

Number of effects

[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]


Specific thermal energy (kJ/kg)
[lower value at 85C; higher at 60C]
Recovery ratio
[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]
Yearly fresh water production
Specific electrical energy (kWh / m3)
2

Evaporator shell diameter (m)

Collection area of SGSP


Specific daily distillate production (L/m2)
[lower value at 60C; higher at 80C]

Table 8-4: Technical performance of potential commercial SGSP-MEE desalination systems

8.3.2.3 ETSC-TES-MEE systems


Similarly, the performances of the ETSC-TES-MEE systems have been determined using the
solar-MEE and ETSC-TES simulation models. Table 8-5 summarises the performance values.
The ground area needed for the ETSC was calculated using the equations and procedures
described in Section A6.2 (Appendix 6). The ground area includes the area needed between
rows of ETSC to prevent casting of shadows on neighbouring ETSC. The Apricus ETSC in
this analysis are 3.5 m wide and the length of each tube including the header are assumed to
354

Chapter 8

be 2 m. The ETSC are assumed to be arranged in a square fashion. It is noteworthy that the
ground area needed by the ETSCs (for medium- and large-scale units) is 3.5 times that of the
corresponding SGSP (compare Table 8-5 with Table 8-4).

Performance indicator

Small-scale

Medium-scale

Large-scale

12

12

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Fresh water production rate

840 2,045

82.2 200

6.2 15

L/day

kL/day

ML/day

810 1,030

226 287

226 287

30 65%

28 68%

28 68%

482 kL

47.2 ML

3.54 GL

12.7

1.5

1.5

Evaporator area (m2)

27.3

2,046

Length of evaporator (m)

3.5

16

0.365

1.0

5.0

Diameter of tubes (mm)

18

25

31

Total number of tubes per evaporator

19

100

1,313

Total collection area of ETSCs (m2)

504

13,680

1,029,444

Number of ETSC banks

210

5,700

428,935

3,631 m2

96,262 m2

7.2 km2

558

15,280

1,139,970

13,033

356,791

26,619,251

Number of effects

[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]


Specific thermal energy (kJ/kg)
[lower value at 85C; higher at 60C]
Recovery ratio
[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]
Yearly fresh water production
3

Specific electrical energy (kWh / m )

Evaporator shell diameter (m)

Total ground area needed for ETSCs


Volume of TES (m3)
Total thermal energy stored (kWh)

Table 8-5: Technical performance of potential commercial ETSC-TES-MEE desalination systems

355

Chapter 8

8.4

Economic Evaluation of Preferred Solar Desalination System

8.4.1

Methodology

In this economic evaluation, the technologies will be compared economically on a full


lifecycle cost basis. The technical performance of the solar-MEE systems were based on
Melbourne insolation. The capital and running costs (including replacement costs) over the
plants expected lifetime are all converted to present values using a real discount rate. The
total present value of lifecycle cost is then divided by the total production of fresh water over
its lifetime to obtain a unit lifecycle water cost in terms of AUD $(2008) per kL. The salvage
or disposal costs of the plant at the end of its life will not be taken into account in this
analysis. The evaluation procedures are as follows:
o Work out capital cost of MEE desalination plant: $ Cdesal
o Work out capital cost of heat sources (SGSP or ETSC-TES): $ Csolar
o Total capital cost: $ Ctotal = $ Cdesal + $ Csolar
o Work out yearly operating cost of MEE desalination plant (including maintenance,

manpower, pre-treatment and electric energy): $ Odesal


o Work out yearly operating cost of heat sources: $ Osolar
o Total operating cost: $ Ototal = $ Odesal + $ Osolar
o Work out total yearly fresh water production (taking into account the variation of fresh

water due to variation of solar heat supply temperature): Dfresh (m3/year)


o Work out the PWF of operating over n number of years using the Uniform Series Present

Worth Factor (PWF) method as follows: $ P

(1 + i )n 1

P = Ototal
i (1 + i )n

(8-1)

In Equation (8-1), i is the interest rate and n is the number of years.


o Work out the Net Present Value (Total Present Worth) of costs: Total PWF = $ P + $

Ctotal
o The unit cost of fresh water in AUD $(2008)/m3 = Total PWF / (Dfresh X n).

356

Chapter 8

8.4.2

SGSP costs

The cost analysis of the salinity-gradient solar pond (SGSP) was based on an earlier
evaluation of a 3000 m2 solar pond by Andrews and Akbarzadeh (2002) and consultation with
Privett (2007). Figure 8-9 shows the construction breakdown cost of a 3000 m2 SGSP
constructed at Pyramid Hill, northern Victoria in 2002.
Construction cost analysis of a 3,000 m2 SGSP
Design and site
preparation
10%
Brine
27%

Earthworks
11%

Interface Wall
11%
Ancillary works
9%

Pond Liner
23%

Insulation
9%

Figure 8-9: Construction cost analysis of a 3,000 m2 SGSP

The brine used to set up the gradient and maintain the SGSP is usually the largest component
of the capital cost, followed by the liner and insulation. The required amount of salt, liner and
insulation are proportional to the SGSP solar collection area whereas the earthworks, interface
wall and site preparation are subject to economies of scale. The amount of sodium chloride
salt required is based on the ponds NCZ (1.1 m) and LCZ (1 m) thicknesses; and the solar
collection area. A saturated salt concentration of 22% was assumed in the analysis. The liner
material is low-density polyethylene (LDPE) with a thickness of 0.5 mm. The pond is
insulated with 100 mm thick expanded polystyrene. Table 8-6 lists the main parameters used
in the SGSP economic analysis.
Cost of sodium chloride salt ($ per tonne)
Liner cost ($/m2)
Insulation cost ($/m2)
Earthworks ($/m2)

$ 75
$3
$4
$1-2

Table 8-6: Technical parameters used in SGSP economic analysis

357

Chapter 8

Table 8-7 shows the capital and operating costs of the SGSPs determined from the analysis.
The collection areas of the SGSPs were determined from the technical evaluation (see Section
8.3.1.1 and Section 8.3.2.2)

Small-scale

Medium-scale

Large-scale

Collection area of SGSP

1,020 m2

27,779 m2

2.083 km2

Capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 65,560

$ 1.32 millions

$ 86.4 million

Annual operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 6,200

$ 61,100

$ 2.75 million

$ 64

$ 48

$ 41

Specific capital cost (AUD $/m2)

Table 8-7: Capital and operating costs of SGSP for the three desalination plants

8.4.3

ETSC and TES costs

As noted earlier, ETSCs (model: Apricus, type: heat pipe with 30 tubes) bought in Australia
costs AUD (2008) $1,450. Similar ETSCs can be bought from China at a cost between US
(2008) $290 and $350. According to the Australian customs tariff (classes of countries;
schedule 3; section 12), the Peoples Republic of China falls under Part 4 Division 1 Developing countries subject to DCS rates of duty (ACS, 2006). The customs tariff (schedule
3; section 13; chapter 70/3; ref 7003.30.00) states that glass in sheets or profiles with an
absorbent attract a 4% duty under the DCS rate. Aluminium reservoirs and tanks of a capacity
exceeding 300 litres attract a 5% general duty rate under the customs tariff (schedule 3;
section 15; chapter 76/8; ref 7611.00.00). Similarly, aluminium frame structures attract a 5%
general duty (schedule 3; section 15; chapter 76/8; ref 7610.90.00). Transportation costs based
on full container load (~ 30 units) would cost between US (2008) $1,600 and $2,000.
Therefore, the approximate cost of ETSC (including transportation and 5% custom duty)
bought directly from China and delivered in Australia would cost between AUD (2008) $405
and $490. This is 28% to 34% of the cost of similar ETSCs bought in Australia. The capital
cost would be much lower for large-scale system due to economy of scale.
In the economic analysis, the ETSC was assumed to cost AUD (2008) $400, $300 and $225
per bank for the small-, medium- and large-scale systems, respectively. The capital cost of the
TES tank was found using Figure 8-15a. The operating cost of the ETSC and TES tank is
assumed to be 2% of the total capital cost.

358

Chapter 8

8.4.4

Heat exchangers and equipment costs

Desalination equipment includes pressure vessels, heat exchangers, evaporators and pumps. In
order to estimate the capital costs of desalination equipments; published figures from Peters et
al. (2003), which provide average cost for different sizes were used. The costs from the
figures in US $(2002) were converted to the equivalent AUD $(2008) using the US average
yearly inflation rates and the US $ to AUD $ currency exchange rates in August 2008 (1 US $
~ 1.135 AUD $). By taking into account the inflation and exchange rates, US $100 in 2002 is
worth AUD $134.52 in 2008. Figure 8-10, Figure 8-11, Figure 8-12, Figure 8-13, Figure 8-14,
Figure 8-15 and Figure 8-16 show the equipment published costs figures used in this analysis.
In some of these figures, the purchased costs of equipment decrease with larger sizes as a
result of economies of scale.

(a) effect of tube length

(b) effect of tube diameter

Figure 8-10: Effect of tube length and diameter on cost of conventional shell-and-tube heat
exchangers (Peters et al., 2003)

(a) stainless steel tubes relative to allcarbon-steel construction

(b) relative costs of heat exchanger tubing and heat


exchangers with 150 m2 of surface

Figure 8-11: Relative costs of heat exchangers (Peters et al., 2003)

359

Chapter 8

(a) cost of multiple-pipe heat exchangers

(b) cost of spiral tube heat exchangers

Figure 8-12: Cost of multiple-pipe and spiral tube heat exchangers (Peters et al., 2003)

Figure 8-13: Purchased cost of single-effect evaporators (Peters et al., 2003)

Figure 8-14: Cost of tank vent condensers (Peters et al., 2003)

360

Chapter 8

(a) cost of large field-erected tanks, including


platforms and hardware

(b) cost of pipe insulation

Figure 8-15: Cost of large field-erected tanks and pipe insulation (Peters et al., 2003)

Figure 8-16: Cost of centrifugal pumps, including electric motor (Peters et al., 2003)

8.4.5

PV Panel and battery costs

Electrical energy is required to run the supply pump, circulation pump, extraction pumps and
vacuum pump. Conventional electricity was used to power these pumps in this research
project. The parasitic electrical energy for the three-effect solar-MEE system was reported in
Section 6.3.5. The total average electrical energy consumption was found to be 12.7 kWh /
m3. This is equivalent to 45.7 kJ / kg, which is 5.6% of the total thermal energy consumption
(810 kJ / kg) when the SP-3E-MEE operates at 86oC and 2 LPM. Although this is a very
small proportion of the total energy required, photovoltaic panels and batteries could be used
to make the system completely zero emission. The economic analysis will compare the use of
conventional energy to power the pumps with the use of solar modules and batteries. The
361

Chapter 8

specific electrical energy consumption for the medium- and large-scale system was assumed
to be 1.5 kWh / m3. Therefore, the daily electrical energy demands for the small-, mediumand large-scale solar-MEE units are 26, 300 and 22,500 kWh, respectively.
PV panels with different power capacity, from 5 W (model: BPSX5) to 175 W (model:
BP4175) are available from BP Solar Australia. The specifications of BP4175 (listed in Table
8-8) solar module were used in this analysis.
Maximum power, Pmax
Voltage at maximum power point, Vmp
Current at maximum power point, Imp
Short-circuit current, Isc
Open-circuit voltage, Voc
Total solar cells area, Apv
Efficiency, spec

175 W
35.4 V
4.94 A
5.54 A
43.6 V
1.125 m2
13.9%

Efficiency reduction at 200 W/m2


Nominal voltage

< 3%
24V

Table 8-8: BP4175 Specifications at 1000 W/m2 and cell temperature


of 25oC (BPSolar, 2008)

BP Solar PV panels cost between AUD (2008) $6 and $8 per watt, depending on associated
controls and support frame. The PV modules for the small-, medium- and large-scale systems
were assumed to cost AUD (2008) $8 / W, $6 / W and $4 / W, respectively.
The information on the BP solar module is given under a standard cell temperature of 25oC.
The efficiency of conversion from solar radiation to electrical energy drops approximately at a
rate of 0.5 % per oC. Solar cells are usually 10 to 30oC hotter than the daytime ambient
temperature. The temperature effect will be taken into account in this analysis. A cell
temperature of 20oC hotter than the ambient temperature was assumed. The daily output from
each PV panel can be determined as follows.

Ppv = 0.175 PSH actual


spec

(8-2)

where actual is the actual efficiency (taking into account the temperature effect) and PSH is
the peak sun hours (the equivalent number of hours when the sun shines at 1000 W/m2 on a
particular day) determined from the daily insolation for a surface tilted at local latitude for
Melbourne (in MJ/m2-day).
362

Chapter 8

If PV panels are used without battery storage, the panels must be sized to provide the required
electrical energy in winter. This is inefficient since the PV panels would be oversized. The
number of panels can be reduced by incorporating battery storage.
For the purpose of sizing the PV modules, an overall efficiency (excluding the efficiency of
the solar module) of 70% was assumed; this takes into account the inefficiencies during the
process of batteries charging and discharging; and losses in other components such as the DC
to AC inverter. Therefore, the PV panels and batteries must be able to supply 37, 429 and
32,143 kWh to the small-, medium- and large solar-MEE systems.
A bus system voltage (based on the peak electrical load and current) of 48V was assumed.
Since the BP PV solar module nominal voltage is 24V, the modules must be arranged such
that each string has two modules in series.
A daily depth of discharge of 70% has been assumed for the batteries. The batteries were
assumed to cost AUD (2008) $200 / kWh, $160 / kWh and $100 / kWh for the small-,
medium- and large-scale systems, respectively. The lifetime of the batteries was assumed to
be eight years. Therefore, the battery replacement cost has to be taken into consideration in
the lifecycle economic analysis.
Solar regulator (battery charger) is required in order to protect the batteries from overcharging and from over-discharging. The selection is based on the battery bus voltage and the
charging current. For the purpose of evaluation, battery chargers are assumed (based on
published values in the literature) to cost AUD (2008) $675 / kW. Due to economies of scale,
the battery chargers were assumed to cost AUD (2008) $240 / kW and $150 / kW for the
medium- and large-scale systems, respectively.
The size of a DC to AC inverter is directly determined by peak power. An inverter efficiency
of 85% was assumed in this analysis. The approximate unit cost of an inverter is AUD (2008)
$1,125 / kW for small-scale system. The assumed inverter capital costs for the medium- and
large-scale systems are AUD (2008) $400 / kW and $250 / kW, respectively.
As was done for the ETSC-TES analysis (see Section 8.3.1.2), a Visual Basic simulation
program was written to determine the size of the battery storage at varying number of PV
panels. The number of panels was also varied to compare the total capital cost. If the
electrical energy available from the PV panels is greater than the electrical energy
requirements, then the excess energy is stored in the battery banks (assuming that the battery
363

Chapter 8

capacity has not been exceeded). However, if the electrical energy required cannot be
delivered directly by the solar modules, then the battery banks supply the remaining electrical
power.
PV panels & batteries performance [47 PV panels, 240 batteries]
80

Electrical energy required by solar-MEE

Energy supplied directly by PV

Energy supplied by batteries

1,400

Energy stored in batteries


1,200

60
1,000
50
800

40

600

30

400

20

Energy stored in batteries (kWh)

Average electrical energy (kWh/day)

70

Energy available from PV

200

10

0
0

30

60

90

120

150

180

210

240

270

300

330

360

Duration (Days)

Figure 8-17: PV panels and batteries performance for three-effects solar-MEE (47 PV panels,
240 batteries)

Figure 8-17 shows the performance of the PV panels and batteries. With the PV panels
costing an average of AUD (2008) $8 / W and the batteries costing AUD (2008) $200 / kWh
for the small-scale system; the total capital cost (excluding the battery charger and inverter)
would be AUD (2008) $281,800. It is noteworthy that 77 % of this cost is allocated to the
batteries. It is therefore better (from an economic perspective) to keep the battery storage to a
minimum. Furthermore, batteries cannot store energy for a long period without substantial
loss.
With no battery storage, 68 PV panels would be required. This would cost a total of AUD
(2008) $95,200. However, some battery storage is needed for days without any input from the
solar modules (on cloudy days). A minimum of three days of storage was assumed. Since the
daily electrical energy requirement is 37.08 kWh for the three-effect MEE and the battery
daily depth of discharge is 70%; the total battery capacity must be at least 159 kWh. From the
analysis, 60 PV panels and a total battery capacity of 207 kWh would be needed. This
amounts to a total capital cost AUD (2008) $115,802 (27.5% of which is allocated to the
batteries). The same analysis has been performed for the medium- and large-scale solar-MEE
units. The operating cost of the PV modules, batteries and associated controls is assumed to
be 2.5% of the total capital cost. The results are summarised in Table 8-9.
364

Chapter 8

Small-scale

Mediumscale

Large-scale

12.7

1.5

1.5

37

429

32,143

Specific capital cost of PV panels ($ per watt)

Number of PV panels needed (without battery storage)

68

776

58,170

Number of PV panels needed (for three days storage)

60

701

52,642

Total installed power (kW)

10.5

123

9,212

Total battery capacity needed for 3 days storage (kWh)

207

1,918

137,791

Capital cost of PV panels in AUD $(2008)

$ 84,000

$ 736,050

$ 36.85 million

Capital cost of batteries in AUD $(2008)

$ 31,802

$ 293,878

$ 13.78 million

$ 115,802

$ 1 million

$ 50.62 million

Specific electrical energy (kWh / m3)


Average daily electrical energy requirement [with an
overall efficiency of 70%] (kWh per day)

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)


[excluding battery charger and inverter]

Table 8-9: PV panels and batteries requirement for solar-MEE systems

8.4.6

MEE evaporators costs comparative analysis

The purchased costs of falling-film and horizontal tubes evaporators from Figure 8-13 were
used to briefly compare the two types of evaporators. Table 8-10 shows the equivalent cost in
AUD $(2008).
Heat transfer area (m2)

Falling-film

Submerged tubes

$ 3,736

$ 1,008

27.3

$ 292,454

$ 77,489

2,046

$ 3,047,477

$ 788,391

Table 8-10: Purchased cost of evaporators in AUD $ (2008)

Clearly, falling-film evaporators are almost four times as expensive as submerged tubes
evaporators. It is noteworthy, however, that the results from the theoretical investigation
showed that

the OHTC falling film evaporators were up to three times the OHTC of

submerged tubes (see Section 6.1.5). High OHTC implies a low heat transfer area requirement
and hence a low capital cost to achieve the same overall system performance. By taking the
three-fold improvement in heat transfer into consideration, the cost of falling-film evaporators
365

Chapter 8

would be up to 29% more expensive. The limited movement of the boiling saltwater around
submerged tubes could lead to a high rate of scale formation (see Section 6.3.8) and hence
could further impede the heat transfer performance. The effect of scale on the performance of
the submerged evaporators still remains an open yet very important question. For this reason,
it is recommended that falling-film evaporators be used for processes with high feed saltwater
concentrations.

8.4.7

Fresh water costs

The values of the economic parameters used to estimate the water production cost are listed in
Table 8-11.
MEE Pre-treatment cost ($/m3)
MEE Labour cost ($/m3)
MEE Maintenance cost (% of MEE plant capital cost)
Conventional Electricity ($/kWh)
Lifetime of batteries (years)
System Life (years)
Real discount rate (%)

0.030
0.115
3%
0.14
8
25
5%

Table 8-11: Economic parameters adopted in analysis

The four different scenarios investigated are as follows:


o Case I: SGSP coupled to solar-MEE (the pumps are powered by conventional electricity)
o Case II: ETSC-TES coupled to solar-MEE (the pumps are powered by conventional

electricity)
o Case III: SGSP coupled to solar-MEE (the pumps are powered by renewable energy from

the PV-battery storage system)


o Case IV: ETSC-TES coupled to solar-MEE (the pumps are powered by renewable energy

from the PV-battery storage system).


The unit costs of the fresh water produced for the three different plant capacities are given in
Table 8-12. The details pertaining to the PV and batteries can be found in Table 8-9.

366

Chapter 8

Performance indicator

Small-scale

Medium-scale

Large-scale

12

12

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Fresh water production rate

840 - 2045

82.2 200

L/day

kL/day

810 1,030

226 287

226 287

30 65%

28 68%

28 68%

482 kL

47.2 ML

3.54 GL

12.7

1.5

1.5

Collection area of SGSP

1,020 m2

27,779 m2

2.083 km2

Case I: SGSP-MEE
Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 114,759

$ 3.17 million

$ 127.5 million

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 11,624

$ 142,469

$ 5.93 million

$ 23.12

$ 4.39

$ 2.38

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 249,461

$ 4.28 million

$ 182 million

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 17,640

$ 191,585

$ 7.86 million

$ 41.33

$ 5.92

$ 3.31

Total collection area of ETSCs (m2)

504

13,680

1,029,444

Number of ETSC banks

210

5,700

428,935

3,631 m2

96,262 m2

7.2 km2

558

15,280

1,139,970

Total thermal energy stored (kWh)

13,033

356,791

26,619,251

Total ground area needed for TES tank

48 m2

1,268 m2

94,098 m2

3,679 m2

97,530 m2

7.3 km2

$ 158,775

$ 4.06 million

$ 159 million

$ 7,607

$ 125,640

$ 5.54 million

Number of effects

[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]


Specific thermal energy (kJ/kg)
[lower value at 85C; higher at 60C]
Recovery ratio
[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]
Yearly fresh water production
3

Specific electrical energy (kWh / m )

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for


Case I :SGSP-MEE ($/m3)

6.2 15 ML/day

Case III: SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for


Case III:SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery
($/m3)

Total ground area needed for ETSCs


Volume of TES (m3)

Total ground area needed for ETSC-TES


Case II: ETSC-TES-MEE

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)


Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

367

Chapter 8

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for

$ 22.07

$ 4.94

$ 2.68

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 293,477

$ 5.17 million

$ 214 million

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 13,623

$ 174,756

$ 7.47 million

$ 40.29

$ 6.47

$ 3.60

Case II: ETSC-TES-MEE ($/m3)


Case IV: ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-Battery

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for


Case IV: ETSC-TES-MEE + PVBattery ($/m3)
Table 8-12: Water cost evaluation of SGSP-MEE and ETSC-TES-MEE desalination systems

Water cost for different cases


$55

Small-scale
$50

Medium-scale

$45

Large-scale

Case I: SGSP-MEE
Case II: ETSC-TES-MEE
Case III: SGSP-MEE + PV-BATTERY for pumps
Case IV: ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-BATTERY for pumps

$41.33

$40.29

Water Cost (AUD $ / m )

$40
$35
$30
$25

$23.12

$22.07

$20
$15
$10
$5

$4.94

$4.39

$2.68

$2.38

$5.92
$3.31

$6.47
$3.60

$0
Case I

Case II

Case III

Case IV

Figure 8-18: Water cost for the different cases (for Melbourne)

Figure 8-18 compares the water cost for the different cases investigated. Clearly, the largescale SGSP-MEE (Case I) resulted in the cheapest option with a water cost of AUD (2008)
$2.38 / m3. The system can be completely zero emission for an additional AUD $0.92 / m3
(Case III). The unit water cost from the ETSC-MEE system for large-scale units was slightly
higher than the SGSP-MEE unit due to the higher capital cost incurred. Some uncertainties
remain in the assumptions made about the different cost parameters. In order to investigate the
effect of the main variables, a sensitivity analysis has been conducted. Figure 8-19, Figure
8-20, Figure 8-21, Figure 8-22, Figure 8-23 illustrate the variation in the water cost for
different parameters.

