Sei sulla pagina 1di 20

Technical

Paper

Technology Selection Tools for Boiler


Feedwater Applications (US Units)
Authors: Robert Gerard and Roch Laflamme, GE of these unit operations are compared. The product
Water & Process Technologies water in all cases is high purity water to feed a
high-pressure boiler or to be directly injected into a
gas turbine.
Introduction
The tools are designed to be used in the planning
During the last decade, the General Electric stage of a new project or system upgrade. Starting
Company has created a Water and Process with a range of key inputs and assumptions they
platform within the Infrastructure division by provide detailed information on capital and
bringing together leading companies in the water operational costs. A payback time is calculated for
industry. These acquisitions include Glegg, Betz, a system upgrade with limited input data being
Osmonics, Ionics and Zenon, among others. The required. For new systems the tools provide a
integration of these businesses has created a comprehensive comparison of alternative system
powerful force with a range of cutting edge designs, without the need for a detailed design of
technologies to help customers improve each option. Early in the process it will become
performance and reduce operating costs in a broad clear which technologies are most attractive,
range of applications. depending on the feed water analysis and site-
This wide range of technologies provides an specific factors, including input costs, and operating
interesting challenge when trying to find the best conditions. The result allows the utility manager or
series of unit operations to address an application. application engineer to come to a comprehensive
This is particularly true in view of the need to treat and definitive conclusion in a matter of hours.
feed waters that widely vary in contaminants and The tools that we have developed include:
cost in different locations around the world. When
considering environmental factors such as water 1. Addition of a RO unit to an existing Softener,
conservation, wastewater reduction and when to feed a low- or medium-pressure boiler.
including infrastructure and labor costs in the
evaluation, the analysis of the project can become 2. Addition of a RO unit in front of an existing
complex and time consuming. conventional Demin system using Ion
Exchange technology, to feed a medium- or
To address these issue for one specific application: high-pressure boiler.
the production of boiler feed water, we have
developed a range of tools that allow for a quick 3. UF plus RO to replace an existing Hot Lime
but thorough evaluation of key factors for both new Softener, to feed a medium- or high-
projects as well as system upgrades. These tools pressure boiler.
allow evaluation of Pretreatment options, Softening,
4. RO plus EDI versus Ion Exchange, to
Ion Exchange (IX), Ultrafiltration (UF), Reverse
produce high purity water to feed a high-
Osmosis (RO), Electrodialysis Reversal (EDR), pressure boiler.
Electrodeionization (EDI) and Thermal Evaporation
and various combinations thereof. In this paper the
capital and operating costs of several combinations
Find a contact near you by visiting www.ge.com/water and clicking on Contact Us .
* Trademark of General Electric Company; may be registered in one or more countries.
2008, General Electric Company. All rights reserved.

TP1165EN.doc Jun-08
Assumptions are included in the total capital costs, using a
percentage of the total equipment cost.
This paper will focus on the last tool: RO plus EDI
versus IX for new projects. Life cycle costs of various Design 1 is a traditional co-current regenerated ion
combinations of these technologies will be exchange system. It contains a Strong Acid Cation
evaluated. A sensitivity study is carried out to vessel followed by a Decarbonator to remove CO2
determine the precise effect of feed and waste (when required) and a Strong Base Anion system.
water cost, feed water salinity (TDS), energy, and Mix Bed ion exchange is used for polishing. Co-
chemical (caustic) costs on the total cost to produce current flow is the simplest IX design. Resin is
high purity water. The tool provides guidance as to regenerated in the same downward direction as the
what combination of technologies is most attractive service flow.
for a new boiler feed water project. Design 1: Co-current Ion Exchange (CFR) or Design 2:
Counter-current Ion Exchange (RFR)
While economic comparisons between membrane
technology and ion exchange have been conducted
in various papers [1-3], most of these comparisons
date back 5 to 10 years. Changes in chemical and
water costs, and new technical developments in MB
SBA SAC
low energy membranes and more efficient IX, and SAC SBA
High
addition of new technologies such as EDI, make it Purity
necessary to update and expand these reject
Water
comparisons.
In this evaluation, typical North American and
European designs, feed waters, and input costs Design 2 is similar to Design 1 but with a packed
have been used. Pretreatment to the RO or IX bed, counter-current regenerated ion exchange
systems is not considered, as it is assumed that the system. In these systems, regenerant is applied in a
water has limited suspended solids (SDI < 3) for all direction opposite to the service flow. This has the
system designs. In any case there would be little advantage of providing better water quality, higher
difference in this pretreatment, so the impact on chemical efficiency, and reduced wastewater flow
economics is modest. Of course, the addition of an (higher water recovery). Most new IX systems are of
ultrafiltration system, clarifier or multi media filter the counter-current design. For both IX options we
must be considered if the feed water has a high applied a safety factor of 0.85 for cation and 0.8 for
fouling potential. This paper is focused on the anion resin to simulate a 5 years operating period.
demineralization steps.
Design 3: Reverse Osmosis + Mixed Bed (RO-MB)
System Design
All designs are assumed to contain industrial grade
equipment using a conservative design philosophy. MB
In all cases, multiple trains are considered with an SAC
SBA
High
N+1 redundancy for the IX systems. The RO and E- Purity
Cell* EDI systems are designed with a minimum reject Water
flow rate of 2 x 80% design flow for the smaller
flows and N+1 redundancy for the larger flows. Design 3 is a Reverse Osmosis system followed by a
Feed water and product water storage are not Decarbonator (when required) and a MB polishing
considered. Storage tanks and distribution pumps unit. The RO is equipped with standard medium
between unit operations are included, when pressure membrane elements. The mixed bed unit
required. All systems are designed to achieve a final requires a chemical regeneration facility, bulk
product water quality of < 0.1 S/cm conductivity storage tanks, and neutralization facilities similar to
with silica and sodium levels each < 10 ppb. design 1 and 2.
Equipment installation and commissioning costs

Page 2 Technical Paper


Design 4: Softener + Reverse Osmosis + E-Cell Design 6: Double Pass Reverse Osmosis + E-Cell
Sof-RO-EDI) (2RO-EDI)

NaOH NaOH

softener
sAC
High