368

Chapter 8

It can be seen from the figures that the salt and the ETSC costs are the most important
parameters. It is noteworthy that if the SGSP is integrated into a salinity mitigation scheme
where there is abundant saline underground water, the salt would be available for free and
hence the water cost would drop to AUD (2008) $1.78 / m3. An estimation of the effect of the
main cost parameters assumed in this analysis is shown later in Section 8.7.4.

Effect of Salt cost on fresh water cost (for SGSP-MEE unit)


$2.51

$90

$4.51
$2.38

Salt Cost ($ per tonne)

$75

$4.39
$2.22

$55

$4.23
$2.06

$35

$4.07
$1.90

$15

$3.91

$1.2

Large-scale

$1.78

$0

$3.79
$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$2.0

$2.2

$2.4

$2.6

$2.8

$3.0

$3.2

$3.4

$3.6

$3.8

$4.0

Medium-scale
$4.2

$4.4

$4.6

$4.8

Fresh water Cost ($/m )

Figure 8-19: Effect of salt cost on fresh water cost (medium- and large-scale SGSP-MEE units)

Effect of Insulation cost on fresh water cost (for SGSP-MEE unit)


Medium-scale

$4.53
$2.48

$8

$4.48

Insulation Cost ($/m )

Large-scale

$2.53

$10

$2.43

$6

$4.44
$2.38

$4

$4.39
$2.34

$2

$4.34
$2.29

$0

$1.2

$4.30
$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$2.0

$2.2

$2.4

$2.6

$2.8

$3.0

$3.2

$3.4

$3.6

$3.8

$4.0

$4.2

$4.4

$4.6

$4.8

Fresh water Cost ($/m )

Figure 8-20: Effect of insulation cost on fresh water cost (medium- and large-scale SGSP-MEE
units)

369

Chapter 8
Effect of Liner cost on fresh water cost (for SGSP-MEE unit)

Large-scale

$4.50
$2.46

$5

Liner Cost ($/m )

Medium-scale

$2.49

$6

$4.46
$2.42

$4

$4.43
$2.38

$3

$4.39
$2.35

$2

$4.35
$2.31

$1

$4.32
$2.28

$0

$4.28

$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$2.0

$2.2

$2.4

$2.6

$2.8

$3.0

$3.2

$3.4

$3.6

$3.8

$4.0

$4.2

$4.4

$4.6

$4.8

Fresh water Cost ($/m )

Figure 8-21: Effect of liner cost on fresh water cost (medium- and large-scale SGSP-MEE units)

Effect of ETSC cost on fresh water cost (for large-scale ETSC-TES-MEE unit)
400

$3.77

ETSC cost ($ per bank)

350

$3.46

300

$3.15

225

$2.68

200

$2.53

150

$2.21

100

$1.90

50
$1.2

$1.59
$1.4

$1.6

$1.8

$2.0

$2.2

$2.4

$2.6

$2.8

$3.0

$3.2

$3.4

$3.6

$3.8

$4.0

$4.2

Fresh water Cost ($/m )

Figure 8-22: Effect of ETSC cost on fresh water cost (for large-scale ETSC-TES-MEE unit)

370

Chapter 8
Effect of Batteries cost on fresh water cost (for large-scale SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery unit)

Battery cost ($ / kWh)

150

$3.55

125

$3.43

100

$3.31

75

$3.18

50

$3.00

$3.06

$3.05

$3.10

$3.15

$3.20

$3.25

$3.30

$3.35

$3.40

$3.45

$3.50

$3.55

$3.60

Fresh water Cost ($/m3)

Figure 8-23: Effect of batteries cost on fresh water cost (for large-scale SGSP-MEE + PVBattery unit)

8.5

Preferred Low-Temperature Heat Source

8.5.1

Overall performance for Melbourne

The technical performance of the three-effect SGSP-MEE ETSC-TES-MEE systems was


presented in Section 8.3.1.1 and Section 8.3.1.2. The performance of commercial units is
shown in Table 8-4 and Table 8-5. The ground area needed by the ETSCs (for medium- and
large-scale units) is 3.5 times that of the corresponding SGSP. The ground area includes the
area needed between rows of ETSC to prevent casting of shadows on neighbouring ETSC,
which is not a concern for SGSP. SGSP would be the obvious choice if cost of land is
significant (assuming that the base of the SGSP is leak proof to prevent any brine leakage
which could affect the land value). ETSC coupled with a TES tank requires flow and
temperature controls. However, it requires very little maintenance. SGSP on the other hand
requires periodical monitoring and maintenance (see Section 3.5.2).
It is noteworthy that the collection area of SGSP could be further reduced if the heat is
extracted from the NCZ as well as the LCZ, since the pond would be operating at higher
efficiency (see Section 3.5.3). However, further experimental tests on large-scale ponds are
required to see the effect on the gradient stability (see Section 3.5.3.8).
The ETSC-MEE was found to be more expensive (by AUD $0.30 / m3 for large-scale units)
than the SGSP-MEE (based on Melbourne insolation). As noted earlier, cheaper ETSC are
available from China. This could reduce the capital cost of the ETSC-TES system further and
371

Chapter 8

make the system favourable. However, if a SGSP is located in an area where there is
underground brackish water and salt production facilities are already established, the brine
needed to setup and maintain the SGSP could be provided at very low- or no-cost. The
preferred choice of heat source is dependent on the location and existing facilities, and further
detailed study is warranted to make a firm decision at a particular location.

8.5.2

Performance for Alice Springs

It is noteworthy that in the modelling conducted assuming Melbourne insolation levels, the
solar-MEE unit works at only 41% of the peak rated capacity in winter due to the large
seasonal difference in SGSP energy output (directly affected by the variation in insolation).
This large seasonal difference also increases the TES thermal capacity. Operating the SGSPMEE or the ETSC-TES-MEE unit in locations with higher solar radiation than Melbourne and
little seasonal difference in insolation (such as Alice Springs, Northern Territory; Broome,
Western Australia; and Port Augusta, South Australia) will result in a more uniform energy
output and increase the desalination capacity factor. Figure 8-24 shows the average yearly
global solar radiation levels for Australia.

Figure 8-24: Average yearly global solar radiation levels for Australia.
Adapted from Hutchison and Kesteven (1998)

However, desalination is required only in areas where there are water shortages and easy
access to seawater or brackish water. Water levels in reservoirs are affected by the annual
rainfall/precipitation. Figure 8-25b shows areas where there has been a decline in the rainfall
over the last three years.
372

Chapter 8

(a) average rainfall

(b) average rainfall anomaly

Figure 8-25: Average rainfall and rainfall anomaly (October 20052008) for Australia (BOM, 2009)

Figure 8-26 shows the monthly average total global radiation on a horizontal surface for
Melbourne, Alice Springs and Broome. The summer-winter ratio for Melbourne is
approximately 2.9 as compared to 1.8 and 1.5 for Alice Springs and Broome, respectively.
Since Alice Springs has a smaller summer-winter ratio and a higher maximum insolation, the
collection area of SGSP or ETSC will be smaller as compared to Melbourne. In addition, the
thermal energy output will be more uniform, consequently reducing the amount of thermal
storage required.
Monthly average Total global radiation on a horizontal surface
34

Melbourne, VIC (Lat: 37.47 S, Lon: 144.58 E)

32

Alice Springs, NT (Lat: 23.80 S, Lon: 133.89 E)

Total global radiation (MJ/m -day)

30

Broome, WA (Lat: 17.57 S, Lon: 122.14 E)

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Month (1 is January, 12 is December)

Figure 8-26: Monthly average total global radiation on a surface inclined at latitude angle (for
Melbourne, Alice Springs and Broome)

373

Chapter 8

Using the models developed, the collection areas needed for Alice Springs have been found.
Table 8-13 shows the comparative analysis of the collections areas and water costs for largescale SGSP-MEE and ETSC-TES-MEE systems for Melbourne and Alice Springs.
Location
Performance indicator
Melbourne

Alice Springs

37.47o S

23.80o S

Number of PV panels needed (for three days storage)

52,642

35,415

Total installed power (kW)

9,212

6,198

137,791

137,843

2.083 km2

1.021 km2

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for Case I ($/m3)

$ 2.38

$ 1.51

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for Case III ($/m3)

$ 3.31

$ 2.32

1,029,444

460,560

Number of ETSC banks

428,935

191,900

Total ground area needed for ETSCs

7.2 km2

2.28 km2

Volume of TES (m3)

1,139,970

132,382

Total thermal energy stored (kWh)

26,619,251

3,091,233

Total ground area needed for TES tank

94,098 m2

11,124 m2

Total ground area needed for ETSC-TES

7.3 km2

2.29 km2

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for Case II ($/m3)

$ 2.68

$ 1.42

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis for Case IV ($/m3)

$ 3.60

$ 2.23

SGSP-MEE

Local latitude angle

Total battery capacity needed for 3 days storage (kWh)


Collection area of SGSP

ETSC-MEE

Total collection area of ETSCs (m2)

Table 8-13: Comparative analysis of collection areas and water costs of large-scale SGSP-MEE
and ETSC-TES-MEE systems for Melbourne and Alice Springs

Based on Alice Springs (which has a higher insolation and lower summer-winter insolation
ratio) insolation, the required SGSP area was reduced by 51%. Similarly, the collection area
of ETSC was reduced by 55%. Due to a more uniform insolation throughout the year, the
required TES volume is only 15% of the volume required for Melbourne. Consequently, the
cost of water for the large-scale desalination plant in Alice Springs is AUD (2008) $0.88 / m3
to $1.37 / m3 cheaper than for Melbourne location. Making the system completely zero
emission (by using PV panels and batteries to provide the energy required by the pumps)
374

Chapter 8

requires an additional AUD (2008) $0.81 / m3. It is also interesting to note that the ETSCTES-MEE system is cheaper than the SGSP-MEE system (by AUD $0.1 / m3) for Alice
Springs. For Melbourne, the ETSC-TES-MEE was more expensive than the SGSP-MEE
system by AUD $0.3 / m3 (see Figure 8-18). This comparative analysis shows that selecting
the best location for the solar-MEE desalination systems is essential in order to reduce the
water costs.
As shown earlier by the SGSP sensitivity analysis (see Section 8.4.7), some uncertainties exist
in the assumptions made about the different cost parameters. In order to investigate the effect
of the main variables, a detailed sensitivity analysis has to be conducted. An estimation of the
effect of the main cost parameters is shown later in Section 8.7.4.

8.5.3

Optimising the SGSP-MEE unit by peak clipping

As noted earlier, the solar-MEE unit works at only 41% of the peak rated capacity in winter
due to the large seasonal difference in the insolation, thereby affecting the SGSP energy
output. Clearly, the desalination plant is under utilised when the summer-winter ratio is high.
In order to optimise the SGSP-MEE coupling and better utilise the desalination plant, the
solar pond can be oversized and some of the solar output in summer can be wasted as shown
in Figure 8-27. This is often called peak clipping.

Figure 8-27: Schematic of typical output from SGSP with


wasted energy during summer

As an example, to find the optimum number of clipping days for a SGSP-MEE system based
on Melbourne insolation, the following was assumed:
o Solar pond efficiency is 15%
o Yearly average total global solar radiation is 15.9 MJ/m2-day
o The total global solar radiation amplitude is 8.1 MJ/m2-day

375

Chapter 8

o The solar pond collection area is 1,020 m2


o The MEE specific thermal energy consumption is 950 kJ/kg
o The SGSP capital cost is AUD $64 / m2 (based on the previous analysis for small-scale

solar-MEE unit)
o The MEE plant capital cost is AUD $24,060 m3 / day (based on the previous analysis for

small-scale solar-MEE unit)


The number of clipping days was varied in order to find the minimum cost parameter (defined
as the total capital costs per total distillate production). A clipping period of zero (n = 0)
means that there is no energy wasted in summer; this is where the largest difference between
the peak and minimum distillate production occurs. For instance, the peak and mean distillate
productions are 3.87 m3/day and 2.59 m3/day, respectively at n = 0. This gives a summerwinter ratio of 2.9. The summer wasted energy increases with increasing clipping period
(Figure 8-28). A clipping period of 182 days is equivalent to a complete year (~ 365 days).
MEE distillate production and SGSP wasted energy at varying clipping period
Peak

3.0

Minimum

50%

Wasted energy (%)

45%
40%

Distillate production (m /day)

55%

Mean

3.5

2.5
35%
30%

2.0

25%
1.5
20%
15%

1.0

10%
0.5

SGSP wasted energy due to peak clipping (%)

60%

4.0

5%
0.0

0%
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Days (before and after summer peak)

Figure 8-28: MEE distillate production and SGSP wasted energy at varying clipping period

Figure 8-29 shows that the minimum cost parameter occurs at n = 80, thereby resulting in the
lowest water cost. At n = 80, 11.5% of the energy from the SGSP is wasted. Therefore, if the
solar output from the SGSP is clipped for 80 days from the summer peak; the MEE plant rated
at 2.83 m3/day will provide a yearly average daily production of 2.29 m3/day. The peak output
will be maintained for 160 days. This gives a summer-winter ratio of 1.6 (as compared to 2.9
if there is no peak clipping). This peak clipping method can be used for location with high

376

Chapter 8

summer-winter insolation ratio in order to optimise the desalination plant and minimise the
water cost.
MEE distillate production and Cost parameter at varying clipping period
4.0

8.5

Peak
3.5

Mean
8.0

Cost parameter

2.5

7.5

2.0
7.0

1.5

Cost parameter

Distillate production (m 3/day)

Minimum
3.0

1.0
6.5
0.5

0.0

6.0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

Days (before and after summer peak)

Figure 8-29: MEE distillate production and cost parameter at varying clipping period

8.6

Modelling of Reverse Osmosis (RO) System

8.6.1

RO osmotic and operational pressure

The osmotic pressure ( ) of a solution containing dissolved solids can be determined using
the following general equation from Al-Busaidi (2004).

= RT

(8-3)

where is in kPa, T is the temperature (in oK), R is the universal gas constant (8.314 kPa
m3/kg.mol.oK) and

is the concentration of all constituents in the solution (in

kg.mol/m3).
A rough approximation for can be made by assuming that 1000 ppm of TDS equals 75.84
kPa of osmotic pressure (Al-Busaidi, 2004). The operating pressure is much higher than the
osmotic pressure in order to overcome the friction losses, membrane pressure drop and also to
maintain economical distillate flow rate.
The total dissolved solids (TDS) value of saltwater does not give an indication about how the
different solids are partitioned; the molar concentrations of the different solids cannot be
377

Chapter 8

determined. However for saltwater, the sodium and chloride ions are much higher than the
concentrations of the other elements; therefore an approximation can be made by dividing and
allocating the TDS to sodium and chloride elements.
The molar masses of sodium (Na) and chloride (Cl) are 22.99 g/mol and 35.45 g/mol,
respectively. Therefore, the total molar mass is 58.44 g/mol. The total molality (in mol/kg) is

1
22.99 1
35.45

Total molality =
TDS
TDS
+

58.44 35.45
58.44
22.99

(8-4)

The operational pressure depends on the temperature and salinity. A number of factors are
often applied to Equation (8-3) by membrane manufacturers to take into account the
operational conditions. The following correlation takes into account the factors used for
Dow/Filmtec membranes and given by Lenntech (2008).

= 7 .7 2 2 1 0 5 T T o ta l m o la lity F1 F 2

(8-5)

where is in bar, T is in oK, the total molality (in mol/kg) is obtained from Equation (8-4);
and F1 and F2 can be found from Table 8-14.
Parameter

Factor to be applied

Effect of salinity (first factor to be applied), F1


TDS < 15,000 ppm
15,000 ppm TDS < 22,000 ppm
22,000 ppm TDS < 35,000 ppm
35,000 ppm TDS < 45,000 ppm

2.00
2.20
2.65
2.65

Effect of temperature (second factor to be applied), F2

T < 25oC
T = 25oC
25oC < T < 35oC

1 + 0.010(25 T)
1.0
1 0.015(T 25)

Table 8-14: Operational pressure factors (T is in oC)

Equation (8-5) was used in this analysis. For instance, the osmotic and operational pressures
for saltwater at 33,000 ppm and 20oC can be found as follows.
o The total molality using Equation (8-4) is 1129.36 mol/kg
o At a salinity of 33,000 ppm, the first factor (F1) is 2.65
o At a temperature of 20oC, the second factor (F2) is 1.05

378

Chapter 8

o The operational pressure is therefore:

= (7.722 x 10-5) x (273+20) x 1129.36 x 2.65 x 1.05 = 71.1 bar = 7110 kPa.

It is noteworthy that Equation (8-5) is only valid for the 100 ppm TDS < 45,000 ppm and
10oC < T < 35oC.

8.6.2

RO energy requirement

Figure 8-30 shows a schematic of a RO system with an energy recovery device (ERD)
together with the variables used in the energy equations to be derived.

Figure 8-30: Schematic of RO system with energy recovery device

The correlation used to calculate the pumping power was defined in Equation (5-62). If the
RO system is not fitted with an energy recovery device, the electrical energy requirement (in
watts) is given by the following correlation.

Eelec =

P1 m f

hp

(8-6)

where P1 is the feed saltwater pressure (in Pa), mf is the total feed saltwater flow rate (in m3/s)
and hp is the efficiency of the high pressure pump.

If an energy recovery device (ERD) is fitted to the RO system, then the electrical energy
requirement (in watts) can be expressed as follows.

P1 m f
Eelec =
hp

P2 m f A erd bp

379

(8-7)

Chapter 8

where P2 is the pressure of the reject brine (in Pa) after the RO membrane (defined as the P1
Pm where Pm is the pressure drop across the membrane (in Pa) which can be obtained from the
manufacturer), A is the ratio of the reject brine to the total feed saltwater (between 0 and 1),

erd is the efficiency of the ERD and bp is the efficiency of the booster pump (not
applicable for work exchanger or pressure exchanger ERDs). Typical ERD efficiencies ( erd )
are given in Table 8-15.

Francis turbine

Typical ERD
efficiency
76%

Pelton turbine

87%

Turbo charger

85%

Work exchanger (direct coupling)

~ 96%

Pressure exchanger (direct coupling)

~ 96%

RO Energy recovery device (ERD)

Table 8-15: Typical RO energy recovery device efficiencies (NRC, 2008)

Figure 8-31 and Figure 8-32 shows the osmotic pressure and operating pressure at varying
feed saltwater salinity and temperatures. It can be seen that the pressures increases with
increasing salinity.
RO Osmotic Pressure at varying Feed saltwater concentrations and Temperatures
38
36
34

Osmotic Pressure (bar)

32
30

10 deg
15 deg
20 deg
25 deg
30 deg
35 deg

28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

34,000

36,000

38,000

40,000

42,000

44,000

46,000

Feed Saltwater Concentration (ppm)

Figure 8-31: RO Osmotic pressure at varying feed saltwater concentrations and temperatures

380

Chapter 8

The operating pressure decreases with increasing feed saltwater temperature (Figure 8-32). By
increasing the temperature from 15oC to 30oC, the operating pressure decreases by 11.5%,
thereby reducing the electrical consumption by ~ 11.5%.
RO Operating Pressure at varying Feed saltwater concentrations and Temperatures
105

10 deg

100

15 deg

Operating Pressure (bar)

95

20 deg

90

25 deg

85

30 deg

80

35 deg

75
70
65
60
55
50
45
40
35
20,000

22,000

24,000

26,000

28,000

30,000

32,000

34,000

36,000

38,000

40,000

42,000

44,000

46,000

Feed Saltwater Concentration (ppm)

Figure 8-32: RO Operating pressure at varying feed saltwater concentrations and temperatures

RO Specific electrical energy consumption for different ERD and pump efficiencies
5.0

nHP(high) = 70%, nBP(booster) = 85%


nHP(high) = 75%, nBP(booster) = 85%
nHP(high) = 80%, nBP(booster) = 85%
nHP(high) = 85%, nBP(booster) = 85%
nHP(high) = 70-85%, nERD = 96%

Specific electrical energy (kWh/m )

4.8
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.0
3.8
3.6
3.4
3.2
3.0

Feed saltwater: 32,000 ppm at 20 C


RR: 45%
Pressure drop across membrane: 5 bar

2.8
58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 72% 74% 76% 78% 80% 82% 84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98%

Energy Recovery Device (ERD) Effficiency (%)

Figure 8-33: RO specific electrical energy consumption for different energy recovery devices
and pump efficiencies (Feed saltwater salinity = 32,000 ppm at 20oC, recovery ratio = 45%,
pressure drop across membrane = 5 bars)

The use of ERD can reduce the electrical energy consumption as shown in Figure 8-33. The
feed saltwater salinity was assumed to be 32,000 ppm at 20oC. The recovery ratio is 45%.
Therefore, B = 0.45 and A = 0.55. The pressure drop across the membrane (Pm) is 5 bars. It

381

Chapter 8

can be seen from the figure that the lowest electrical energy consumption is obtained with the
use of work or pressure exchangers (with an ERD efficiency of ~ 96%).
The capital cost of pressure exchanger, CPX, in US $(2005) is assumed to be a function of the
reject brine flow rate mb (in m3/hr). The following correlation was derived by Lu et al. (2006)
using regression of the cost data provided by ERI (2006).

CPX = 3134.7 mb0.58

(8-8)

In the economic analysis for RO systems, the efficiencies of the high pressure pump and
pressure exchanger ERD were assumed to be 80% and 96%, respectively. The pressure drop
across the membrane was assumed to be 5 bars.

8.6.3

PV-RO

The electrical energy requirement was determined using the equations and procedures
described in Sections 8.6.1 and Section 8.6.2. Using the modelling developed to size the PV
panels and battery storage for the solar-MEE, the required number of solar modules and total
battery storage capacity were determined for the three desalination plants (for Melbourne
insolation). The efficiencies of the high pressure pump and pressure exchanger ERD were
assumed to be 80% and 96%, respectively. The pressure drop across the membrane was
assumed to be 5 bars. Table 8-16 shows the specifications for a feed salinity of 36,500 ppm
and feed temperature of 20oC. Since the energy consumption of RO system is affected by the
feed salinity and temperature as opposed to thermal desalination; Table 8-17 shows the results
when the feed salinity and temperature are 45,000 ppm and 15oC, respectively. It is
noteworthy that the RO system will produce a uniform daily fresh water production since the
PV panels and battery storage were sized to provide the electrical energy when the
desalination system works at peak capacity.

382

Chapter 8

Small-scale

Mediumscale

Large-scale

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Yearly fresh water production

746 kL

73 ML

5.47 GL

Recovery ratio

45%

45%

45%

RO operating pressure (bar)

78.6

78.6

78.6

Electrical energy consumption (kW)

0.31

30.57

2,292

Specific electrical energy (kWh / m3)

3.67

3.67

3.67

Number of PV panels (without battery storage)

20

1,897

142,238

Number of PV panels needed (for three days storage)

17

1,716

128,723

Total installed power for three days storage (kW)

2.98

300

22,527

Total battery capacity for three days storage (kWh)

104

4,510

336,908

Number of PV panels needed (for seven days storage)

16

1,590

119,322

Total installed power for seven days storage (kW)

2.80

278

20,881

Total battery capacity for seven days storage (kWh)

156

10,575

786,050

Table 8-16: PV panels and battery storage requirement for RO-PV systems (Feed salinity = 36,500 ppm,
Feed temperature = 20oC)

Small-scale

Mediumscale

Large-scale

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Yearly fresh water production

746 kL

73 ML

5.47 GL

Recovery ratio

45%

45%

45%

RO operating pressure (bar)

95.8

95.8

95.8

Electrical energy consumption (kW)

0.39

38.44

2,883

Specific electrical energy (kWh / m3)

4.61

4.61

4.61

Number of PV panels (without battery storage)

25

2,385

178,874

Number of PV panels needed (for three days storage)

22

2,158

161,879

Total installed power for three days storage (kW)

3.85

378

28,329

Total battery capacity for three days storage (kWh)

104

5,702

423,636

Number of PV panels needed (for seven days storage)

20

2,000

150,056

Total installed power for seven days storage (kW)

3.50

350

26,260

Total battery capacity for seven days storage (kWh)

207

13,271

988,433

Table 8-17: PV panels and battery storage requirement for RO-PV systems (Feed salinity = 45,000 ppm,
Feed temperature = 15oC)

383

Chapter 8

8.6.4

Wind-RO

The 48 wind turbines installed at the Emu Downs wind farm, north of Perth (see Section
2.8.4.1) have a nominal output of 1.65 MW each. The Vestas (model: V82) turbine has a hub
height of ~ 78 m. The cut-in, nominal and cut-out wind speeds are 3.5 m/s, 13 m/s and 20 m/s,
respectively (Vestas, 2008). The power curve is shown in Figure 8-34.

Figure 8-34: Power curve of Vestas-V82 wind turbine (Vestas, 2008)

The monthly average wind speed for Melbourne at a hub height of 78 m was determined
using the average wind speed obtained at heights of 50 m, 100 m and 150 m from NASA
(2008). Using the monthly average wind speed and the power curve from Figure 8-34, the
yearly average power (in GWh / year) from the wind turbine was determined as shown in
Table 8-18.
Monthly average
Power (kW)
wind speed (m/s)
January
4.78
162.40
February
4.68
145.50
March
4.45
109.61
April
4.64
138.55
May
4.49
115.04
June
4.87
178.34
July
5.00
203.25
August
5.50
304.55
September
5.03
209.35
October
5.01
205.62
November
4.75
158.32
December
4.72
153.37
Yearly average power (GWh/year)
Month

Monthly average
power (kWh)
120,823
97,776
81,549
99,754
85,591
128,404
151,215
226,582
150,731
152,979
113,991
114,105
1.523

Table 8-18: Yearly average power from Vestas V82 wind turbine for Melbourne wind speed

384

Chapter 8

In this analysis, it is assumed that the electricity generated by the wind turbines is fed directly
into the electric utility grid such that the power delivered to the RO system (using the wind
power indirectly) remains constant. The large-scale RO system requires 2,292 kW (see Table
8-16). This is equivalent to 20.08 GWh / year. Therefore, 14 Vestas V82 wind turbines would
be needed to power the large-scale Wind-RO unit in Melbourne. The Emu Downs project was
estimated to cost approximately AUD (2006) $175 million (SEDO, 2008). In the economic
analysis, the Vestas V82 wind turbine was assumed to cost AUD (2008) $2.65 million.

8.7

Triple Bottom Line Comparison of Desalination Systems

8.7.1

Desalinations systems to be compared

The following systems will be briefly compared using a triple bottom line (economic,
environmental and social) evaluation methodology.
1. Conventional Electric-Thermal MEE
2. Conventional Gas-Thermal MEE
3. SGSP-MEE (see Sections 8.3.1.1, 8.3.2.2, 8.4.2 and 8.4.7)
4. SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery Storage system (see Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.7)
5. ETSC-TES-MEE (see Sections 8.3.1.2, 8.3.2.3, 8.4.3 and 8.4.7)
6. ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-Battery Storage system (see Sections 8.4.5 and 8.4.7)
7. Conventional Electric-RO
8. PV-RO (see Sections 8.6.1, 8.6.2 and 8.6.3)
9. Wind-RO (see Sections 8.6.1, 8.6.2 and 8.6.4).

8.7.2

Comparison methodology

The main economic evaluation is based on the lifecycle analysis described in Section 8.4.1.
The water costs determined from this study will also be compared with published values from
the literature. The greenhouse emissions associated with the different desalination
technologies will be compared. Other possible environmental impacts will also be briefly
discussed. The social evaluation will consider factors such as community benefits,
employment opportunities and quality of life.

385

Chapter 8

8.7.3

Financial evaluation

In addition to the economic parameters defined in Section 8.4.7; the following values in Table
8-19 will be adopted in this evaluation.
Conventional natural gas ($/MJ)
Efficiency of electric water heater (%)
Efficiency of natural gas water heater (%)
RO Pre-treatment cost ($/m3)
RO Labour cost ($/m3)
RO Maintenance cost (% of RO plant capital cost)
Membrane cost (% of RO plant capital cost)
Membrane lifetime (years)
Annual rate of Membrane replacement (%)
RO plant cost for small-scale unit in AUD $ / (m3/day)
RO plant cost for medium-scale unit in AUD $ / (m3/day)
RO plant cost for large-scale unit in AUD $ / (m3/day)
Vestas V82 wind turbine capital cost in AUD $ / unit
Wind turbine operating cost (% of wind turbine capital cost)

0.01
85%
80%
0.035
0.115
3%
60%
5
20%
3,200
2,000
1,600
2.65 million
5%

Table 8-19: Additional economic parameters adopted in analysis

Using the technical performance values of the desalination systems determined in the
previous sections together with the additional economic parameters in Table 8-19; the water
costs of conventional MEE, conventional-RO, PV-RO and Wind-RO desalination systems
have been found. Table 8-20 and Table 8-21 show the technical specifications and the water
costs for the desalination systems. The water cost for the solar-MEE were shown earlier in
Table 8-12.

Small-scale

Mediumscale

Large-scale

12

12

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Fresh water production rate

840 - 2045

82.2 200

L/day

kL/day

30 65%

28 68%

28 68%

482 kL

47.2 ML

3.54 GL

12.7

1.5

1.5

Performance indicator

Number of effects

[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]


Recovery ratio
[lower value at 60C; higher at 85C]
Yearly fresh water production
3

Specific electrical energy for pumps (kWh / m )


386

6.2 15 ML/day

Chapter 8

Specific thermal energy (kJ/kg)

810 1,030

226 287

226 287

9.48

109.5

8,212

Main electrical consumption (MWh/year)

141

3,851

288,850

Total electrical consumption (MWh/year)

151

3,961

297,062

[lower value at 85C; higher at 60C]


[1] Conventional Electric-Thermal MEE
Pumps electrical energy consumption

(MWh/year)

$ 1.85

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 49,200

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 25,214

$ 620,542

$ 43.6 million

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis ($/m3)

$ 33.57

$ 8.98

$ 7.41

9.48

109.5

8,212

541

14,731

1,104,851

million

$ 41.1 million

[2] Conventional Gas-Thermal MEE

Pumps electrical energy consumption


(MWh/year)
Gas consumption (GJ/year)

$ 1.85

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 49,200

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 10,825

$ 228,669

$ 14.2 million

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis ($/m3)

$ 16.74

$ 4.30

$ 2.73

million

$ 41.1 million

Table 8-20: Water cost of conventional MEE desalination systems

Performance indicator

Small-scale

Medium-scale

Large-scale

Maximum distillate production

2045 L/day

200 kL/day

15 ML/day

Yearly fresh water production

746 kL

73 ML

5.47 GL

Recovery ratio

45%

45%

45%

RO operating pressure (bar)

78.6

78.6

78.6

Specific electrical energy (kWh / m3)

3.67

3.67

3.67

2.74

267.8

20,082

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 7,600

$ 415,070

$ 24.2 million

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 1,477

$ 108,436

$ 7.2 million

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis ($/m3)

$ 2.36

$ 1.65

$ 1.43

Yearly electrical energy consumption


(MWh/year)
[7] Conventional Electric-RO

387

Chapter 8

[8] PV-RO

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 59,434

$ 3.9 million

$ 195 million

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 5,439

$ 369,965

$ 18.5 million

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis ($/m3)

$ 11.29

$ 7.76

$ 5.15

Total capital cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 61.3 million

Total operating cost in AUD $(2008)

$ 6.3 million

Unit water costs on lifecycle basis ($/m3)

$ 1.69

[9] Wind-RO

Table 8-21: Water cost of conventional-, PV- and Wind-RO desalination systems (for feed saltwater
salinity of 36,500 ppm and temperature of 20oC)

Comparative analysis of water costs


$12.0
$11.0
$10.0

Water Cost (AUD $ / m )

$9.0
$8.0

$8.98
$7.41

$7.0

[1] Conventional Electric-Thermal MEE


[2] Conventional Gas-Thermal MEE
[3] SGSP-MEE
[4] SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery
[5] ETSC-TES-MEE
[6] ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-Battery
[7] Conventional Electric-RO
[8] PV-RO
[9] Wind-RO

Medium-scale
Large-scale

$7.76
$6.47

$5.92

$6.0

$5.15

$4.94

$5.0

$4.30

$4.39

$4.0

$3.60

$3.31
$2.73

$3.0

$2.68

$2.38

$1.69

$1.65 $1.43

$2.0
$1.0
$0.0
[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

Figure 8-35: Comparative analysis of water costs for Melbourne

Figure 8-35 shows a preliminary comparative analysis of water costs for the different
technologies (based on Melbourne insolation and wind speed). The water costs do not include
the distribution costs (affected by the distribution pumps energy requirement). On the basis of
the assumptions made in this analysis, the cheapest technology for large-scale desalination
units is the conventional Electric-RO (option 7) with a water cost of AUD $1.43 / m3,
followed by Wind-RO (option 9) with a water cost of AUD $1.69 / m3 . Among the MEE
technologies, SGSP-MEE (option 3) produced the lowest water cost of AUD $2.38 / m3,
followed by the conventional Gas-Thermal MEE (option 2) with AUD $2.73 / m3. If only zero
emissions technologies are considered, Wind-RO (option 9) produced the lowest water cost
followed by SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery (option 4), ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-Battery (option 6)
388

Chapter 8

and PV-RO (option 8) as shown in the figure. SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery system was found to
be AUD $1.84 / m3 less expensive than PV-RO. In interpreting these results, it is important to
be aware that the relatively small differences in the water costs between some of the options
may be offset if not reversed by changing the key assumptions made about the cost
parameters.
It is noteworthy that the economic evaluation presented in this study was based on best
estimates for each parameter with the information available currently. Many uncertainties
remain in the evaluation as was shown by the SGSP sensitivity cost analysis (see Section
8.4.7). Some cost parameters (such as salt cost) are site-specific while others are generalised
(such as conventional electricity cost). A brief sensitivity cost analysis for all the options is
presented in Section 8.7.4. Assuming different values for the main cost parameters could
change the water cost differences between the options and hence affect the unit water cost
ranking order. Nevertheless, this preliminary analysis gives a rough indication of the
economic performance.
The actual water costs from desalination plants in operation are difficult to assess and
compare because the ways they have been computed are most of the time unknown. For
instance, in some literature, the costs of desalinated water include delivery costs while others
present the costs prior to distribution. Energy costs vary over time and geography. All of these
factors make the cost figures very variable. Nevertheless, the published values of water costs
presented in Table 2-4 (see Section 2.7.3) have been compared with the water costs
determined from this study as shown in Figure 8-36. Even if it is unclear what was included in
the cost calculations of the published values, the figure shows that the derived water costs
from this study are close to the published values of existing MEE and SWRO desalination
systems.

389

Chapter 8
Comparative analysis of water costs (from published values and this study)
$6.0

MEE (Published values)


RO (Published values)
MEE (This study)
RO (This study)

$5.5

Water Cost (AUD $ / m3)

$5.0
$4.5
$4.0
$3.5
$3.0

Tugun
Kurnell

$2.5
$2.0
Kwinana

$1.5
$1.0
$0.5
$0.0
0

25,000

50,000

75,000

100,000 125,000 150,000 175,000 200,000 225,000 250,000


3

Desalination Capacity (m /day)

Figure 8-36: Comparative analysis of water costs (from published values and this study)

For comparison purposes, the quoted cost of fresh water from the Kwinana SWRO plant is
about AUD $1.16 / m3 (Cameron, 2007). This plant draws electricity from the WA grid (see
Section 2.8.4.1) and the costing is based on the normal grid electricity prices. A wind farm
elsewhere in the state inputs zero emission power into the grid to offset the power consumed
by the desalination plant. The marginal costs of the wind power are higher than the average
grid prices so in effect the real cost of the fresh water produced is much higher than the cost
quoted above.
The water cost of the conventional Electric-RO (option 7) system was found to be AUD $1.43
/ m3 from this preliminary economic analysis. This is much lower than the high water costs
for the proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant (see Section 2.8.4.4). Moran (2008) reported
that the cost of water delivered to the local distribution network would be AUD $3.01 / m3
(AUD $2.13 / m3 and AUD $0.88 / m3 for capital and operating costs, respectively). The
difference arises in part because the RO system investigated in this evaluation consists of a
one-pass system only. The product water usually has a salinity of less than 500 ppm TDS
when a single-pass RO is used. The World Health Organisation (2006) has established a
guideline maximum TDS value of less than 500 ppm for potable water. The Kurnell SWRO
(see Section 2.8.4.1) and Wonthaggi SWRO, on the other hand, employ a two-pass system in
order to reduce the TDS to 40 ppm. A two-pass system consequently increases the specific
water cost.

390

Chapter 8

It is noteworthy that this analysis was based on Melbourne insolation. The water costs are
likely to be less in a location with high solar radiation, as was shown for Alice Springs (see
Section 8.5.2). In fact the water costs of option 4 (SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery) for Alice
Springs (~ AUD $2.32 / m3 see Table 8-13) is ~ AUD $1 / m3 cheaper than the PV-RO
(option 8 for Melbourne) and only AUD $0.63 / m3 more expensive than Wind-RO (option 9
for Melbourne). The indications are thus that the cost range for solar-thermal MEE
desalination systems is competitive with the other main zero-emission desalination options
(PV-RO and Wind-RO). The solar-thermal MEE option may thus have an economic
advantage over PV-RO in areas of high insolation, but further modelling and experimental
work is needed to confirm this conclusion.

8.7.4

Economics uncertainty analysis

The economic evaluation presented in this study was based on best estimates for each
parameter that could be made at this time. Many uncertainties remain in the evaluation as was
shown by the SGSP sensitivity cost analysis (see Section 8.4.7). In order to investigate the
magnitude of the effect of each cost parameter on the water cost, each variable can be varied
around the best estimate (used as a central value). If the change has a significant effect on the
water cost, a more accurate and reliable value for the cost parameter is necessary for a
meaningful comparison. It is noteworthy that some cost parameters (such as salt cost) are sitespecific while others are generalised (such as conventional electricity cost and assumed unit
capital costs of the main components). The analysis showed that assuming different values for
the main cost parameters could thus change the water cost differences between the options,
and hence the ranking order of the options according to the unit water cost.
Table 8-22 shows to what extent a 50% change in the main cost parameters affect the water
cost for medium- and large-scale desalination systems. For instance, a 50% change in the
salt cost of the large-scale SGSP-MEE system will alter the water cost by 12.6% (This is
also shown graphically in Figure 8-19). The effect of insulation, liner, ETSC, TES tank and
battery costs were shown earlier in Figure 8-20, Figure 8-21, Figure 8-22 and Figure 8-23. It
is noteworthy that further work is required in order to investigate the effect of each cost
parameter and hence revised the assumed value in this preliminary analysis.

391

Chapter 8

Central value
(assumed
value in
analysis)

% change in water cost


Mediumscale

Large-scale

$ 0.14
$ 1.85 million
$ 41.1 million

36.9%
12.4%
-

44.7%
4.5%

$ 0.14
$ 0.01
$ 1.85 million
$ 41.1 million

2.1%
20.5%
25.9%
-

3.4%
32.2%
12.1%

$ 75
$4
$3
$ 50,000
$ 3.75 million
$ 61,114
$ 2.75 million
$ 0.14
$ 1.85 million
$ 41.1 million

6.9%
1.1%
1.2%
0.5%
8.3%
2.0%
25.4%
-

12.6%
2.0%
2.2%
0.9%
23.0%
3.8%
13.9%

$ 75
$4
$3
$ 50,000
$ 3.75 million
$ 61,114
$ 2.75 million
$ 0.14
$6
$4
$ 160
$ 100
8
$ 1.85 million
$ 41.1 million

5.1%
0.8%
0.9%
0.4%
6.2%
1.9%
7.1%
6.6%
2.5%
18.8%
-

9.1%
1.4%
1.6%
0.6%
16.6%
3.4%
8.5%
7.3%
2.8%
10.0%

$ 300
$ 225
$ 1.85 million
$ 41.1 million

18.8%
22.5%
-

26.1%
12.3%

$ 300
$ 225

14.4%
-

19.4%

[1] Conventional Electric-Thermal MEE


Conventional Electricity ($/kWh)
MEE plant capital cost (Medium-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Large-scale)
[2] Conventional Gas-Thermal MEE
Conventional Electricity ($/kWh)
Conventional Natural Gas ($/MJ)
MEE plant capital cost (Medium-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Large-scale)
[3] SGSP-MEE
Salt cost
Insulation cost
Liner cost
Monitoring cost (Medium-scale)
Monitoring cost (Large-scale)
Operating cost (Medium-scale)
Operating cost (Large-scale)
Conventional Electricity ($/kWh)
MEE plant capital cost (Medium-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Large-scale)
[4] SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery Storage system
Salt cost
Insulation cost
Liner cost
Monitoring cost (Medium-scale)
Monitoring cost (Large-scale)
Operating cost (Medium-scale)
Operating cost (Large-scale)
Conventional Electricity ($/kWh)
PV panels cost (Medium-scale) [$/W]
PV panels cost (Large-scale) [$/W]
Battery cost (Medium-scale) [$/kWh]
Battery cost (Large-scale) [$/kWh]
Battery lifetime (years)
MEE plant capital cost (Medium-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Large-scale)
[5] ETSC-TES-MEE
Cost of ETSC per bank (Medium-scale)
Cost of ETSC per bank (Large-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Medium-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Large-scale)
[6] ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-Battery Storage system
Cost of ETSC per bank (Medium-scale)
Cost of ETSC per bank (Large-scale)

392

Chapter 8

PV panels cost (Medium-scale) [$/W]


PV panels cost (Large-scale) [$/W]
Battery cost (Medium-scale) [$/kWh]
Battery cost (Large-scale) [$/kWh]
Battery lifetime (years)
MEE plant capital cost (Medium-scale)
MEE plant capital cost (Large-scale)

$6
$4
$ 160
$ 100
8
$ 1.85 million
$ 41.1 million

6.5%
6.0%
2.3%
17.2%
-

7.8%
6.7%
2.5%
9.2%

$ 0.14
$ 2,000
$ 1,600
60%
5

13.6%
32.0%
17.4%
11.6%

15.7%
29.6%
16.1%
10.7%

$ 2,000
$ 1,600
60%
5
$6
$4
$ 160
$ 100
8

6.8%
3.7%
2.5%
12.3%
28.6%
10.8%

8.2%
4.5%
3.0%
12.4%
26.9%
10.1%

$ 1,600
60%
5
$ 2.65 million
5%

25.0%
13.6%
9.0%
21.1%
8.7%

[7] Conventional RO
Conventional Electricity ($/kWh)
RO capital cost (Medium-scale) [$/(m3/day)]
RO capital cost (Large-scale) [$/(m3/day)]
Membrane cost (% of RO plant capital)
Membrane lifetime (years)
[8] PV-RO
RO capital cost (Medium-scale) [$/(m3/day)]
RO capital cost (Large-scale) [$/(m3/day)]
Membrane cost (% of RO plant capital)
Membrane lifetime (years)
PV panels cost (Medium-scale) [$/W]
PV panels cost (Large-scale) [$/W]
Battery cost (Medium-scale) [$/kWh]
Battery cost (Large-scale) [$/kWh]
Battery lifetime (years)
[9] Wind-RO
RO capital cost (Large-scale) [$/(m3/day)]
Membrane cost (% of RO plant capital)
Membrane lifetime (years)
Vestas V82 wind turbine capital cost ($/unit)
Wind turbine operating cost (% of wind turbine capital cost)

Table 8-22: Effect of 50% change in cost parameters on water cost (for medium- and large-scale
systems)

8.7.5

Environmental evaluation

The renewable desalination technologies have been compared with each other and with the
emission intensities of other fossil-fuel based systems. The following coefficients for Victoria
have been used for the calculation of CO2 emissions.
o Coefficient for electricity is 1.467 kg CO2-e / kWh
o Coefficient for natural gas is 63.6 kg CO2-e / GJ.

Table 8-23 shows the greenhouse emissions for the different desalination technologies
investigated.

393

Chapter 8

Tonnes CO2-e / year


Desalination systems

Small-scale

Mediumscale

Large-scale

[1] Conventional Electric-Thermal MEE

221

5,811

435,791

[2] Conventional Gas-Thermal MEE

48

1,098

82,316

[3] SGSP-MEE

14

161

12,048

14

161

12,048

4.01

393

29,460

[4] SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery Storage


system
[5] ETSC-TES-MEE
[6] ETSC-TES-MEE + PV-Battery
Storage system
1

[7] Conventional RO
1

[8] PV-RO

[9] Wind-RO

Table 8-23: Greenhouse emissions for different desalination systems

Notes:
1: value for feed salinity of 36,500 ppm and temperature of 20oC.

Comparative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions


100,000

435,791

Medium-scale

90,000

82,316

[1] Conventional Electric-Thermal MEE


[2] Conventional Gas-Thermal MEE
[3] SGSP-MEE
[5] ETSC-TES-MEE
[7] Conventional Electric-RO

80,000

Tonnes CO2-e / year

Large-scale

70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000

29,460

30,000
20,000
10,000

12,048

12,048

5,811
1,098

161

0
[1]

[2]

393

161
[3]

[5]

[7]

Figure 8-37: Comparative analysis of greenhouse gas emissions for Melbourne

The greenhouse gas emission intensity of systems [4], [6], [8] and [9] in Table 8-23 are zero.
Figure 8-37 shows the comparative analysis of the greenhouse gas emissions. A conventional
394

Chapter 8

MEE system running on natural gas will produce 81% less greenhouse gases than a similar
sized MEE system powered by electricity only. The greenhouse gas emissions from the
SGSP-MEE and ETSC-TES-MEE systems were 41% of the emissions from the conventional
RO.
In order to have a really accurate measurement of the greenhouse emissions of the different
technologies, a lifecycle assessment (LCA) (cradle-to-grave analysis) of the emissions
associated with making the technologies, deploying them, maintaining them and then
disposing/recycling them at the end of their lives is necessary. However, this was beyond the
scope of the present research study.
As mentioned in Section 2.7.4, one of the most significant environmental considerations for
desalination systems is disposal of the concentrated brine. The waste brine may contain
chemicals used throughout the desalination process and corrosion or erosion metals products
from the plant. And, in the case of thermal processes, the discharge temperature may be
higher than the ambient temperature, which could impact on the environment. Several
methods are used to dispose of the concentrate streams, including evaporation ponds.
The solar energy in salt affected areas of Australia such as Wakool and Mourquong in
southern New South Wales; and Hattah and Pyramid Hill in northern Victoria can potentially
be harvested and converted into heat to power a SGSP-MEE desalination unit. Although
commercial solar collectors are available such as flat plate solar collectors (FPSCs) and
ETSCs that can readily convert solar radiation into heat, they need to be imported and
installed in a salt-affected area and greenhouse gases have been generated in their production.
On the other hand SGSP offer an on-site locally-constructed alternative technology to convert
solar radiation into thermal energy. Solar ponds can easily be integrated into salt works. The
evaporation ponds involved in salt production can even be converted to solar ponds while
they are still functioning as evaporation ponds, so that the incremental costs of including
SGSP can be relatively low.
In addition, if a SGSP-MEE system is integrated into salinity mitigation schemes (Figure
8-38) associated with salt production, less evaporation ponds are needed to produce
commercial salt since the concentration of the saltwater input to the ponds is higher (coming
from the reject brine outlet of the desalination unit). The commercial salt can also be used to
construct additional solar pond capacity, thus supporting more energy for increased desalting.

395

Chapter 8

Figure 8-38: Schematic of a SGSP-MEE desalination system incorporated into a salinity-mitigation scheme

396

Chapter 8

8.7.6

Social evaluation

The community benefits of solar-thermal desalination include:


o Enhancement of the supplies of fresh water; and
o Increased local employment in operating the desalination systems.

The potential social benefits especially in salt-affected areas of Australia are as follows:
o Maximum use of locally available resources such as salt, land and high insolation, and

production of valuable outputs such as fresh water and commercial salt;


o Local people, especially farmers benefit from the drop in the underground saltwater

levels;
o Improvement in the quality of life arising from a better environment; and
o Further commercial activity leading to greater social interaction.

397

Chapter 9

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the main findings of the thesis, answers the research
questions and suggests some future research directions.

9.1

Overview

The aim of this research project has been to investigate the feasibility of producing potable
water from seawater or brackish water using desalination systems powered by renewable
energy in the form of low-temperature (less than 90oC) solar-thermal sources, including SGSP
and ETSC. Three small-scale solar-thermal desalination technologies have been developed
and investigated both experimentally and using computer modelling:
1. A solar-thermal forward-feed multi-effect evaporation (MEE) system with three effects
and a daily fresh water production capacity of 2,300 litres;
2. A single stage flash (SSF) unit with a daily production capacity of 500 litres; and
3. A novel integrated solar collector and evaporation (ISCE) desalination system with a daily
production capacity of 20 litres.
The research work presented in this thesis enhances understanding (through the theoretical
and experimental studies) of the performance of low-temperature solar-thermal desalination
systems perform under a range of different conditions and makes a significant contribution to
the advancement of knowledge in this area.
A review of conventional desalination systems as well as systems powered by renewable
energy has been presented in Chapter 2. The review on the worlds desalination capacity
showed that the progress of MSF since 2001 has been rather slow, while RO has gained
significant market share. It has been found that RO desalination processes dominate the
market in Australia with 82.2% of the total installed capacity. The performance of current
desalination technologies in regards to energy requirements and efficiency has been explored
in the same chapter.
Chapter 3 examined the possible coupling options between renewable energy sources and
desalination technologies. SGSP and ETSC have been found to be the most suitable
technologies for low-temperature thermal desalination processes. The criteria for comparing
solar desalination systems have been outlined. The results from the experimental studies
conducted on the SGSP using an alternative heat extraction method indicates that the thermal
398

Chapter 9

performance could be improved by up to 50%. In Chapter 4, the modelling techniques used to


simulate the SGSP and the ETSC have been described.
The theoretical models of the three different solar-MSF systems have been developed in
Chapter 5. The developed models have been used to explore the influence of the different
parameters on the fresh water production, recovery ratio and specific thermal energy
consumption. The model showed that the specific thermal energy consumption decreases as
the number of stages increases, regardless of the feed saltwater flow rate. The design,
construction and testing of the experimental small-scale solar - single-stage flash (SP-SSF)
system have been described in detail. The maximum recovery ratio obtained experimentally
was about 5.5%. The technical performance comparative analysis of the two different
condensers investigated (HDPE and Cu-Ni 90/10) and the economic analysis (presented in
Chapter 8) showed that HDPE has an advantage over the more expensive condensers.
Chapter 6 presented the theoretical and experimental work done on solar-MEE systems. The
theoretical analysis showed that the falling-film evaporators outperformed the submerged
tubes evaporators. The experimental three-effect solar-MEE unit, capable of producing up to
2,300 litres of fresh water per day was found be slightly unstable while operating at
temperatures less than 56oC. The maximum empirical recovery ratio was about (72.7 2.7)%
while the specific thermal energy consumption was found to be 810 kJ/kg.
The theoretical and experimental results of a novel desalination system, namely the integrated
solar collector and evaporation (ISCE) has been presented in Chapter 7. The theoretical and
empirical studies have demonstrated the feasibility of the concept and showed that the system
is promising.
In Chapter 8, the solar desalination systems studied in this research have been compared with
conventional desalination systems powered by energy from fossil fuels, and other renewableenergy based systems, using a technical and triple bottom line evaluation.

399

Chapter 9

9.2

Research Questions

9.2.1

How efficient in terms of distillate production rate, recovery ratio and specific
energy consumption are the various forms of MSF and MEE desalination
processes with low-temperature heat input?

A comparative analysis of the three different MSF configurations (see Section 5.1.4) revealed
that the conventional MSF configuration has the lowest specific thermal energy consumption
and the highest recovery ratio because of its much lower net brine feed rate. The MSF mixing configuration has a higher recovery ratio as compared to the MSF once through
system. However, the specific thermal energy consumption was higher than the conventional
MSF. The chemical consumption of the MSF once-through system was found to be directly
related to the total feed saltwater flow rate and was found to be between 4 and 6 times higher
than the other two MSF configurations. The relative water cost (MSF once-through versus
conventional MSF) based on a lifecycle analysis (see Section 8.2.2) revealed that the MSF
once through system was more economical than the conventional MSF for a plant cost of
AUD $1,500 per m3 when the pre-treatment cost was less than AUD $0.05 per m3. As the
plant capital cost increases, the MSF once through system becomes more economically
favourable due to the elimination of the heat rejection section.
The theoretical analysis of the different solar-MSF systems revealed that the recovery ratio
can be up to 45-48% depending on the feed saltwater and recycle brine flow rates (see Section
5.1.3 and Section 5.1.4). The maximum theoretical recovery ratios obtained for the solar-MEE
systems were found to be between 62-70% (see Section 6.1.4.3 and Section 6.3.4.3). SolarMEE systems result in a much higher recovery ratio due to the combination of boiling and
flashing heat transfer processes; and better heat recovery.
A comparative analysis (see Section 8.2.7) of the specific thermal energy consumption of
solar-MSF (conventional configuration) and solar-MEE (parallel flow configuration) systems
for up to 18 stages/effects showed that the solar-MEE system uses up to 55% less energy than
the solar-MSF for the same number of stages/effects (141 kJ/kg versus 311 kJ/kg for 18
stages/effects). For instance, a solar-MEE system consisting of seven effects would give the
same performance as a 12 stage solar-MSF system. The savings in the specific thermal energy
consumption result in a lower number of required effects, thereby reducing the capital cost.
The maximum number of stages for a solarMSF system operating at a low TBT of 60oC in
winter (worst case scenario) while keeping the flashing brine temperature in the last stage to
400

Chapter 9

30oC has been found to be 15 (see Section 8.2.1). Similarly, the maximum number of effects
in a solar-MEE system has been found to be 12 (see Section 8.2.4). As a result of the much
higher thermal performance of the solar-MEE system, only eight effects are required to match
the performance of the 15 stages solar-MSF system.

9.2.2

Which of the thermal desalination processes is preferable for use with a lowtemperature heat source, including salinity-gradient solar pond, in regards to
efficiency?

Based on the theoretical and experimental studies conducted in this research project; it is clear
that solar-MEE system is the preferred thermal desalination process for use with a lowtemperature heat source. Even with the extensive experience in the construction and operation
of MSF systems, solar-MEE systems are much more efficient than the solar-MSF processes
for the same conditions, requiring less effects/stages for the same thermal energy
consumption. Furthermore, solar-MEE systems are much easier to start-up due to fewer
effects for the same performance. The top boiling temperature of solar-MEE systems can be
as low as 55oC, thereby allowing the use of low-grade industrial waste heat. Solar-MSF would
only be favourable if the feed concentration salinity and operating temperature are high since
solar-MEE systems are prone to scaling if they are not operated within the solubility limits of
calcium sulphate (see Section 6.3.8).

9.2.3

How do solar ponds compare as a source of heat for desalination with other
solar-thermal technologies such as evacuated tubular solar collectors?

The ground area needed by the ETSCs (for a medium-scale desalination unit with a distillate
production of at least 200 kL/day) has been found to be 3.5 times that of the corresponding
SGSP. The ground area includes the area needed between rows of ETSC to prevent casting of
shadows on neighbouring ETSC, which is not an issue for SGSP. SGSP would be the obvious
choice if cost of land is significant (assuming that the base of the SGSP is leak proof to
prevent any brine leakage which could affect the land value). ETSC coupled with a TES tank
requires flow and temperature controls. However, it requires very little maintenance. SGSP on
the other hand requires periodical monitoring and maintenance (see Section 3.5.2). The
required collection area of SGSPs could be further reduced if the heat is extracted from the
NCZ as well as the LCZ, since the pond would be operating at higher efficiency, although this
concept is still to be tested experimentally at a larger scale (see Section 3.5.3).

401

Chapter 9

The ETSC-MEE has been found to be more expensive (by ~ AUD $0.30 / m3) than the SGSPMEE for large-scale units (based on Melbourne insolation) due to the higher capital cost
incurred (see Section 8.4.7). As noted in Section 8.4.3, cheaper ETSCs are available from
China, and these could reduce the capital cost of the ETSC-TES system further and make the
system favourable. However, if a SGSP is located in an area where there is underground
brackish water and salt production facilities are already established, the brine needed to setup
and maintain the SGSP could be provided at very low- or no-cost. Based on Alice Springs
(which has a higher insolation and lower summer-winter insolation ratio) insolation, the
required SGSP area was reduced by 51%. Similarly, the collection area of ETSC was reduced
by 55%. Consequently, the cost of water from the ETSC-TES-MEE system was found to be
cheaper (by ~ AUD $0.1 / m3) than the SGSP-MEE system. The comparative analysis showed
that the preferred choice of heat source is dependent on the location and existing facilities,
and further detailed study is warranted to make a firm decision at a particular location.

9.2.4

How can the solar-thermal desalination plants be optimised? How can the
performance of the desalination process be enhanced with respect to heat
exchange tube materials?

The results from the MSF simulation (see Section 5.1.3.5) showed that there is an optimal
flow rate for the feed saltwater for a given set of conditions. Based on the design parameters,
the solar-thermal desalination plant flow rates can be optimised to obtain the best
performance. The ETSC-TES-MEE simulation results (see Section 8.3.1.2) showed that the
ETSC collection area and TES storage volume could be optimised to obtain the lowest
specific cost. The same optimisation techniques could be applied to match the number of PV
modules with the battery storage (see Section 8.4.5).
Based on Melbourne insolation (with a summer-winter ratio of 2.9), the solar-MEE unit works
at only 41% of the peak rated capacity in winter due to the large seasonal difference in the
insolation, thereby affecting the SGSP energy output (see Section 8.3.1.1). Clearly, the
desalination plant is under utilised when the summer-winter ratio is high. One solution is to
operate the SGSP-MEE unit in locations with high solar radiation and little seasonal
difference in insolation (such as Alice Springs, Northern Territory; Broome, Western
Australia; and Port Augusta, South Australia) in order to increase the desalination capacity
factor (as was done for Alice Springs in Section 8.5.2). However if this is not possible, the
SGSP-MEE system can be optimised (as explained in Section 8.5.3) to better utilise the
desalination plant. The solar pond can be oversized and some of the solar output in summer
402

Chapter 9

can be wasted (termed as peak clipping). For instance, for Melbourne, peak clipping would
give a summer-winter ratio of 1.6 (as compared to 2.9 if there is no peak clipping). This peak
clipping method can therefore be used for location with high summer-winter insolation ratio
in order to optimise the desalination plant and minimise the water cost.
The technical (see Section 5.3.7) and economic (see Section 8.2.3) comparative analysis of
the condenser material used in the solar-SSF experimental unit showed that HDPE was 25%
cheaper than Cu-Ni for the same heat transfer performance. HDPE tubes require support since
they are flexible and tend to soften at high temperature. However, unlike Cu-Ni, HDPE heat
exchangers are not subject to corrosion, oxidation or chemical attacks. Plastic heat exchangers
have a longer life regardless of the environment. By considering these factors and the
associated reduction in antiscalant and corrosion inhibitors; the HDPE condenser may thus
have an advantage over the more expensive metal condensers provided the required space is
available.

9.2.5

How do the preferred solar-thermal distillation systems compare on energy


efficiency, economic and greenhouse impact with conventional desalination
systems powered by energy from fossil fuels, and other renewable energy based
systems such as photovoltaic-reverse osmosis (PV-RO) and wind-reverse
osmosis (wind-RO) systems?

The results from the technical and economic analysis of the different MEE and RO
desalination systems (based on Melbourne insolation and wind speed) are shown in Table
8-12, Table 8-20, Table 8-21 and Figure 8-35. It is noteworthy that the water costs given here
do not include the distribution costs (affected by the distribution pumps energy requirement).
On the basis of the assumptions made in this analysis, the cheapest technology for large-scale
desalination units is the conventional Electric-RO with a water cost of AUD $1.43 / m3,
followed by Wind-RO with a water cost of AUD $1.69 / m3 . Among the MEE technologies,
SGSP-MEE produced the lowest water cost of AUD $2.38 / m3, followed by the conventional
Gas-Thermal MEE with AUD $2.73 / m3. If only zero emissions technologies are considered,
Wind-RO produced the lowest water cost followed by SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery, ETSC-TESMEE + PV-Battery and PV-RO. SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery system was found to be AUD
$1.84 / m3 less expensive than PV-RO.
In interpreting these results, it is important to be aware that the relatively small differences in
the water costs between some of the options may be offset if not reversed by changing the key
403

Chapter 9

assumptions made about the cost parameters. The economic evaluation presented is based on
best estimates for each parameter with the information available currently. Many uncertainties
remain in the evaluation as was shown by the SGSP sensitivity cost analysis (see Section
8.4.7). Some cost parameters (such as salt cost) are site-specific while others are generalised
(such as conventional electricity cost and assumed unit capital costs of the main components).
In order to investigate the magnitude of the effect of each cost parameter on the water cost,
each variable can be varied around the best estimate (used as a central value). If the change
has a significant effect on the water cost, an accurate value for the cost parameter is necessary
for a meaningful comparison. A brief sensitivity cost analysis for all the options (presented in
Section 8.7.4) shows to what extent a 50% change in the main cost parameters affect the
water cost for medium- and large-scale desalination systems. The analysis showed that
assuming different values for the main cost parameters could thus change the water cost
differences between the options, and hence the ranking order of the options according to the
unit water cost. Nevertheless, this preliminary analysis gives a rough indication of the
economic performance.
The water cost of the conventional Electric-RO system was found to be AUD $1.43 / m3 from
this preliminary economic analysis. This is much lower than the high water costs for the
proposed Wonthaggi desalination plant (see Section 2.8.4.4). Moran (2008) reported that the
cost of water delivered to the local distribution network would be AUD $3.01 / m3 (AUD
$2.13 / m3 and AUD $0.88 / m3 for capital and operating costs, respectively). The difference
arises in part because the RO system investigated in this evaluation consists of a one-pass
system only. The product water usually has a salinity of less than 500 ppm TDS when a
single-pass RO is used. The World Health Organisation (2006) has established a guideline
maximum TDS value of less than 500 ppm for potable water. The Kurnell SWRO (see
Section 2.8.4.1) and Wonthaggi SWRO, on the other hand, employ a two-pass system in order
to reduce the TDS to 40 ppm. A two-pass system consequently increases the specific water
cost. More details about the technical specifications and water costs of the different
desalination systems can be found in Table 8-12, Table 8-20, Table 8-21 and Table 8-22.
This economic analysis was based on Melbourne insolation. The water costs are likely to be
less in a location with high solar radiation, as was shown for Alice Springs (see Section
8.5.2). In fact the water costs from the SGSP-MEE + PV-Battery system for Alice Springs (~
AUD $2.32 / m3 see Table 8-13) is ~ AUD $1 / m3 cheaper than the PV-RO for Melbourne
and only AUD $0.63 / m3 more expensive than Wind-RO for Melbourne. The indications are
404

Chapter 9

thus that the cost range for solar-thermal MEE desalination systems is competitive with the
other main zero-emission desalination options (PV-RO and Wind-RO). The solar-thermal
MEE option may thus have an economic advantage over PV-RO in areas of high insolation,
but further modelling and experimental work is needed to confirm this conclusion.
The environmental evaluation (see Section 8.7.4) showed that the conventional MEE system
running on natural gas produced 81% less greenhouse gases than a similar sized MEE system
powered by electricity only. The greenhouse gas emissions from the SGSP-MEE and ETSCTES-MEE (12,048 tonnes of CO2-e / year for the large-scale unit) systems were found to be
41% of the emissions from the conventional RO (producing 29,460 tonnes of CO2-e / year for
the large-scale unit).

9.2.6

How can the concentrated brine from inland desalination systems be disposed of
without any environmental impacts? How can these technologies be
incorporated into integrated approaches to salinity and water quality in saltaffected areas and in schemes for salinity reduction?

As mentioned in Section 2.7.4, one of the most significant environmental considerations for
desalination systems is disposal of the concentrated brine. The waste brine may contain
chemicals used throughout the desalination process and corrosion or erosion metals products
from the plant.
The rise of the salty water table in many parts of the world including in northern Victoria,
Australia is threatening large areas of agricultural land. So far the most successful method
of overcoming this problem has been pumping saline groundwater out, channelling it into a
number of successive evaporation ponds, and allowing the brine solution to crystallise into
sodium chloride salt. However, bittern the liquid remaining after crystallising out sodium
chloride containing mainly magnesium chloride remains as a waste product. Moreover,
through the process of evaporation fresh water is lost to the atmosphere. The solar energy in
salt affected areas of Australia such as Wakool and Mourquong in southern New South
Wales; and Hattah and Pyramid Hill in northern Victoria can potentially be harvested and
converted into heat to power a SGSP-MEE desalination unit. SGSP offer an on-site locallyconstructed alternative technology to convert solar radiation into thermal energy.
The idea of coupling a SGSP-MEE system into salinity mitigation schemes was investigated
conceptually. Solar ponds can easily be integrated into salt works. The evaporation ponds
involved in salt production can even be converted to solar ponds while they are still
405

Chapter 9

functioning as evaporation ponds, so that the incremental costs of including SGSP can be
relatively low. If a SGSP-MEE system is integrated into salinity mitigation schemes
associated with salt production, less evaporation ponds are needed to produce commercial salt
since the concentration of the saltwater input to the ponds is higher (coming from the reject
brine outlet of the desalination unit). The commercial salt can also be used to construct
additional solar pond capacity, thus supporting more energy for increased desalting.

9.2.7

How does the new concept of an Integrated Solar Collector and Evaporation
(ISCE) system, as developed in the course of the research program of this thesis,
compare with other systems in regards to efficiency?

One application of the ISCE is a design for a standalone single-effect solar thermal
desalination system where the salt-free vapour produced is condensed directly into fresh water
(see Section 7.3.2). Another application is where the salt-free vapour is used as a heat source
in a solar-thermal multi-effect evaporation (MEE) desalination system and then condensed
(see Section 7.7). The main advantages of this integrated arrangement are:
o

very low losses in the transfer of heat from the solar collector surface to the saltwater to
be heated

avoidance of the need for a pump and secondary circuit of water to transfer heat from the
solar collector to the saltwater to be heated, with consequent cost savings and lowered
parasitic electricity demand (to run the pump)

phase separation and production of vapour are done in the same apparatus as the
collection of solar heat, avoiding the need for a separate evacuated cylinder with
associated internal heat exchanger.

The theoretical and empirical results proved the feasibility of the concept. The theoretical
cumulative distillate production for a particular day in January was found to be 13.74 litres
(see Section 7.3.3.8). The experimental single-effect ISCE desalination system, with a total
absorber area of 1.92 m2, produced up to (1.39 0.16) litres of fresh water per hour, which
resulted in a recovery ratio of (22.1 2.6)%.
The specific distillate production rate from the ISCE unit was found to be higher than that of a
similar-sized solar still flat plate system at high insolation. It is expected that the total
annual production from the ISCE will be much more than the solar still flat plate system
406

Chapter 9

since the round evacuated tube in the ISCE means that the collector is always perpendicular to
the sun's rays thereby maximising the amount of solar radiation the collector is exposed to
throughout the day. The theoretical and empirical studies have demonstrated the feasibility
and promise of the concept.

9.2.8

What are the future trends and challenges of solar-thermal MEE desalination,
given the rise of reverse osmosis as a desalination process?

MSF has been the leading technology until about 2001. The progress of MSF over the last
couple of years has been rather slow, while RO has gained significant market share. The RO
pre-treatment processes have been improved and the energy requirements for RO systems
have been significantly reduced with the use of energy recovery devices (ERD).
The theoretical minimum energy required (see Section 2.7.1) is approximately 0.83 kWh / m3
of fresh water at a recovery rate of 30%. The energy requirements for SWRO are now
typically less than 3 kWh / m3 (with the use of ERD). This is only four times the theoretical
minimum. However, RO systems consume energy in the form of electricity as compared to
MSF or MEE which uses the heat more directly thereby eliminating the losses of energy
conversion. For example, in an electric steam power plant, MSF and MEE systems would use
the thermal energy from the boiler whereas RO processes would use the electricity from the
generator. Therefore, on a fuel comparison; if the typical efficiency of coal-to-electricity
generation is around 33%, RO consumes at least 11 times the theoretical energy requirement.
Previous research and development on thermal desalination technologies has focussed on
reducing the thermal energy consumption by either reducing the operating temperature
difference or extending the temperature range, without incurring excessive capital costs. The
results from the MSF and MEE technical evaluation showed that there is significant decrease
in the energy consumption up to a particular number of stages/effects (depending on the
operating temperatures), and thereafter diminishing gains as the number of stages/effect
further increases. For this reason, it is unlikely (based on this research study) that MSF or
MEE will have an energy requirement less than that of a similar sized RO, without sacrificing
the investment costs.
The key aim in future research and development of solar-thermal MEE desalination should be
to reduce the capital cost by making use of alternative material. For instance, the use of plastic
material (which can withstand high temperature) can also allow much higher boiling
407

Chapter 9

temperatures, thereby increasing the productivity. In addition, incorporation of the ISCE


concept may lead to further improvements in cost competitiveness. Another opportunity is to
employ MEE systems in recovering low- to medium-grade industrial waste heat (provided the
industry is located close to a saltwater source).
Nonetheless, solar-thermal MEE systems may be preferable to RO systems as a zero emission
desalination technology in areas such as:
o Northern and north-western Victoria where there is brackish groundwater;
o Coastal Western Australia and South Australia;
o Central Australia (Western Australia, South Australia, southern Northern Territory,

western New South Wales) where there is brackish groundwater;


o The Pacific islands; and
o Rural areas in developing countries, for instance; Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and

Vietnam.
Another technology worth re-examining is membrane distillation (MD). MD was introduced
commercially on a small-scale in the 1980s and has a number of potential advantages over
conventional desalination processes including low operating temperature, low operating
pressure, reduced membrane mechanical strength requirements and less vapour space
requirements. MD only need small temperature differentials to operate and is well suited for
low-grade heat sources. Geothermal is also another potential heat source for low-temperature
thermal desalination systems.

9.3

Recommendations

The following recommendations for further research, development and commercialisation are
made:
o The required collection area of SGSPs could be further reduced if the heat is extracted

from the NCZ as well as the LCZ. However, the use of an internal heat exchanger for this
purpose is not suitable for large-scale SGSP. An experimental study using an external heat
exchanger for brine extraction and re-injection at different levels still needs to be
conducted to determine the effect of the substantial heat extraction from the NCZ at
different levels on the stability of the salinity gradient. The practical implications of using
this method of heat extraction in medium- to large-scale ponds also need to be
investigated. Furthermore, an economic analysis needs to be conducted to evaluate if the

408

Chapter 9

economic gains from increased thermal efficiency can help to recoup the additional capital
and operating costs of the gradient layer heat extraction system.
o HDPE heat exchangers are not subject to corrosion and have a longer life. However, the

current design of the HDPE condenser used in the experimental solar-SSF system should
be improved. A more efficient HDPE condenser using a cross-flow configuration with
common headers at both ends of the heat exchanger tubes would reduce the vapour flow
impediment and the pressure drop. The use of Polytethefluoroethylene (PTFE) as a
material for plate heat exchangers should also be investigated.
o The present solar-MEE computer models should be extended to cover more complex

cases (such as a mixture of preheaters and flash boxes).


o The solar-MEE system needs to be improved further by making use of the wasted heat in

the rejected cooling water; for instance by using an absorption heat pump.
o Falling-film evaporators were found to be almost four times as expensive as submerged

tubes evaporators. The limited movement of the boiling saltwater around submerged tubes
could lead to a high rate of scale formation and hence could further impede the heat
transfer performance. Further continuous experimental tests should be conducted to
investigate the effect of scale on the performance of the submerged evaporators.
o The solar-MEE system was unstable while operating at temperatures less than 56oC. The

supply and inter-effects valves had to be adjusted numerous times to maintain constant
water level in the evaporators. It is recommended to install automatic inter-effect flow
control valves for solar-MEE system designed to work at less than 60oC.
o Further work is needed to compare the concept of the ISCE coupled with an MEE unit

with alternative conventional solar-thermal desalination systems.


o The three alternative design variations of the ISCE system identified, namely the ISCE

using falling-film principle, ISCE using rising-film principle and the integrated solar
collector membrane distillation (ISCMD) system should be further investigated in order to
prove the feasibility of the new designs.
o The economic evaluation presented in this study was based on best estimates for each

parameter that could be made at this time. Many uncertainties remain in the evaluation as
409

Chapter 9

was shown by the SGSP sensitivity cost analysis. In order to investigate the magnitude of
the effect of each cost parameter on the water cost, each variable can be varied around the
best estimate (used as a central value). If the change has a significant effect on the water
cost, a more accurate and reliable value for the cost parameter is necessary for a
meaningful comparison. It is noteworthy that some cost parameters (such as salt cost) are
site-specific while others are generalised (such as conventional electricity cost and
assumed unit capital costs of the main components). Further work is required in order to
investigate the effect of each cost parameter (and the different combination effect) and
hence revised the assumed value in this preliminary analysis. The comparison between
SGSP-MEE and ETSC-TES-MEE options, and between these thermal options and PVRO, would be particularly deserving of further investigation.
o The simulation models should extended to compare the energy storage capacity with water

storage capacity, with the aim of finding the most economical storage system (either
storing fresh water in tanks by having a larger desalination system or storing solar thermal
energy to use during non-solar periods) to meet a specific water demand.
o Opportunities for the development of pre-commercial prototype of both conventional

solar-MEE systems and systems employing the ISCE concept in conjunction with industry
partners should be sought and investigated.

410

References

REFERENCES
3DCAM 2004, Acrylic Physical, Mechanical, Electrical, Thermal , Optical and Processing
Properties, Material Properties, 3DCAM, viewed 9 June 2005, <http://www.3dcam.com/materials/acrylic.asp>.
ACS 2006, Australian customs tariff, Schedule 3 - November 2006, Australian Customs
Service (ACS).
ADAMS, J. A. & ROGERS, D. F. 1973, Computer-aided heat-transfer analysis, McGrawHill, Tokyo.
AGHA, K. R. 2008, '(in press as) The thermal characteristics and economic analysis of a solar
pond coupled low temperature multi stage desalination plant', Solar Energy.
AKBARZADEH, A. & ANDREWS, J. 2005, 'Integration of solar ponds in salinity mitigation
schemes to produce low grade heat for industrial process heating, desalination and power', in
ISES - 2005 Solar World Congress conference proceedings, Orlando, Florida, USA, August
6-12, 2005.
AKBARZADEH, A. & ANDREWS, J. 2006, 'Enhancing the thermal efficiency of solar
ponds by extracting heat from the gradient layer', Solar Energy, vol. 78, no. 6, pp. 704-716.
AL-BUSAIDI, A. 2004, 'Desalination in Oman and the Fundamentals of Reverse Osmosis
Design', in Practices and Experiences of Water and Wastewater Technology conference
proceedings, Muscat, Oman, October 5-7, 2004, International Hydrological Programme (IHP)
of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).
AL-JUWAYHEL, F., EL-DESSOUKY, H. T. & ETTOUNEY, H. M. 1997, 'Analysis of
single-effect evaporator desalination systems combined with vapor compression heat pumps',
Desalination, vol. 114, no. 3, pp. 253-275.
AL-NAJEM, N. M., DARWISH, M. A. & YOUSSEF, F. A. 1997, 'Thermo vapor
compression desalters: energy and availability analysis of single and multi-effect systems',
Desalination, vol. 110, pp. 223-238.
AL-SHAMMIRI, M. & SAFAR, M. 1999, 'Multi-effect distillation plants: state of the art',
Desalination, vol. 126, no. 1-3, pp. 45-59.
AL-SHUAIB, A., AL-BAHU, M., EL-DESSOUKY, H. & ETTOUNEY, H. 1999, 'Progress
of the desalination industry in Kuwait', in IDA World Congress on Desalination and Water
Reuse conference proceedings, San Diego, USA, pp. pp. 191-221.
ALATIQI, I., EL-DESSOUKY, H. T., BINGULAC, S. & ETTOUNEY, H. 1998, 'Steadystate analysis of the multiple effect evaporation desalination process', Chemical Engineering
Technologies, vol. 21, no. 5, pp. 437-451.
ALSTOM 2008, Alstom signs agreement to build a 1,200 MW power plant in Saudi Arabia,
Alstom, viewed 24 September 2008,
<http://www.alstom.com/pr_corp_v2/2008/corp/50692.EN.php>.
411

References

ALY, S. E. 1999, 'Gas turbine total energy vapour compression desalination system', Energy
Conversion and Management, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 729-741.
ANDREWS, J. & AKBARZADEH, A. 2002, Solar pond project: Stage 1 - Solar ponds for
industrial process heating, End of project report for project funded under Renewable Energy
Commercialisation program, Australian Greenhouse Office, RMIT University, Melbourne.
APRICUS 2006, Apricus Evacuated tube solar collectors, Apricus, accessed 10 November,
2007.
AS-NZS 2008, Australian and New Zealand Standard AS/NZS 4234:2008, Heated water
systems - Calculation of energy consumption, Standards Australia (AS) and Standards New
Zealand (NZS).
AS 1997, Australian Standard AS1210-1997, Pressure Vessels, Standards Australia (AS).
ASHRAE 2000, American Society of Heating and Ventilating Engineers (ASHRAE)
Handbook - HVAC Systems and Equipment, 2000, ASHRAE.
AWERBUCH, G. L. 1997a, 'Status of seawater desalination technologies', in International
Symposium on Desalination of Seawater with Nuclear Energy conference proceedings,
Taejon, Korea, May 26-30, 1997.
AWERBUCH, L. 1997b, 'Power-desalination and the importance of hybrid ideas', in IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse conference proceedings, Madrid, Spain,
October 6-9, 1997.
AWM 2002, Metal Product Data Sheet, Stainless steel Grades 316, 316L, 316H, Austral
Wright Metals (AWM), Sydney.
AWWA 2007, Zero Liquid Discharge for Inland Desalination, Environmental Leadership,
Project 3010, American Water Works Association (AWWA) Research Foundation,
California.
BADRAN, O. O. & AL-TAHAINEH, H. A. 2005, 'The effect of coupling a flat-plate
collector on the solar still productivity', Desalination, vol. 183, pp. 137-142.
BEEK, W. J., MUTTZALL, K. M. K. & VAN HEUVEN, J. W. 1999, Transport Phenomena,
2nd ed., John Wiley and Sons, New York.
BEVINGTON, P. R. & ROBINSON, D. K. 2003, 'Chapter 3 - Error Analysis', in Data
Reduction and Error Analysis for the Physical Sciences, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
BLANCO, J. & ALARCON, D. 2006, 'The PSA experience on solar desalination: technology
development and research activities', in NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Solar
Desalination for the 21st Century conference proceedings, Hammamet, Tunisia, February 2325, 2006, Springer, pp. 195 - 206.
BLANCO, J., ZARCA, E., ALARCON, D., MALATO, S. & LEON, J. 2002, 'Advanced
multi-effect solar desalination technology: the PSA experience', in 11th SolarPACES
International Symposium on Concentrated Solar Power and Chemical Energy Technologies
conference proceedings, Zurich, Switzerland, September 4-6, 2002, pp. 479-487.
412

References

BOM 2008, Global solar exposure for Melbourne Airport [1995-2008], National Climate
Centre - Bureau of Meteorology (BOM), Melbourne.
BOM 2009, Australian Rainfall Maps, National Climate Centre - Bureau of Meteorology
(BOM), viewed March 2009, <http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/rain_maps.cgi>.
BOUROUNI, K., MARTIN, R. & TADRIST, L. 1999, 'Analysis of heat transfer and
evaporation in geothermal desalination units ', Desalination, vol. 122, no. 2-3, pp. 301-313.
BPSOLAR 2008, BP 4175 Solar Modules Specifications, BP Solar Australia, viewed
November 10, 2008,
<http://www.bp.com/sectiongenericarticle.do?categoryId=9020472&contentId=7038098>.
BRITANNICA 2007, Chemical Process: Distillation, Britannica Encyclopedia Online,
accessed 28 August, 2008,
<http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/166098/distillation>.
BRYANT, H. C. & COLBECK, I. 1977, 'A solar pond for London?' Solar Energy, vol. 19,
no. 3, pp. 321-322.
BST-ACS 1996, Mist Eliminator Design Manual, BST Wire Products - ACS Industries
(Separations Technology Division).
BUROS, O. K. 2000, The ABC's of Desalting, 2nd ed., Saline Water Conversion Council for
the International Desalination Association (IDA), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
CAMERON, D. 2007, 'Securing Australia's water supplies', Engineers Australia (EA)
magazine, January 2007, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 24-30.
CENGEL, Y. A. 2003, Heat Transfer: A Practical Approach, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, New
York.
CHATO, J. C. 1962, 'Laminar Condensation inside Horizontal and Inclined Tubes', ASHRAE
Journal, vol. 4, pp. 52.
CHOW, S. P., HARDING, G. L. & ZHIQIANG, Y. 1984, 'Optimisation of evacuated tubular
solar collector arrays with diffuse reflectors', Solar Energy, vol. 33, no. 3/4, pp. 277-282.
CHURCHILL, S. W. & CHU, H. H. S. 1975, 'Correlating Equations for Laminar and
Turbulent Free Convection from a Horizontal Cylinder', International Journal of Heat and
Mass Transfer, vol. 18, pp. 1049.
CLUGSTON, M. & FLEMMING, R. 2000, 'Le Chantelier's Principle', in OXFORDUNIVERSITY, Advanced Chemistry, Canada, ch. 11.3, pp. 168.
CPRT 2007, 'Historical Solutions to Coober Pedy's Most Urgent Need - Water', Coober Pedy
Regional Times (CPRT) magazine, no. June 14 - 27, 2007, pp. 19.
CRISP, G. 2007a, 'Leading the way - desalination in Perth', Engineers Australia (EA)
magazine, February 2007, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 32-33.

413

References

CRISP, G. 2007b, 'Proposal for private desalination plant in SA', Engineers Australia (EA)
magazine, February 2007, vol. 79, no. 2, pp. 34.
CRUZ, J. 2008, Ocean Wave Energy: Current Status and Future Perspectives (Green Energy
and Technology), 1st ed., Springer, Heidelberg.
CSIRO 2006, 'Waste Heat Recovery: Identifying and recovering heat energy', CSIRO
Minerals, PROCESS magazine, October 2006, pp. 3.
DAMITZ, B., FURUKAWA, D. & TOAL, J. 2006, Desalination Feasibility Study for the
Monterey Bay Region, Final Report, Association of Montery Bay Area Governments,
Monterey.
DARWISH, M. A. & AL-NAJEM, N. M. 1987, 'Energy consumption and costs of different
desalting systems', Desalination, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 83-96.
DARWISH, M. A. & AL-NAJEM, N. M. 2000, 'Energy consumption by multi-stage flash and
reverse osmosis desalters', Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 399 - 416.
DARWISH, M. A. & EL-HADIK, A. A. 1986, 'The Multi-Effect Boiling Desalting System
and its Comparison with the Multi-Stage Flash System', Desalination, vol. 60, pp. 251-265.
DCC 2008, National Greenhouse Gas Inventory 2006, Australian Government - Department
of Climate Change, Canberra.
DE RENZO, D. J. 1985, Corrosion Resistant Materials Handbook, 4th ed., Noyes Data
Corporation, New Jersey.
DEGRMONT 2005, Perth Seawater Reverse Osmosis Desalination Plant, August 2005,
SUEZ Environnement - Degrmont, Rueil-Malmaison.
DELYANNIS, E. E. 1987, 'Status of solar assisted desalination: A review', Desalination, vol.
67, no. 1, pp. 3-19.
DME 2008, Green Energy Challenge for Desalination Plant (Media Release), Queensland
Government - Department of Mines and Energy (DME), viewed September 15, 2008,
<http://www.dme.qld.gov.au/media_centre.cfm?item=473.0>.
DPC 2008, Power and pipe operation part of desalination plant PPP, Media Release from the
Minister for Water, Minister for Water, Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet (DPC),
Thursday, May 8, 2008, viewed 10 September, 2008,
<http://www.dpc.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/newmedia.nsf/8fc6e140ef55837cca256c8c0
0183cdc/1f95f992f2d48391ca257444000680ff!OpenDocument>.
DVORNIKOV, V. 2000, 'Seawater multi-effect distillation energized by a combustion
turbine', Desalination, vol. 127, no. 3, pp. 261-269.
EL-DESSOUKY, H. T. & ETTOUNEY, H. M. 1999, 'Multiple-effect evaporation
desalination systems: thermal analysis', Desalination, vol. 125, pp. 259 - 276.

414

References

EL-DESSOUKY, H. T., ETTOUNEY, H. M., AL-FULAIJ, H. & MANDANIA, F. 2000,


'Multistage flash desalination combined with thermal vapour compression', Chemical
Engineering and Processing, vol. 39, no. 1, pp. 343-356.
EL-DESSOUKY, H. T., ETTOUNEY, H. M. & AL-ROUMI, Y. 1999, 'Multi-stage
desalination: present and future outlook', Chemical Engineering Journal, vol. 73, pp. 173 190.
EL-SAYED, Y. M. 1999, 'Thermoeconomics of some options of large mechanical vaporcompression units', Desalination, vol. 125, no. 1-3, pp. 251-257.
ENDLESS-SOLAR 2007, Endless-Solar Heat pipe solar collectors FAQ, Endless-Solar,
accessed 25 July, 2008.
ERI 2006, PX-260 PX Pressure Exchanger Energy Recovery Device, Energy Recovery Inc.,
accessed 10 September, 2008, <http://www.energyrecovery.com/index.html>.
ERI 2008, Case Study: Perth SWRO Desalination Plant, Perth, Australia, PX Technology Reducing Energy and Overall Costs, Energy Recovery Inc, San Leandro, California.
ETTOUNEY, H. M., EL-DESSOUKY, H. T. & ALATIQI, I. 1999, Understanding thermal
desalination, Chemical Engineering Progress.
EVANS, L. R. & MILLER, J. E. 2002, Sweeping Gas Membrane Desalination Using
Commercial Hydrophobic Hollow Fiber Membranes, Report 2002-0138, Sandia National
Laboratories, New Mexico.
FIORENZA, G., SHARMA, V. K. & BRACCIO, G. 2003, 'Techno-economic evaluation of a
solar powered water desalination plant', Energy Conversion and Management, vol. 44, no. 14,
pp. 2217-2240.
FISHER, U., AVIRAM, A. & GENDEL, A. 1985, 'ASHDOD multi-effect low temperature
desalination plant report on year of operation', Desalination, vol. 55, pp. 13 - 32.
FORD, G. 2008, 'CSP: bright future for linear fresnel technology?' September/October 2008,
Renewable Energy Focus magazine, pp. 48-51.
FYNN, R. P. & SHORT, T. H. 1983, The salt stabilized solar pond for space heating - A
practical manual, Special Report 106, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center,
Ohio.
GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, L. 2003, 'Renewable energy applications in desalination: state of the
art', Solar Energy, vol. 75, pp. 381-393.
GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, L., PALMERO-MARRERO, A. I. & GOMEZ-CAMACHO, C.
2002, 'Comparison of solar thermal technologies for applications in seawater desalination',
Desalination, vol. 142, no. 2, pp. 135-142.
GARCIA-RODRIGUEZ, L., ROMERO-TERNERO, V. & GOMEZ-CAMACHO, C. 2001,
'Economic analysis of wind-powered desalination', Desalination, vol. 137, no. 1-3, pp. 259265.

415

References

GCBN 2008, 'Drought Buster: Cutting-edge power to wipe water woes and eliminate
Australia's water restrictions', Gold Coast Business News (GCBN) magazine, June 2008, vol.
5, no. 5, pp. 28-29.
GLEICK, P. H. 1996, 'Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic
Needs', Water International (International Water Resources Association), vol. 21, pp. 83-92.
GLUECKSTERN, P. 1995, 'Potential uses of solar energy for seawater desalination',
Desalination, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 11-20.
GLUECKSTERN, P., THOMA, A. & PRIEL, M. 2001, 'The impact of R&D on new
technologies, novel design concepts and advanced operating procedures on the cost of water
desalination', Desalination, vol. 139, no. 1-3, pp. 217-228.
GNIELINSKI, V. 1976, 'New equations for heat and mass transfer in turbulent pipe and
channel flow', International Chemical Engineering, vol. 16, pp. 359 - 368.
GRASS, C., SCHOELKOPF, W., STAUDACHER, L. & HACKER, Z. 2004, 'Comparison of
the optics of non-tracking and novel types of tracking solar thermal collectors for process heat
applications up to 300oC', Solar Energy, vol. 76, pp. 207-215.
GWA 2008, Desalination Database, Global Water Intelligence, viewed 20 October, 2008,
<http://desaldata.com/index.html>.
GWI 2008, Desalination Database, Global Water Intelligence, viewed 20 October, 2008,
<http://desaldata.com/index.html>.
HABALI, S. M. & SALEH, I. A. 1994, 'Design of stand-alone brackish water desalination
wind energy system for Jordan ', Solar Energy, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 525-532.
HAN, J. & FLETCHER, L. 1985, 'Falling film evaporation and boiling in circumferential and
axial grooves on horizontal tubes', Industrial Engineering Chemical Process Des. Dev., vol.
24, pp. 570-597.
HELAL, A. M. & ODEH, M. 2004, 'The once-through MSF design. Feasibility for future
large capacity desalination plants', Desalination, vol. 166, pp. 25-39.
HERBERT, L. S. & MOFFATT, D. H. 1970, Desalination - A survey of Australian plants,
Department of National Development, Canberra.
HERMANN, M., KOSCHIKOWSKI, J. & ROMMEL, M. 2002, 'Corrosion-Free Solar
Collectors for Thermally Driven Seawater Desalination', Solar Energy, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 415426.
HERRING, R. 2005, World's largest desalination plant open, viewed 4 December 2006,
<http://www.redherring.com/PrintArticle.aspx?a=13035&sector=Regions>.
HOH 2007, Schematic of Pressure Exchanger, HOH-USA & Carib Ltd, accessed February
10, 2009, <http://www.hohusa.net/images/PX.JPG>.
HOLMAN, J. P. 1992, Heat Transfer, 7th ed., McGraw Hill, New York.

416

References

HULL, J. R. 1980, 'Computer simulation of solar pond thermal behaviour', Solar Energy, vol.
25, no. 1, pp. 33-40.
HULL, J. R. 1989, 'Maintenance of Brine Transparency in Salinity Gradient Solar Pond', in
ASME Solar Energy conference proceedings, San Diego, California, USA, 1989.
HULL, J. R., NIELSEN, C. E. & GOLDING, P. 1989, Salinity Gradient Solar Ponds, CRC
Press, Florida.
HUTCHINSON, M. F. & KESTEVEN, J. L. 1998, Monthly Mean Climate Surfaces for
Australia, Graphs constructed from data supplied in ANUCLIM, The Australian National
University - The Fenner School of Environment and Society, Canberra.
IDA 2008, Desalination in 2008: Global Market Snapshot, 21st Global Water Intelligence /
International Desalination Association Worldwide Desalting Plant Inventory, 21.
IEA 2006, World Energy Outlook 2006, International Energy Agency (IEA), Paris.
INCROPERA, F. P. & DEWITT, D. P. 2002, Fundamentals of Heat and Mass Transfer, 5th
ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.
IPCC 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, 4th Assessment,
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Geneva.
IVT 2008, Office and sales ETC presentation, Latento CPC 12/18 ETC, IVT GmbH & Co.
KG, Dottenhausen, Germany.
JERNQVIST, A., JERNQVIST, M. & ALY, G. 1999, 'Simulation of thermal desalination
processes', Desalination, vol. 126, no. 1-3, pp. 147-152.
KALOGIROU, S. A. 2001, 'Effect of fuel cost on the price of desalination water: a case for
renewables', Desalination, vol. 138, no. 1-3, pp. 137-144.
KAUFMANN, D. W. 1960, Sodium Chloride: The Production and Properties of Salt and
Brine, Reinhold Publishing, New York.
KAUSHIK, N. D. & RAO, S. K. 2007, 'Constant flow solar pond collector / storage system',
International Journal of Energy Research, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 61-79.
KAYS, W. M. & LONDON, A. L. 1984, Compact Heat Exchangers, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill,
New York.
KEARNY, D. W. 2007, 'Parabolic Trough Collector Overview', in National Renewable
Energy Laboratory (NREL) - Parabolic Trough Workshop 2007 conference proceedings,
Golden, Colorado, March 8-9, 2007.
KHAN, A. H. 1986, Desalination Processes and Multistage Flash Distillation Practice, 1st
ed., Elsevier, Amsterdam.
KRONENBERG, C. G. 1995, 'Performance of large MVC units', in IDA World Congress on
Desalination and Water Science conference proceedings, Abu Dhabi, UAE, November 18-24,
1995.
417

References

KUNZE, H. 2001, 'A new approach to solar desalination for small- and medium-size use in
remote areas', Desalination, vol. 139, no. 1-3, pp. 35-41.
LATTEMANN, S. & HOPNER, T. 2003, Seawater Desalination: Impacts of Brine and
Chemical Discharge on the Marine Environment, 1st ed., Desalination Publications, L'Aquila,
Italy
LENNTECH 2008, Lenntech Water Treatment and Air Purification, Filmtec Membranes,
viewed November 20, 2008, <http://www.lenntech.com/Replacement/Filmtec.htm>.
LIEW, J. 2007, 'Desalination plant for the Gold Coast', Engineers Australia (EA) magazine,
July 2007, vol. 79, no. 7, pp. 44-45.
LINUO 2002, General Standard for Linuo All-Glass Evacuated Solar Collector Tubes, Linuo
New Material Co. Ltd, Jinan.
LINUO 2004, Linuo Paradigma Tai Yang collectors CPC 12 and CPC 18, Test report 01228-770, Shandong Linuo Paradigma Co. Ltd, Jinan.
LINUO 2006, Linuo Paradigma Product Catalogue, 2006, Shandong Linuo Paradigma Co.
Ltd, Jinan.
LIOR, N. 1986, 'Formulas for calculating the approach to equilibrium in open channel flash
evaporators for saline water', Desalination, vol. 60, pp. 223.
LIU, C. C. K., PARK, J.-W., MIGITA, R. & QIN, G. 2002, 'Experiments of a prototype winddriven reverse osmosis desalination system with feedback control', Desalination, vol. 150, pp.
277-287.
LU, H., WALTON, J. C. & HEIN, H. 2002, Thermal Desalination using MEMS and SalinityGradient Solar Pond Technology, Desalination Research and Development Program Report
No. 80 to U.S Department of the Interior, University of Texas at El Paso, El Paso, Texas.
LU, H., WALTON, J. C. & SWIFT, A. H. P. 2001, 'Desalination coupled with salinitygradient solar ponds', Desalination, vol. 136, no. 1, pp. 13-23.
LU, Y.-Y., HU, Y.-D., XU, D.-M. & WU, L.-Y. 2006, 'Optimum design of reverse osmosis
seawater desalination system considering membrane cleaning and replacing', Journal of
Membrane Science, vol. 282, pp. 7-13.
MACLAUGHLIN, C. 2000, IDA Worldwide desalting plants inventory, Report 16,
International Desalination Association (IDA), USA.
MAGE-TINOX 2006, Solar driven desalination unit supplies office building in Jeddah,
MAGE-TiNOX Group, viewed 10 June 2007, <http://www.tinoxwatermanagement.de/ie1024/news1024.htm>.
MANDANIA, F., ETTOUNEY, H. M. & EL-DESSOUKY, H. T. 2000, 'LiBr-H2O
absorption heat pump for single-effect evaporation desalination process', Desalination, vol.
128, no. 2, pp. 161-176.

418

References

MATWEB 2006, AISI Type 316L Stainless Steel, Material Properties, MatWeb, viewed 17
August 2006,
<http://www.matweb.com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=1336be6d0c594b55afb5ca8bf1f
3e042>.
MG 2006, Liddell Solar Project Update, Macquarie Generation, viewed September 10, 2008,
<http://www.macgen.com.au/News/2006News/LiddellSolarProjectUpdate.aspx>.
MILLER, J. E. 2003, Review of Water Resources and Desalination Technologies, Report
2003-08, Sandia National Laboratories, New Mexico.
MILLS, D. R., BASSETT, I. M. & DERRICK, G. H. 1986, 'Relative Cost-Effectiveness of
CPC Reflector Designs suitable for Evacuated Absorber Tube Solar Collectors', Solar Energy,
vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 199-206.
MILLS, D. R. & MORGAN, R. G. 2008, A solar-powered economy: How solar thermal can
replace coal, gas and oil, Renewable Energy World Magazine, May-June 2008, viewed 6
September 2008, <http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/magazine/story?id=52693>.
MITTELMAN, G., KRIBUS, A. & DAYAN, A. 2005, 'Desalination with Concentrating
Photovoltaic Systems', in ISES - 2005 Solar World Congress conference proceedings,
Orlando, Florida, USA, August 6-12, 2005.
MIYATAKE, O., MURAKAMI, K., KAWATA, Y. & FUJII 1973, 'Fundamental
Experiments with Flash Evaporation', Heat Transfer Japanese Research, vol. 2, no. 10, pp.
89-100.
MJA 2006, Securing Australia's Urban Water Supplies: Opportunities and Impediments, A
discussion paper prepared for the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, Marsden
Jacob Associates (MJA), Canberra.
MORAN, A. 2008, Water Supply Options for Melbourne, An examination of costs and
availabilities of new water supply sources for Melbourne and other urban areas in Victoria
(Revised - August 2008), Institute of Public Affairs (APA), Melbourne.
MORRISON, G. L., BUDIHARDJO, I. & BEHNIA, M. 2005, 'Measurement and simulation
of flow rate in a water-in-glass evacuated tube solar water heater', Solar Energy, vol. 78, pp.
257-267.
MORRISON, G. L. & TRAN, N. H. 1984, 'Long term performance of evacuated tubular solar
water heaters in Sydney, Australia', Solar Energy, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 785-791.
MW & GHD 2007, Seawater Desalination Feasibility Study (Executive Summary), June
2007, Melbourne Water and GHD, Melbourne.
NAS 2004, Review of the Desalination and Water Purification Technology Roadmap,
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) - Water Science and Technology Board, Washington
D.C.
NASA 2008, NASA Surface Meteorology and Solar Energy - A Renewable Energy Resource
Web Site (Release 6.0), The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), viewed
March 2009, <http://eosweb.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/sse/grid.cgi>.
419

References

NCE 2004, Scrubber Packing (Tellerette), Japanese Advanced Environment Equipment,


Nittetu Chemical Engineering Co. Ltd.
NEMETH, J. E. & TOMKINS, B. 2001, 'Energy Recovery Devices: Comparison and Case
Studies', in American Water Works Association Membrane Technology conference
proceedings, San Antonio, Texas, March 2001.
NLWRA 2001, Australian Dryland Salinity Assessment, Australian Government - Natural
Resources Atlas 2000 Report, National Land and Water Resources Audit, viewed 20
September, 2008,
<http://www.anra.gov.au/topics/salinity/pubs/national/salinity_contents.html>.
NRC 2004, Review of the desalination and water purification technology roadmap, National
Research Council, National Academic Press.
NRC 2008, Desalination: A National Perspective, The National Academies Press - National
Research Council (NRC), Washington D.C.
NRCS 2004, Salinity in Colorado, 2004 Newsroom Archive - Natural Resources
Conservation Centre - United States Department of Agriculture, accessed 28 July 2008.
OBERG, E. 1985, Machinery's Handbook - Mechanical Engineering Design, Industrial Press
Inc., New York.
OKLEJAS, E. 1996, 'Improvements in the economics of reverse osmosis through advanced
pumping and energy recovery technology', in American Desalting Association conference
proceedings, Monterey, California, 4 - 18 August, 1996.
OPHIR, A. 1982, 'Desalination plant using low grade geothermal heat ', Desalination, vol. 40,
no. 1-2, pp. 125-132.
PENGRA, D. B. & DILLMAN, L. T. 2008, Notes on Data Analysis and Experimental
Uncertainty, University of Washington and Ohio Wesleyan University, viewed 16 October,
2008, <http://courses.washington.edu/phys431/uncertainty_notes.pdf>.
PERRY, R. H. & GREEN, D. W. 1997, Perry's Chemical Engineer's Handbook, 7th ed.,
McGraw-Hill.
PETERS, M. S., TIMMERHAUS, K. D. & WEST, R. E. 2003, Plant Design and Economics
for Chemical Engineers, 5th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York.
PETUKHOV, B. S., IRVINE, T. F. & HARTNETT, J. P. 1970, Advances in Heat Transfer,
vol. 6, Academic Press, New York.
PNSW 2008, Question and Answers No. 73 (# 2880 - Kurnell Desalination Plant), First
session of the fifty-fourth parliament, Parliament of New South Wales (PNWS) Legislative
Assembly 2007-2008.
PRIVETT, G. 2007, 'Experience in Evaporation ponds and Earth works ', (personal
communication),

420

References

PT 2007, Shoaiba Oil-Fire Power Plant, Industry Projects, Power Technology, viewed 10
July 2008, <http://www.power-technology.com/projects/shoaiba/>.
PYROCRYSTAL 2006, Reverse Osmosis Membrane, Pyrocrystal S.R.L, accessed 16 June,
2008, <http://www.pyrocrystal.it/sito%20secondario2/osmosys.htm>.
QUASCHNING, V. 2003, 'Solar thermal power plants', Renewable Energy World magazine,
June 2003, pp. 109-113.
RABL, A. & NIELSEN, C. E. 1975, 'Solar ponds for space heating', Solar Energy, vol. 17,
pp. 1-12.
RAUTENBACH, R. & VOSENKAUL, K. 2001, 'Pressure driven membrane processes - the
answer to the need of a growing world population for quality water supply and waste water
disposal', Separation and Purification Technology, vol. 22-23, pp. 193-208.
REDONDO, J. A. 2001, 'Brackish-, sea- and wastewaster desalination', Desalination, vol.
138, no. 1-3, pp. 29-40.
RHEINLNDER, J. & LIPPKE, F. 1998, 'Electricity and potable water from a solar tower
power plant', Renewable Energy, vol. 14, no. 1-4, pp. 23-28.
ROBINSON, R., HO, G. & MATHEW, K. 1992, 'Development of a reliable low-cost reverse
osmosis desalination unit for remote communities', Desalination, vol. 86, no. 1, pp. 9-26.
ROHSENOW, W. M. 1952, 'A Method of Correlating Heat Transfer Data for Surface Boiling
of Liquids', ASME Transactions, vol. 74, pp. 969-975.
SEDO 2008, Electricity generation from renewable energy, No.5 - October 2008,
Government of Western Australia - Sustainable Energy Development Office (SEDO), Perth.
SEMIAT, R. 2000, 'Desalination: Present and Future', Water International (International
Water Resources Association), vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 54-65.
SHARMA, V. K., FISHER, U. & BRACCIO, G. (2006) Seawater Desalination. Solar
Desalination for the 21st Century (NATO Programme). Hammamet, Tunisia.
SHIKLOMANOV, I. A. & RODDA, J. C. 2003, World Water Resources at the Beginning of
the 21st Century, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
SIEMENS 2004, Al Taweelah combined cycle power plant, Siemens, viewed 10 March 2008,
<http://www.powergeneration.siemens.com/press/press-pictures/combined-cycle-powerplants/al-taweelah.htm>.
SMITH, S. 2005, Desalination, Waste Water, and the Sydney Metropolitan Water Plan,
Briefing Paper No 10/05, NSW Parliament Library Research Service.
SPF 2004, Evacuated Tube Solar Collector - Apricus Test Report, Report No. C632LPEN,
SPF, Switzerland.
SPIEGLER, K. S. & EL-SAYED, Y. M. 1994, A Desalination Primer, Balaban Desalination
Publications, Santa Maria Imbaro, Italy.
421

References

SS (2006) World-leading mega scale solar power station for Victoria. Media Release (25
October, 2006). Solar Systems.
SUNTRAP 2008, U Series Solar Heat Collector, Suntrap Energy Pty. Ltd., accessed 25 July,
2008.
SW 2007, Sydney's Desalination Project: Marine construction work, Feasibility Report Nov
2007, Sydney Water Communications Team, Sydney.
SW 2008, Sydney's Desalination Project, Sydney Water Communications Team, viewed 10
September, 2008, <http://www.sydneywater.com.au/ensuringthefuture/desalination/>.
SWENSON 2002, LTV Falling-film and Rising-film Evaporator, Swenson Technology Inc.,
accessed 10 March 2008, <http://www.swensontechnology.com/ltv-ff-evap.html>.
SZACSVAY, T., HOFER-NOSER, P. & POSNANSKY, M. 1999, 'Technical and economic
aspects of small-scale solar-pond-powered seawater desalination systems', Desalination, vol.
122, no. 1, pp. 185-193.
TABOR, H. & DORON, B. 1986, 'Solar Ponds - lessons learned from the 150 K We power
plant at Ein Boqek', in ASME Solar Energy Division conference proceedings, Anaheim, CA,
1986.
TAGGART, S. 2008, 'Parabolic troughs: CSP's quiet achiever', March/April 2008, Renewable
Energy Focus magazine, pp. 46-50.
TANG, R., LI, Z., ZHONG, H. & LAN, Q. 2006, 'Assessment of uncertainty in mean heat
loss coefficient of all glass evacuated solar collector tube testing', Energy Conversion and
Management, vol. 47, pp. 60-67.
TEMSTET, C., CANTON, G., LABORIE, J. & DURANTE, A. 1996, 'A large highperformance MED plant in Sicily', Desalination, vol. 105, no. 1-2, pp. 109 - 114.
THOMAS, K. E. 1997, Overview of Village Scale, Renewable Energy Powered Desalination,
NREL Report No. TP-440-22083, National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL).
TURNER, A., HAUSLER, G., CARRARD, N., KAZAGLIS, A., WHITE, S., HUGHES, A.
& JOHNSON, T. 2007, Review of Water Supply-Demand Options for South East Queensland,
University of Technology, Sydney (UTS) and Cardno, Sydney.
TYBOUT, R. A. 1967, 'A recursive alternative to Weinberger's model of the solar pond',
Solar Energy, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 109-111.
TZEN, E., PERRABIS, K. & BALTAS, P. 1998, 'Design of a stand alone PV - desalination
system for rural areas', Desalination, vol. 119, no. 1, pp. 327-334.
UCHE, J., ARTAL, J. & SERRA, L. 2002, 'Comparison of heat transfer coefficient
correlations for thermal desalination units', Desalination, vol. 152, pp. 195-200.
UNEP 2007, Global Environment Outlook 4 (GEO-4), Environment for Development Report
4, United Nations Enviroment Programme (UNEP).
422

References

UNESCO 2006, 'Changing Natural Systems - Global Hydrology and Water Resources', in
THE UNITED NATIONS WORLD WATER DEVELOPMENT, Water, a shared
responsibility, UNESCO Publishing, ch. 4, pp. 121.
VESA, J. M. 1995, 'Mechanical vapour compression desalination plants A case study ',
Desalination, vol. 101, no. 1, pp. 1-10.
VESTAS 2008, Vestas V82-1.65 MW Wind Turbine Specifications, Vestas Wind Systems
A/S, Randers.
WADE, N. M. 1993, 'Technical and Economic Evaluation of Distillation and Reverse
Osmosis Desalination Processes', Desalination, vol. 93, no. 1, pp. 343 - 363.
WAHLGREN, R. V. 2001, 'Atmospheric water vapour processor designs for potable water
production: a review', Water Research, vol. 35, no. 1, pp. 1 - 22.
WANG, Y. F. & AKBARZADEH, A. 1982, 'A study on the transient behaviour of solar
ponds', Energy - The International Journal, vol. 7, no. 12, pp. 1005 - 1017.
WANGNICK, K. 2006, Present Status of Thermal Seawater Desalination Techniques, White
Paper, IDS Water.
WATERS, E. O. & TAYLOR, J. H. 1927, 'The Strength of Pipe Flanges', Mechanical
Engineering (ASME), vol. 49, no. 1, pp. 531-542.
WC 2006, The Perth Seawater Desalination Plant, Water Corporation, Perth.
WC 2008, Perth Seawater Desalination Plant, Water Corporation, accessed September 10,
2008, <http://www.watercorporation.com.au/D/desalination.cfm>.
WEINBERGER, H. 1964, 'The Physics of the Solar Pond', Solar Energy, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 4556.
WHO 2000, Global Water Supply and Sanitation Assessment 2000 Report, Joint Monitoring
Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation, World Health Organisation (WHO),
Washington.
WHO 2006, Guidelines for drinking-water quality, 3rd ed., World Health Organization,
Geneva.
WILF, M. & BARTELS, C. 2005, 'Optimization of seawater RO systems design',
Desalination, vol. 173, no. 1, pp. 1-12.
WILF, M. & KLINKO, K. 2001, 'Optimization of seawater RO systems design', Desalination,
vol. 138, no. 1-3, pp. 299-306.
WITTHOLZ, M. K., O'NEILL, B. K., COLBY, C. B. & LWEIS, D. 2008, 'Estimating the
cost of desalination plants using a cost database', Desalination, vol. 229, no. 1, pp. 10-20.

423

References

WT 2006a, Ashkelon Desalination Plant, Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) Plant, Israel,
Industry Projects, Water Technology, viewed 15 July 2008, <http://www.watertechnology.net/projects/israel/>.
WT 2006b, Sulaibiya Wastewater Treatment and Reclamation Plant, Kuwait, Industry
Projects, Water Technology, viewed 10 July 2008, <http://www.watertechnology.net/projects/sulaibiya/>.
WWAP 2006, The State of the Resource, World Water Development - Assessment
Programme, Report 2, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization,
Paris.
YVW 2006, 'Water Prices', Yarra Valley Water (personal communication), Dec 2006.
ZAKI, A. 2006, Principles of Corrosion Engineering and Corrosion Control, Elsevier
Science and Technology, New York.
ZANGRADO, F. 1991, 'On the Hydrodynamics of Salt Gradient Solar Ponds', Solar Energy,
vol. 46, pp. 323-341.
ZHANG, Z. M. & WANG, Y. F. 1990, 'A study of the thermal storage of the ground beneath
solar ponds by computer simulation', Solar Energy, vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 243 - 248.
ZHAO, Y., AKBARZADEH, A. & ANDREWS, J. 2009, 'Simultaneous desalination and
power generation using solar energy', Renewable Energy, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 401-408.
ZUKAUSKAS, A. 1987, 'Heat Transfer from Tubes in Cross Flow ', in Handbook of Single
Phase Convective Heat Transfer, Wiley Interscience, New York.

424

Appendix 1

APPENDIX 1 THERMAL PROPERTIES


The properties of freshwater and saltwater (used in the modelling and design of thermal
desalination systems in this study) were determined using the following equations. Most of
the equations were derived by correlating tabulated values of the physical properties. The
correlations reproduced in this appendix have been taken from Khan (1986), Alatiqi et al.
(1998) and El-Dessouky et al. (2000). Some of these physical properties are available in
tabulated form in Cengel (2003) and Incropera and DeWitt (2002).

A1.1

Specific Heat Capacity of Water

The specific heat capacity (Cp) of water at constant pressure is based on the following
correlation by El-Dessouky et al. (2000):

Cp = A + BT + C T 2 + DT 3 103

(A1-1)

where the variables A, B, C and D are evaluated in terms of the salinity (in gm/kg) as follows:

A = 4206.8 6.6197 S + 1.2288 102 S 2

) (

B = 1.1262 + 5.4178 102 S 2.2719 104 S 2

(
) (
) (
)
D = ( 6.8777 10 ) + (1.517 10 ) S ( 4.4268 10 ) S

C = 1.2026 102 5.3566 104 S + 1.8906 106 S 2


7

The above correlation is valid over temperature and salinity ranges of 20 T 180oC and
16.25 S 130 gm/kg, respectively. The salinity ranges is equivalent to 20,000 S
160,000 ppm.

A1.2

Latent Heat of Vaporisation

The latent heat of vaporisation ( ) can be determined using the following correlation from
Alatiqi et al. (1998):

= 2501.897149 2.407064037 T + 1.192217 103 T 2 1.5863 105 T 3

(A1-2)

In the above equation, is in KJ/kg while T is in oC. The latent heat of vaporisation can also
be found using Equations (A1-11) and (A1-12) since = hfg = hg hf.
425

Appendix 1

A1.3

Saturation Temperature of Water Vapour

The saturation temperature of water vapour (T) in terms of the saturation pressure is given by
Alatiqi et al. (1998) as:

3892.7

273.15
T = 42.6776

ln 1000 9.48654

(A1-3)

where P is in kPa and T is in oC.

A1.4

Saturation Pressure of Water Vapour

The correlation for the saturation pressure of water vapour (P) in terms of the saturation
temperature is given by Alatiqi et al. (1998) as:

P
ln
Pc

8

Tc

fi 0.01(T + 273.15 338.15)


1
=

T
273.15
+

i =1

( i 1)

(A1-4)

where P is in kPa and T is in oC. Tc = 647.386 K, Pc = 22089 kPa and the values of fi are as
follows: f1 = -7.419242, f2 = 0.29721, f3 = -0.1155286, f4 = 0.008685635, f5 = 0.001094098, f6
= -0.00439993, f7 = 0.002520658 and f8 = -0.000521868.

A1.5

Thermal conductivity of Saltwater

The thermal conductivity of seawater (k) is given by Khan (1986) as:

log 240 + 210


10

k = 10

13


343.5+ 3.7102 S

+
T
273.15
1

S + 0.434 2.3

T + 273.15
647.3+ 310 S

(A1-5)

where k is in kW/m.oC, S is in gm/kg and T is in oC. The equation is valid over the following
ranges: 20 T 180oC and 0 S 160 gm/kg.

426

Appendix 1

A1.6

Density of Saltwater

The density of seawater ( ) is given by Khan (1986) as the following correlation:

= A1 F1 + A2 F2 + A3 F3 + A4 F4 103

(A1-6)

where

(
)
= 0.108199 G + (1.57110 ) G ( 4.23 10 ) G
= 0.012247 G + (1.74 10 ) G ( 9 10 ) G
= 6.92 10 G ( 8.7 10 ) G ( 5.3 10 ) G

A1 = 4.032219 G1 + 0.115313 G2 + 3.26 104 G3


A2
A3
A4

2 S

2S

150 150, G3 = 2
150 150 1
G1 = 0.5, G2 =
1000

1000

and
2

2 T 200
2 T 200
F1 = 0.5, F2 =
, F3 = 2

1
160
160

2 T 200
2 T 200
F4 = 4

160

160
In the above equations, is in kg/m3, S is in ppm and T is in oC. The equation is valid over
the following ranges: 10 T 180oC and 0 S 160,000 ppm.

A1.7

Specific Volume of Saturated Liquid Water

The specific volume of saturated water vapour ( f ) is given by Alatiqi et al. (1998) as:
6

( i1)

fi [T + 273.15]
Tc

f =c
1 exp i= 1
T + 273.15

(A1-7)

where f is in m3/kg and T is in oC. c = 0.003172222 m3/kg and Tc = 647.286 K. The


values of fi are as follows: f1 = -2.781015567, f2 = 0.002543267, f3 = 9.845047E-06, f4 =
3.636115E-09, f5 = -5.358938E-11 and f6 = 7.019341E-14.
427

Appendix 1

A1.8

Specific Volume of Saturated Water Vapour

The specific volume of saturated water vapour ( g ) is given by Alatiqi et al. (1998) as:
6

( i 1)

fi [T + 273.15]
Tc

g =c
1 exp i=1
T + 273.15

(A1-8)

where g is in m3/kg and T is in oC. c = 0.003172222 m3/kg and Tc = 647.286 K. The


values of fi are as follows: f1 = 83.63213098, f2 = -0.668265339, f3 = 0.002495964, f4 = 5.04185E-06, f5 = 5.34205E-09 and f6 = -2.3279E-12.

A1.9

Dynamic Viscosity of Saturated Liquid Water

The dynamic viscosity of saturated liquid water ( f ) can be found from the following
equation given by El-Dessouky et al. (2000):

604.129

3.79418+

(139.18+T )
3

f = R exp
10

(A1-9)

In the above correlation, f is in kg/m.s and T is in oC. R can be found in terms of T (in oC)
2
and S (in gm/kg) from R = 1 + A S + B S where:

) (
)
( 8.5 10 ) T + ( 2.23 10 ) T

A = 1.474 103 + 1.5 105 T 3.927 108 T 2


B = 1.0734 105

10

The above correlation is valid over temperature and salinity ranges of 10 T 180oC and 0
S 130 gm/kg, respectively

A1.10 Dynamic Viscosity of Saturated Water Vapour


The dynamic viscosity of saturated vapour ( g ) can be found from the following equation
given by El-Dessouky et al. (2000), where g is in kg/m.s and T is in oC.

428

Appendix 1

3.79418+ 604.129

(139.18+T )
3
g = exp
10

(A1-10)

A1.11 Enthalpy of Saturated Liquid Water


The following equation by Khan (1986) can be used to find the enthalpy of saturated liquid
water (hf), where hf is in kJ/kg and T is in oC.

h f = 0.033635409 + 4.207557011 T 6.200339 104 T 2 + 4.459374 106 T 3

(A1-11)

A1.12 Enthalpy of Saturated Vapour


The following equation by Khan (1986) can be used to find the enthalpy of saturated vapour
(hg), where hg is in kJ/kg and T is in oC.

hg = 2501.689845 + 1.806916015 T + 5.087717 104 T 2 1.1221 105 T 3

(A1-12)

A1.13 Prandtl Number for Saturated Liquid Water


The following equation from Cengel (2003) can be used to find the Prandtl number (Pr),
where Pr is dimensionless. Cp, k and f can be found from equations A1-1, A1-5 and A1-9,
respectively.
Pr =

f Cp
k

(A1-13)

A1.14 Boiling Point Elevation (BPE) of Saltwater


The boiling point elevation (BPE) of saltwater is based on the following correlation by ElDessouky et al. (2000):

BPE = A S + B S 2 + C S 3
where the variables A, B and C are evaluated in terms of the temperature as follows:

429

(A1-14)

Appendix 1

) (
B = 7.625 10 + ( 9.02 10 T ) ( 5.2 10
C = 1.522 10 ( 3 10 T ) ( 3 10 T )

A = 8.325 102 + 1.883 104 T + 4.02 106 T 2


4

T2

The above correlation is valid over temperature and salinity ranges of 10 T 180oC and 1
S 16 %, respectively. BPE increases with temperature and are typically within the range of
0.1oC to 1.0oC.

A1.15 Non-Equilibrium Allowance (NEA) in Multi-Stage Flash (MSF)


systems
The correlation for the NEA in MSF systems was developed by Lior (1986). The equation
gives values for NEA as a function of the brine temperature, gate height, brine flow rate per
unit length of the chamber width and the stage temperature drop. This equation cannot be
applied to the SSF system since the way the brine is introduced in the chamber is different to
the conventional method. The brine in the SSF is introduced at the top through spray nozzles
as opposed to introducing the brine at the bottom through a gate/weir device. The
thermodynamic losses Tloss assumed in the modelling of the different multi-stage flash
(MSF) processes include the NEA.

A1.16 Non-Equilibrium Allowance (NEA) in Multi-Effect Evaporation


(MEE) systems
The non-equilibrium allowance (NEA) correlation, which is a measure for the efficiency of
the flashing process, for MEE processes developed by Miyatake et al. (1973) is as follows:

( NEA)i =

33 ( Ti )

0.55

Tvi

(A1-15)

where Ti is the boiling temperature difference between effects i and i-1. Tvi is the vapour
temperature in effect i.

A1.17 Surface Tension of Saturated Liquid Water


The correlation for the surface tension of saturated liquid water (in N/m) is given by ElDessouky et al. (2000) as:
430

Appendix 1

) (

= 7.5798 102 1.4691104 T 2.2173 107 T 2

(A1-16)

The above correlation is valid over the temperature range of 0 T 140oC.

A1.18 Overall heat transfer coefficient for falling film evaporators


The correlation for the overall heat transfer coefficient of falling film evaporators (where
saltwater falls on horizontal tube bundles and vapour condenses inside the tubes) given by
Alatiqi et al. (1998) is as follows:

) (

U E = 1961.9 + (12.6 Tc ) 9.6 102 Tc 2 + 3.16 104 Tc3


Tc in the above correlation is the vapour condensation temperature.

431

(A1-17)

Appendix 2

APPENDIX 2 MSF CONDENSER HEAT TRANSFER MODEL


A Visual Basic / Spreadsheet model has been developed to determine the overall heat transfer
coefficient (OHTC) and the required heat transfer area for the condenser/preheater of the MSF
desalination systems where condensation takes place on the outside of horizontal tube banks.
The output parameters from this simulation have been used as inputs to the main solver of the
different MSF models to obtain the overall performance of the desalination unit. This model
has also been used to design and analyse the condenser shell and tube heat exchanger for the
experimental solar-MSF desalination unit. The equations presented here are based on the
condensation of vapour on the outside of horizontal tube banks.
In order to analyse the heat transfer during condensation of vapour, the resistances to heat
transfer between the vapour and the water flowing inside the tubes need to be considered, as
shown in Figure A2-1 below.

Figure A2-1: Schematic showing the various resistances to heat transfer

The heat transfer rate in the condenser is given by:

Q = mCP ( Thx,o - Thx,i )

(A2-1)

Where m is the mass flow rate (in kg/s), Thx,i and Thx,o are the temperature of the inlet and
outlet of the condenser; and Cp is the specific heat of the cooling water (in J/kg.oC) at Tmean
(average of Thx,i and Thx,o) evaluated using Equation (A1-1) from Appendix 1.

432

Appendix 2

The rate of heat transfer can also be expressed as:

Q = A o Uo F LMTD

(A2-2)

where Ao is the external surface area of the condenser, Uo is the overall heat transfer
coefficient based on the external surface area (in W/m2.oC) and F is the correction factor for
cross-flow and multipass shell-and-tube heat exchangers. F depends on the geometry of the
heat exchanger; and the inlet and outlet temperatures of the hot and cold streams. However,
the correction factor, F = 1 for a condenser or boiler/evaporator, regardless of the
configuration of the heat exchanger.
In this modelling, it is assumed in the calculation of LMTD that the vapour is always at the
saturation temperature, as shown in the temperature distribution graph below (Figure A2-2).

Figure A2-2: Temperature distribution with vapour at saturation temperature

Therefore, LMTD is given by:

LMTD =

Thx,o - Thx,i

)(

ln Tsat - Thx,i / Tsat - Thx,o

(A2-3)

where Tsat is the vapour saturation temperature.


The overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) can be found from the following equation:
Q = m Cp ( To Ti ) = A o Uo LMTD =

LMTD
1
sin ce Ao U o =
Roverall
Roverall

433

(A2-4)

Appendix 2

where

Roverall = R film + R FO + RWT + R FI + Rwater


=

1
h film Ao

R fo
Ao

d
1
ln o
2 kWT L d i

R fi
1
+
+
Ai hi Ai

(A2-5)

In Equation (A2-5) above, Rfilm is the condensate film resistance, RFO is the resistance due to
fouling on the vapour side, RWT is the thermal resistance of the wall tube, RFI is the resistance
due to fouling on the water side and Rwater represent the convection heat transfer from the wall
tube to the water flowing into the tubes. hfilm and hi are the convective heat transfer
coefficients (in w/m2.oC), Rfo and Rfi are the fouling factors at those surfaces (in m2.oC/W),
kWT is the thermal conductivity of the wall tube (W/m.oC), L is the total length of the heat
exchanger; and do and di are the external and internal diameters of the condenser tube,
respectively.
The velocity of the water flowing inside the tubes can be found by the following equation,
where Aicr is the internal cross-sectional area.

v=

m
Aicr

(A2-6)

The linear velocity should be within ASHRAE recommendations (ASHRAE, 2000), that is,
between 0.914 and 3.048 m/s. Having a high velocity may cause erosion. Water will erode
entry and exit part of the tubes and hence reduce the lifetime of the condenser. Inadequate
velocity can cause extra fouling on the inside. The density ( ) can be found using Equation
A1-6 from Appendix 1.
Reynolds number is given by:

Re =

v di
4 m
=

di

(A2-7)

The flow is normally fully turbulent if Re is greater than 10,000 and (10 di) is less than the
total length (L) of the pipe. The dynamic viscosity ( ) can be found using Equation A1-9
from Appendix 1.

434

Appendix 2

Nusselt number can be found from the Dittus-Boelter equation (Cengel, 2003) as follows:
Nu =

hi d i
= 0.023 Re 0.8 Pr 0.4
k

(A2-8)

where Prandtl number (Pr) can be found using Equation (A1-13) from Appendix 1.
From Equation (A2-8) above, the internal convective heat transfer coefficient can be found
and hence Rwater per unit length (in oC/W.m) can be calculated. The thermal properties used to
find Rwater were evaluated at the average temperature of the inlet and outlet of the condenser.
Using the equation from Incropera and DeWitt (2002), the average film condensation heat
transfer coefficient (hfilm) for all tubes in a vertical tier can be expressed as:

h film

f ( f g ) g h fg K f 3
= 0.729

N R d O f (Tsat Tsurf )

(A2-9)

where hfg* is the modified latent heat of vaporisation to allow for sub-cooling and is given
by:

h fg = h fg + 0.68 Cp f (Tsat Tsurf )

(A2-10)

In Equation (A2-9) above, NR is the average number of tubes in a vertical row (defined as NR
= Number of tubes / Number of vertical rows), g is the acceleration due to gravity and Tsurf is
the surface temperature of the heat exchanger tubes.
The thermal properties of the vapour (hfg and g ) used in Equations (A2-9) and (A2-10)
above are evaluated at the saturation temperature (Tsat). hfg can be found using Equation (A12) or Equations (A1-11) and (A1-12) from Appendix 1. g can be found by first finding the
specific volume ( g ) from Equation (A1-8) and then inversing the results.

The remaining properties in these two equations are evaluated at the film temperature Tfilm
which is the average of Tsat and Tsurf, to improve the accuracy of the convection coefficient
calculations. The equations used to find f , Cpf, kf and f can be found in Appendix 1.

435

Appendix 2

However, Tsurf is unknown. As a first approximation, the temperature difference (Tsat Tsurf)
can be assumed to be 2/3 of LMTD in order to find Tsurf. The condensate film resistance
(Rfilm) can then be found using the film convection heat transfer coefficient (hfilm).
The ratio of the film resistance to the overall resistance (Rfilm / Roverall) can be used to check
the assumption of Rfilm being 2/3 of Roverall. Subsequent iterations may be needed using the
new ratio to improve the estimate.
In order to solve for the OHTC and the heat transfer area, the following input parameters are
required by the solver:

mass flow rate (m)

inlet (Thx,i) and outlet (Thx,o) temperatures of the condenser

vapour saturation temperature (Tsat)

Geometry of condenser such as inlet diameter (di), outlet diameter (do), number of tubes
and number of tubes in a vertical row

Thermal conductivity of condenser tubes (kWT)

Fouling factors for water-side (Rfi) and vapour-side (Rfo)

The rate of heat transfer (Q) and LMTD can be found from the input parameters. The overall
thermal resistance, Roverall, (in oC/W) is then calculated using Equation A2-4. The different
resistances to heat transfer are found in terms of the total length of condenser required (in
o

C/W.m). The summation of all the resistances is then used to solve for the required total

length of the heat exchanger and hence total heat transfer area. Finally, by using Equation A24 and the total heat transfer area, the overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) can be
determined.

436

Appendix 3

APPENDIX 3 MEE EVAPORATOR HEAT TRANSFER


MODEL
Visual Basic / Spreadsheet models (similar to the model developed in Appendix 2 for the
MSF condenser) have been developed to determine the overall heat transfer coefficient
(OHTC) and the required heat transfer area for the evaporators of the MEE desalination
systems. In the first effect, hot liquid brine flows inside the tubes of the evaporator without
any phase change whereas vapour condensation takes place inside the horizontal tube banks
of effects 2 to n. In all the effects, boiling heat transfer takes places on the outside of the tube
banks. In the down condenser, vapour condenses inside the tubes while cooling water flows in
the shell side of the heat exchanger. The output parameters from this simulation have been
used as inputs to the main solver of the different MEE models to obtain the overall
performance of the desalination unit. The same procedures as explained in Appendix 2 apply
to this MEE evaporator heat transfer model.

A3-1 Evaporator Heat Transfer Model for Effect 1


In the first effect of the SP-MEE systems, hot liquid from the salinity-gradient solar pond
(SGSP) or evacuated solar collectors (ETSC) flows inside the tubes of the evaporator without
any phase change. Thin water film boiling or pool boiling heat transfer takes place on the
outside of the tubes for SP-MEE-P (using falling film) and SP-MEE-FF (using submerged
tubes), respectively. The overall heat transfer resistance is given by

Roverall = Rboil + RFO + RWT + RFI + Rwater


=

1
hboil Ao

R fo
Ao

d R fi
1
1
ln o +
+
2 kWT L d i Ai hi Ai

(A3-1)

In Equation (A3-1) above, Rboil is the resistance due to boiling, RFO is the resistance due to
fouling on the boiling side, RWT is the thermal resistance of the wall tube, RFI is the resistance
due to fouling on the water side and Rwater represent the convection heat transfer from the hot
liquid flowing in the tubes to the wall tube. hboil and hi are the heat transfer coefficients (in
w/m2.oC), Rfo and Rfi are the fouling factors at those surfaces (in m2.oC/W), kWT is the thermal
conductivity of the wall tube (W/m.oC), L is the total length of the evaporator; and do and di
are the external and internal diameters of the evaporator tubes, respectively.

437

Appendix 3

hi can be found by using Equation (A2-8) (see Appendix 2) and following the same
procedures as those described for the MSF condenser heat transfer model.
In the case of SP-MEE-P (using falling film), Han and Fletcher (1985) developed the
following correlation to calculate the boiling heat transfer coefficient (hboil) for thin water film
flowing over the outside of smooth horizontal tubes.

0.0004 Re 0.2 Pr 0.65 (Q")

0.4

hboil =

(A3-2)

2 3
2 3
gk

In Equation (A3-2) above, Re is the Reynolds number, Pr is the Prandtl number and Q is the
heat flux (in W/m2). is the dynamic viscosity (in kg/m.s), is the density (in kg/m3) and k
is the thermal conductivity (in W/m.oC) of the fluid. The above correlation is valid over the
following ranges: 770 Re 7000, 1.3 Pr 3.6, 30 Q 80 kW/m2, 29 T 127oC.
In SP-MEE-FF (using submerged tubes), pool boiling heat transfer takes place on the outside
of the tubes. hboil in this case, is given by the correlation for heat transfer in the nucleate
boiling regime, developed by Rohsenow (1952) and reproduced in Cengel (2003) as follows:

g ( f g ) 2 Cp (Tsurf Tsat )
f h fg

C sf h fg Pr f

=
(Tsurf Tsat )
1

hboil

(A3-3)

In Equation (A3-3) above, all the fluid properties are evaluated at Tsat. is the surface
tension of liquid-vapour interface (in N/m), Csf is the experimental constant that depends on
surface-liquid combination, Pr is the Prandtl number of the liquid and n is the experimental
constant that depends on the fluid.
Csf and n for various fluid-surface combinations are given in Cengel (2003). Since the MEE
evaporators are to be made out of stainless-steel and the fluid is liquid brine, Csf = 0.0130 and
n = 1.0. The surface tension of liquid vapour interface ( ) can be found using Equation A116 (Appendix 1). It is noteworthy that the above correlation is valid if the process takes place
in the nucleate boiling regime, that is, the excess temperature (Tsurf Tsat) is less than 30oC.

438

Appendix 3

Since Tsurf is unknown in the above correlation, the temperature difference (Tsurf Tsat) is
assumed to be 2/3 of LMTD (as was done for the MSF condenser heat transfer model see
Appendix 2). The ratio of the boiling resistance to the overall resistance (Rboil / Roverall) is then
used to check the assumption of Rboil being 2/3 of Roverall. Subsequent iterations may then be
needed using the new ratio to improve the estimate. This is done automatically using the
Visual Basic program.

A3-2 Evaporator Heat Transfer Model for Effects 2 to n


In effects 2 to n of the SP-MEE systems, the vapour from the previous effect condenses inside
the tubes of the evaporator. The overall heat transfer resistance is given by

Roverall = Rboil + RFO + RWT + RFI + Rcond


=

1
hboil Ao

R fo
Ao

d
1
ln o
2 kWT L d i

R fi
1
+
+
Ai hcond Ai

(A3-4)

In Equation (A3-4), Rcond is the condensate film resistance. hcond is the condensation heat
transfer coefficient. Chato (1962) gives the following expression for condensation inside
horizontal tubes.

hcond

g f ( f g ) K f 3
3

= 0.555
h fg + Cp f (Tsat Tsurf )
8

f (Tsat Tsurf )

(A3-5)

All the properties in Equation (A3-5) except g and hfg are evaluated at the film temperature
Tfilm which is the average of Tsat and Tsurf. g and hfg are evaluated at Tsat. It is noteworthy
that the correlation above is only valid for low vapour velocities. The Reynolds number of the
vapour (defined by the equation below) needs to be less than 35,000.

Re =

g vg di
g

(A3-6)

Tsurf is unknown in Equation (A3-5). As a first approximation, the temperature difference (Tsat
Tsurf) is assumed to be 2/3 of LMTD in order to find Tsurf. The condensate resistance (Rcond)
can then be found using the condensate heat transfer coefficient (hcond). The ratio of the
condensate resistance to the overall resistance (Rcond / Roverall) is then used to check the
439

Appendix 3

assumption of Rcond being 2/3 of Roverall. Subsequent iterations may be needed using the new
ratio to improve the estimate.
The boiling heat transfer coefficient (hboil) in SP-MEE-P and SP-MEE-FF are found using
Equation (A3-2) and Equation (A3-3) respectively; and following the same procedures.

A3-3 Evaporator Heat Transfer Model for Down Condenser


In the down condenser, vapour condenses inside the tubes while cooling water flows in the
shell side of the heat exchanger. The overall heat transfer resistance is given by

Roverall = Rwater + RFO + RWT + RFI + Rcond


=

R fo
d
1
1
+
+
ln o
ho Ao Ao 2 kWT L d i

R fi
1
+
+
Ai hcond Ai

(A3-7)

In Equation (A3-7), Rwater represent the convection heat transfer from the vapour condensation
in the tubes to the wall tube and ho is the heat transfer coefficient (in w/m2.oC).
The cooling water in the condenser flows over the tube banks in cross-flow. The tubes in the
tube bank are usually arranged either in-line or staggered in the direction of the flow as shown
in Figure A3-1.

(a) In-line

(b) Staggered

Figure A3-1: Tube banks arrangement in cross flow systems (Cengel, 2003)

In Figure A3-1, ST is the transverse pitch, SD is the diagonal pitch and SL is the longitudinal
pitch. AD = (SD do) x L and AT = (ST do) x L where L is the length of each tube.

440

Appendix 3

The average Nusselt number for cross flow over tube banks can be found from the correlation
given by Zukauskas (1987) as follows:

Pr
h d
Nu = o o = C Re m Pr n
k
Prs

0.25

(A3-8)

The Reynolds number (Re) is calculated using the maximum velocity in the tube banks.

Re =

vmax d o

(A3-9)

For in-line tube arrangement, the maximum velocity is defined as

vmax =

ST
v
ST d o

(A3-10)

For staggered tube arrangement, if 2AD > AT, the maximum velocity is as defined in Equation
A3-10. Otherwise, if 2AD < AT, the maximum velocity becomes

vmax =

ST
v
2 (S D d o )

(A3-11)

All the properties except Prs in Equation (A3-8) are evaluated at the mean temperature of the
fluid (average of inlet and outlet fluid temperatures). Prs is evaluated at the surface
temperature (Tsurf). The values of the constants C, m and n which depend on the Reynolds
number are given in Figure A3-2. The correlations in Figure A3-2 are valid for 0.7 < Pr < 500
and for tube banks with 16 or more rows. If the tube banks contain less than 16 rows, the
Nusselt number need to be multiplied by the correction factor given in Figure A3-3 for Re >
1000.

441

Appendix 3

Figure A3-2:Nusselt number correlations for cross flow over tube banks (Cengel, 2003)

Figure A3-3: Correction factor to be used with Nusselts number for NL < 16 (Cengel, 2003)

Therefore from Equation (A3-8) above, the heat transfer coefficient (ho) can be determined.
hcond can be found using Equation (A3-5) and following the same procedures.

442

Appendix 4

APPENDIX 4 PRESSURE VESSEL DESIGN


CALCULATIONS
The vacuum vessels of the three experimental rigs (SSF, MEE and ISCE) were designed
according to the Australian Standard (AS1210-1997) pressure vessel code. The standard gives
the procedures in finding the minimum engineering requirements which are necessary for the
safe design, manufacture and testing of pressure vessels.
Clause 3.9 Cylindrical and spherical shells subject to external pressure states that the
minimum wall thickness shall not be less than that determined in accordance with this clause.
Clause 3.9.3 which covers cylindrical shells (seamless or with butt joints), was used to
calculate the minimum thicknesses of cylindrical shells. This clause takes into account the
vessel dimensions, the material used and the design pressure.
Assuming a value of t (in mm) for the minimum thickness, the circumferential strain of the
shell (Aa) is found from the following equations:
Using Equation 3.9.3(1)

1.3t 1.5
Aa =
0.5
Dm L

(A4-1)

Using Equation 3.9.3(2)

Aa = 1.1
Dm

(A4-2)

A conservation value of Aa may be taken as the greater of the two values found from the
equations above.
Using Equation 3.9.3 (5), the theoretical pressure required to cause elastic buckle of the shell
(Pe) can be determined as follows:

Pe =

2 EAa t
Dm

(A4-3)

Similarly, Equation 3.9.3 (6) can be used to determine the theoretical pressure required to
cause plastic yielding of the shell (Py).

443

Appendix 4

Py =

2Yt
Dm

(A4-4)

Finally, the maximum permissible calculation pressure (P) for the assumed value of t can be
found from either 3.9.3(7) or 3.9.3(8) as follows:
If Pe PY ,

Pe
3

(A4-5)

PY (2 PY / Pe )
3

(A4-6)

P=
If Pe > PY ,

P=

If the value of P (in MPa) obtained is less than the required pressure, the assumed value of t
need to be increased and the substituted again in the above equations until the value of P
obtained is equal or greater than the required pressure.

444

Appendix 5

APPENDIX 5 UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS


This appendix describes the error analysis performed on the experimental data in order to
estimate the uncertainties in the measurements. The total uncertainty in every measurement
can be obtained by combining the sensor accuracy and measuring instrument accuracy.
However, adding the individual errors together gives a worst case uncertainty value. The error
components are unlikely to be at their maximum value and same polarity at the same time. A
more realistic method is to use the root-sum-of-squares method, that is, by taking the square
root of the sum of the individual errors (Bevington and Robinson, 2003).

total =

A5.1

( sensor )

+ ( instrum ent )

(A5-1)

Temperature Measurement using RTD Sensors and T-type


thermocouples

As mentioned in Section 5.2.7, the accuracy of the 2-wire thin platinum probes Pt100
resistance temperature detectors (RTD) is 0.3oC. The RTD sensors were connected to the
Yokogawa MV230 data recorder which has a RTD measurement accuracy of (0.15% of the
reading + 0.3oC).
The measured RTD temperature values range between 15 and 87oC. With a measured RTD
temperature of 15oC, the total uncertainty (using Equation A5-1) is

to ta l =

( 0 .3 )

to ta l =

( 0 .3 )2

0 .1 5

+
1 5 + 0 .3

100

+ ( 0 .3 2 )

t o t a l = 0 .4 4 C

Therefore, the RTD temperature result can be expressed as 15.0 0.4oC. It is noteworthy that
a total uncertainty value of 0.6oC would have been obtained if the error components were
combined only, which is an overly pessimistic estimate.
If the measured RTD temperature is 87oC, the total uncertainty is found to be 0.5oC (or
0.6% of the reading). Therefore, the percentage error in the experimental RTD temperature
values is between (0.6 and 2.9) %, depending on the temperature.

445

Appendix 5

As mentioned in Section 3.5.2.1, the accuracy of the T-type thermocouples used in the current
project is 1.0oC or 0.75% of the temperature reading whichever is greater. The
thermocouples were connected to the DataTaker DT500 data recorder which has a
thermocouple measurement accuracy of (0.16% of the full-scale reading + 1.2oC).
The same analysis presented above can be performed to find the uncertainty in the individual
experimental measured temperature values.

A5.2

Pressure Measurement using Pressure Transducers

The pressure transducers which give a voltage output (0 to 5V) have a typical accuracy of
0.15% of the span (that is the difference between the lowest and highest pressure). The
accuracy can be up to a maximum value of 0.25%. Using the 6V voltage range (with a
resolution of 0.001V) on the Yokogawa MV230 data recorder gives a measurement accuracy
of (0.1% of the voltage reading + 2 digits).
The measured pressure values range between 3 and 101 kPa.abs. 0 kPa.abs is equivalent to 0
volt while 101 kPa.abs corresponds to 5 volts. The sensor typical uncertainty which is
independent of the measured pressure is therefore:
0 .1 5

senso r =
1 0 1 = 0 .1 5 k P a
100

By linear interpolation, 3 kPa.abs is equivalent to a voltage of 0.148 volts. The measuring


instrument uncertainty at a measured pressure of 3 kPa.abs is
0 .1

in s tr u m e n t =
0 .1 4 8 + 0 .0 0 2 = 0 .0 0 2 V

100

This is equivalent to a pressure reading of 0.04 kPa. Therefore, the total uncertainty is
to ta l =

( 0 .1 5 )2

+ ( 0 .0 4 )

= 0 .1 6 k P a

The pressure reading can therefore be expressed as 3.00 0.16 kPa.abs. This uncertainty is
equivalent to 5.2% of the measurement value of 3 kPa.abs.
Similarly, at a measured pressure of 101 kPa.abs (equivalent to 5 volts), the total uncertainty
is
446

Appendix 5

to ta l =

( 0 .1 5 )2

+ ( 0 .1 4 )

= 0 .2 1 k P a

which is equivalent to 0.2% of the measurement value of 101 kPa.abs.


Therefore, the percentage error in the experimental pressure values varies between (0.2 and
5.2) %, depending on the pressure reading. The same analysis can be performed to find the
uncertainty in the individual experimental measured pressure values.

A5.3

Flow Rate Measurement using Turbine Flow Transducers

The accuracy of the turbine flow transducers reported by the manufacturer is 3 % of the
flow rate reading. The frequency-to-analogue converters used to convert the frequency output
from the flowmeter to match the voltage input (0-6V or 0-20V range) of the data acquisition
system have an accuracy of less than 1%. Using the 6V voltage range (with a resolution of
0.001V) or 20V voltage range (with a resolution of 0.01V) on the Yokogawa MV230 data
recorder gives a measurement accuracy of (0.1% of the voltage reading + 2 digits). Table
A5-1 shows the flow rate, frequency and voltage ranges of the different flow transducers.

Flow rate
range
(LPM)

Flowmeter
frequency
output
(Hz)

Equivalent
voltage output
on 0 10V
range of
converter

Voltage
range on
MV230

SP-SSF (total feed)

09

0 200

04

0 6V

SP-SSF (distillate)

0 1.5

0 - 175

0 3.5

0 6V

SP-3E-MEE (solar hot water)

0 30

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

SP-3E-MEE (total feed)

0 30

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

SP-3E-MEE (feed to be desalinated)

0 4.35

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

SP-3E-MEE (distillate from 1st effect)

0 4.35

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

SP-3E-MEE (distillate from 2nd effect)

0 4.35

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

SP-3E-MEE (distillate from 3rd effect)

0 4.35

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

SP-3E-MEE (reject brine)

0 4.35

0 - 500

0 - 10

0 20V

Location

Table A5-1: Flow rate, frequency and voltage ranges of flow transducers

447

Appendix 5

As an example, the specifications of the flow transducer used for the flow rate measurement
of the solar hot water (flow rate range of 0 to 30 LPM) in the SP-3E-MEE unit will be used.
At 30 LPM, the sensor uncertainty of the measured flow rate is:
3

3 0 = 0 .9 L P M
senso r =
100

Assuming that the accuracy of the frequency to voltage conversion is approximately 0.5%, the
uncertainty in conversion of 500 Hz to 10 volts is:
0 .5

5 0 0 = 2 .5 H z
c o n v e r s io n =
100

2.5 Hz is equivalent to a flow rate uncertainty of 0.15 LPM. The measuring instrument
uncertainty at a measured voltage of 10 volts (using the 0-20V range) is:
0 .1

in s tr u m e n t =
1 0 .0 0 + 0 .0 2 = 0 .0 3 V

100

This is equivalent to a flow rate reading of 0.09 LPM. Therefore, the total uncertainty is
to ta l =

( 0 .9 )2

+ ( 0 .1 5 ) + ( 0 .0 9 )
2

= 0 .9 2 L P M

The flow rate reading can therefore be expressed as 30.00 0.92 LPM. This uncertainty is
equivalent to 3.1% of the measured value. The same analysis can be performed for flow rate
measurements obtained using the other flow transducers.

A5.4

Error Propagation Correlations

A5.4.1 General formula

When a result is found by performing a calculation on a number of measurements, the


uncertainty in the result is given by a general formula (according to the theory of error
analysis). The formula is based on a first-order Taylor series expansion of functions of many
variables. It is valid when the various uncertainties i of the different i variables are small
compared to the values of the variables.

448

Appendix 5

The uncertainty in the result of a well-behaved function f (A, B, C, ) is given by the


following formula (Bevington and Robinson, 2003).
2

f
2 f
2 f
+ ( B )
+ ( C )

+L
A
B
C

( Z )2 = ( A )2

(A5-2)

In the equation above, A, B and C are the physical variables while A , B and C are the
respective uncertainties. The partial derivatives are all evaluated at the known values of A, B
and C.
Using the general Equation (A5-2), the following derived correlations (Pengra and Dillman,
2008) can be used to determine the error propagation through experimental results.
A5.4.2 Sum or difference

If Z = A + B C, the uncertainty in the result is given by:


Z =

( A )2 + ( B )2 + ( C )2

(A5-3)

where A , B and C are the uncertainties in the values of A, B and C respectively.


A5.4.3 Product or quotient

If Z = A

B
, the resultant error in the value of Z is:
C

A
B
C
+
+
Z = Z

A
B
C

(A5-4)

A5.4.4 Logarithmic functions

If Z = log10 A, then the uncertainty in Z is given by:


A

Z = 0.4343

(A5-5)

If Z = ln A, the uncertainty is:


A
Z =

449

(A5-6)

Appendix 5

A5.5

Error Propagation in Distillate Production

In the SP-SSF unit, the distillate production was measured by a single flow transducer (see
Section 5.2.7) while in the SP-3E-MEE unit, the total distillate production is the summation
of the distillate production rates from the three separate flow transducers (see Section 6.2.8).
The uncertainty value for each transducer flow rate measurement needs to be calculated by
following the procedures described in Section A5.3, that is, by combining the errors due to the
sensor, frequency-to-analogue conversion and measuring instrument as shown in the
following equation.
to ta l =

( s e n s o r )2

+ ( c o n v e r s i o n

)2

+ ( i n s t r u m e n t

)2

(A5-7)

In the case of SP-3E-MEE, the uncertainty values for the three flow transducers need to be
added using the propagation correlation (Equation A5-3) as follows.
mdtotal =

( md1 )2 + ( md 2 )2 + ( md3 )2

(A5-8)

where md1 , md 2 and md3 are the uncertainty values for each of the three transducers
determined using Equation A5-7.

A5.6

Error Propagation in Recovery ratio

Recovery ratio is defined as the volume of fresh water produced per unit volume of input feed
saltwater. Using the propagation correlation (Equation A5.4.3), the resultant error in the
recovery ratio value can be determined as follows:
2

mf
md total
RR = RR
+
m d total
mf

A5.7

(A5-9)

Error Propagation in Specific Thermal Energy Consumption

The specific thermal energy consumption is defined as the thermal energy input per unit
volume of fresh water produced. By combining the propagation correlations in Equations
A5.4.2 and A5.4.3, the following expression for the resultant error in the specific thermal
energy consumption can be obtained.

450

Appendix 5

E th = E th

m
f

m f

2
2
2
2

T1 m d total
Cp
+

+
+

Cp
T1 m d total

(A5-10)

where
T1
T1

( Tsps ) + ( Tspr )
(Tsps Tspr )
2

(A5-11)

In Equation A5-10, Cp is very small since Cp is based on a well-defined correlation (see


Cp

Equation A1-1). Therefore, the term


can be ignored in Equation A5-10.
Cp

A5.8

Error Propagation in Overall Heat Transfer Coefficient for SP-3EMEE

The overall heat transfer coefficient (OHTC) of the condenser and evaporators in the SP-3EMEE unit was derived using Equations (6-68), (6-69), (6-70) and (6-71).

A5.8.1 OHTC in the first effect

The OHTC in the first effect (Equation (6-68)) was defined as follows:

UE1 =

(
(

msp Cpsp

)
)

Tsps T1
ln
AE1
Tspr T1

(A5-12)

In order to facilitate the estimation of the error propagation in UE1, the expression above needs
to be simplified. (Tsps T1) can be replaced by T1. Similarly, T2 = (Tspr T1). AE1 is a
constant and therefore is not included in the uncertainty analysis.
The uncertainty in T1 is:
T1 =

2
( Tsps ) + ( T1 )2

451

(A5-13)

Appendix 5

Similarly, the uncertainty in T2 is:


2
( Tspr ) + ( T1 )2

T2 =

(A5-14)

The resultant uncertainty in the ratio (T1 / T2) is:


T1 T1

=
T2 T2

T1
T2

+

T1
T2

(A5-15)

The uncertainty in the logarithmic function LN (T1 / T2) can be expressed (using the
propagation correlation defined in Equation A5-6) as:
T1

T1
T2
=
LN

T2
T1

T2

(A5-16)

Finally, the resultant error in the value of UE1 can be calculated as follows:

U E1 = U E1

The term

Cpsp

Cpsp

m
sp

m sp

C p sp
+

C p sp


T1
2
LN

T2
+


LN T1
T2

(A5-17)

can be ignored for the same reason mentioned in Section A5.6.

A5.8.2 OHTC in the second effect

The OHTC in the second effect (Equation (6-69)) was defined as:

UE2 =

D1 c1
(Tc1 T2 ) AE 2

(A5-18)

The uncertainty in the determination of c1 using the correlation from Equation A1-2 is also
very small and therefore can be safely neglected. AE2 is a constant and can be ignored.

452

Appendix 5

The uncertainty in the value of D1 can be determined using the procedures described in
Section A5.3 and Equation A5-7. The resultant error in the value of UE2 can be found from
the following.

U E2 = U E2

2
( Tc )2 + ( T )2
D1
1
2

+
2

D1
(Tc1 T2 )

(A5-19)

A5.8.3 OHTC in the third effect

The OHTC in the third effect (Equation (6-70)) is:

UE3 =

D3 v3
(Tc2 T3 ) AE 3

(A5-20)

Using the same error propagation procedures described for the OHTC in the second effect, the
resultant error in the value of UE3 can be expressed as:

U E3 = U E3

2
( Tc )2 + ( T )2
D3
2
3

+
2
D

3
(Tc 2 T3 )

(A5-21)

A5.8.4 OHTC in the condenser

The OHTC in the third effect (Equation (6-71)) was defined as follows:

Uc =

(mf + mcw ) Cp (Tf1 Tf0 )

( Tf1 - Tf0 )

Ac
ln ( Tc 3 - Tf0 ) / ( Tc 3 - Tf1 )

(A5-22)

To simplify the uncertainty estimation, T4 = (Tf1 Tf0), T5 = (Tc3 Tf0) and T6 = (Tc3
Tf1). The denominator (without AC) in Equation A5-24 can be replaced by UL2. Ac is a known
value and can be ignored in the uncertainty analysis. Cp is based on a well-defined correlation
(see Equation A1-1) and the error in the estimation of Cp is negligible.
The uncertainties in T4, T5 and T6 can be found from the following expressions.
T4 =

( Tf1 )2 + ( Tf 0 )2
453

(A5-23)

Appendix 5

T5 =

( Tc3 )2 + ( Tf 0 )2

(A5-24)

T6 =

( Tc3 )2 + ( Tf1 )2

(A5-25)

The uncertainty in UL2 can be expressed as:



T5
LN
2

T6
T4

U L2 = U L2
+

T5
T4
LN

T6

(A5-26)

The resultant error in the value of Uc is:

UC = UC

2
2

(
m
m
)

f
cw

+ T4 + U L 2
m + m

T4 U L 2
cw
f

(A5-27)

It is noteworthy that the flow rate (mf + mcw) is the total feed flow rate and is measured by one
transducer only.

A5.9

Error Propagation in Heat Flow

A5.9.1 Heat flow in the SP-SSF unit

The heat flow equations for the SP-SSF unit were derived and explained in Section 5.3.2. The
heat flow to the condenser was expressed as follows:
Qc = M1Cp ( T2 - T1)

(A5-28)

Ignoring the uncertainty in the estimated value of Cp, the resultant error in the value of Qc can
be expressed as:
2
( T 2 )2 + ( T 1 )2
M1
Qc = Qc
+

M1
(T 2 T 1 )2

454

(A5-29)

Appendix 5

The heat flow from the gas hot water system is:
Qh = M1Cp ( T4 - T3 )

(A5-30)

Similarly, the resultant error in the value of Qh can be expressed as:


2
( T 4 )2 + ( T 3 )2
M1

M1
(T 4 T 3 )2

Qh = Qh

(A5-31)

The total heat energy input (Qtotal) to the feed saltwater is the summation of the values found
from Equations A5-28 and A5-30. The resultant error in the value of Qtotal is therefore:
Q total =

( Q c )2 + ( Q h )2

(A5-32)

A5.9.2 Heat flow in the SP-3E-MEE unit

The heat flow from the condenser and preheaters to the feed saltwater in the SP-3E-MEE unit
can be calculated by performing heat energy balances using the equation derived in Section
6.1.2.2. The uncertainty correlations for the different heat flow around the SP-3E-MEE unit
can be obtained using the same techniques as described for SP-SSF in Section A5.8.1. The
uncertainty in the value of Cp is negligible and can therefore be ignored.

A5.9.2.1

Feed preheating in the condenser

The resultant error in the heat flow value for the feed preheating in the condenser (Qc) can be
expressed as:
mf
Qc = Qc
mf

A5.9.2.2

2
( Tf )2 + ( Tf )2

1
0
+
2

(Tf1 Tf 0 )

(A5-33)

Feed preheating by the first preheater

The resultant error in the heat flow value for the feed preheating by the first preheater (QP1)
can be found from:

Q P1

mf
= Q P1

mf

2
( Tf )2 + ( Tf )2

2
1
+
2

(Tf 2 Tf1 )

455

(A5-34)

Appendix 5

A5.9.2.3

Feed preheating by the second preheater

The resultant error in the heat flow value for the feed preheating by the 2nd preheater (QP2) is:

QP 2 = QP 2

A5.9.2.4

2
( Tf )2 + ( Tf )2

3
2
+
2

(Tf 3 Tf 2 )

mf

mf

(A5-35)

Solar heat input to the first evaporator

The resultant error in the heat flow value for the solar heat input to the first evaporator (Qsp)
can be expressed as:

Q sp = Q sp

A5.9.2.5

m sp

m sp

) (

2
2
T
+ T spr

sps

+
2

Tsps T spr

(A5-36)

Rejected heat with cooling water stream

The resultant error for the rejected heat with the cooling water stream (Qrejected) can be
determined from:

Q rejected = Q rejected

A5.9.2.6

+ mf
+

m
m
cw
f

2
m cw + m f m f

( Tf )2 + ( Tf )2
1
0

(Tf1 Tf 0 )

(A5-37)

Total feed preheating

The total feed preheating (Qtotal-preheat) is the summation of Qc, QP1 and QP2. The resultant error
in the value of Qtotal-preheat is therefore:
Q total preheat =

A5.9.2.7

( Q c )2 + ( Q P 1 )2 + ( Q P 2 )2

(A5-38)

Total feed preheating (as a percentage of total heat)

The resultant uncertainty in the calculation of the total feed preheating as a percentage of the
total heat is:

Q perc = Q perc

Q total preheat

Q total preheat

) (

2
2
Q
+ Q sp

total

preheat
+
2

Q total preheat + Q sp

456

(A5-39)

Appendix 6

APPENDIX 6 ETSC SOLAR RADIATION CALCULATIONS


A6-1 Hourly Solar Radiation
The declination angle ( ), the angle between the line joining the centre of the sun to the
centre of the earth and the equatorial plane, depends on the day of the year and can be
calculated as:

n + 284

365

= 23.45sin 360

(A6-1)

where n is the number of the day (n = 1 for January 1st).


The relationship between the angles of solar altitude ( ) and other angles is given by the
following correlation:

sin ( ) = sin ( L ) sin ( ) + cos ( L ) cos ( ) cos ( h )

(A6-2)

where is the angle of declination, h is the solar hour angle and L is the local latitude. The
local latitude for Melbourne is -37.82. The solar hour angle (h) is the angle between the suns
rays at a particular time and the direction of the sun at local solar noon (afternoon is positive).
h can be calculated by the product of 15o and the hour angle.
At sunrise or sunset, the solar altitude ( ) = 0. Therefore, from Equation (A6-2), the solar
hour angle (h) can be found. The number of hour from solar noon (hour angle) is therefore h /
15.
The length of the day (Ld) can be found from

h
Ld = 2
15

(A6-3)

Melbournes longitude is 144o 58 E. The longitude of standard meridian is 150o E. Therefore


in Melbourne local solar noon (tnoon) occurs at 12.20 pm as shown in Equation A6-4
1500 144058'

60 ( 0.3356 60 ) 20.13min
15

457

(A6-4)

Appendix 6

If daylight savings occurs, one additional hour need to be added. For instance, in Melbourne
on January 5th, daylight savings is in force. Therefore the sun is at its highest position (tnoon) at
13h20 whereas on June 9th (no daylight savings), the sun is at its highest point at 12h20.
The sunrise time (trise) is given by

h
trise = tnoon
15

(A6-5)

tset = trise + Ld

(A6-6)

The sunset time (tset) is given by

The solar radiation (H) at any time from sunrise to sunset can be approximated from the
available average daily total global radiation (Hd) (obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology
see Figure A6-1) by assuming a sine distribution as follows:

( tcurrent trise )
H = H max sin

( tset trise )

(A6-7)

where tcurrent is the time in hours (from 1 to 24). Hmax is a function of Hd as follows:

(12 )
H max = H d

t
t
(
)
set rise

(A6-8)

It is noteworthy that the above relation is only valid for trise < tcurrent < tset. If tcurrent < trise or
tcurrent > tset, then there is no solar radiation and H = 0.
The total global solar radiation on an inclined plane (Hptotal) can be found using the following
correlation if the diffuse (Hhdif) and direct beam (Hhdir) radiation on a horizontal plane are
known. It is noteworthy that the diffuse component of the radiation on the tilted plane (Hpdif)
is approximated to be equal to the diffuse radiation on the horizontal plane (Hhdif).

sin ( + )
Hptotal = Hhdif + Hhdir

sin

458

(A6-9)

Appendix 6

where is the noon time altitude of the sun and can be found from Equation (A6-10), is
the tilt angle of the plane with respect with the horizontal; and Hhdif and Hhdir are the diffuse
and direct components of the radiation on a horizontal plane in W/m2.

= 90 + L

(A6-10)

Figure A6-1 shows the daily average total global and diffuse solar radiation (in W/m2) over
the past 17 years for Melbourne. These data were approximated by sinusoidal functions based
on monthly average solar radiation values obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology (BOM,
2008).

Melbourne daily average total global radiation and diffuse radiation on a


horizontal surface (1990 - 2007)
26
24

Total global radiation

22

Diffuse radiation

Radiation (MJ/m -day)

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
0

60

120

180

240

300

360

420

480

540

600

660

720

Day

Figure A6-1: Melbourne daily average total global radiation and diffuse radiation
on a horizontal surface (1990 2007)

The equations above were used to find the solar radiation during the day on the titled
evacuated tubes of the ISCE. A tilt angle () of 42o was assumed. Figure A6-2 shows the
daily average total global radiation for both surfaces (horizontal and tilted at 42 degrees)
together with the percentage difference between the two radiation values. Clearly, the titled
surface receives up to 50% more radiation during the winter months as compared to the
horizontal surface. It is noteworthy that the maximum percentage difference (~ 56%) occurs
for a tilted surface set at 61 degrees.

459

Appendix 6
Daily average total global solar radiation (Horizontal and Titled surface at 42 deg)
300

52%

Daily average total global radiation


2
(W/m )

250

42%

225
200

32%

175
150

22%

125
100

12%

75

Horizontal

50

Tilted @ 42 deg

25
0
1 Jan

2%

% difference between the radiation on


titled surface and horizontal

275

% difference
-8%
31 Jan

2 Mar

1 Apr

2 May

1 Jun

2 Jul

1 Aug

1 Sep

1 Oct

1 Nov

1 Dec

Day

Figure A6-2: Daily average total global solar radiation (horizontal and tilted surface
at 42 degrees)

A6-2 Minimum distance between ETSCs


When a number of rows of ETSC are installed facing north, the ETSCs need to be spaced
apart such that the collectors do not shade each other as shown in Figure A6-3.
The longest shadow will occur when the suns altitude is at its minimum. For Melbourne, the
minimum suns altitude occurs on June 22 (Winter solstice). The number of the day is n =
172. Using Equation (A6-10) min can be found to be approximately 28.55o.

Figure A6-3: Schematic of rows of ETSCs (with distances and angles notations)

460

Appendix 6

The angles and distances in Figure A6-3 can be expressed as follows:

X total

sin 180 [ + min ]


0

Lcol

sin ( min )

(A6-11)

By substituting the known values (Xcol, Lcol, min and ) in Equation A6-11, Xtotal and hence
Xmin can be found.
The minimum distance between adjacent rows of ETSCs is therefore

X min

sin 1800 [ + min ] Lcol


X col
=
sin ( min )

461

(A6-12)

Potrebbero piacerti anche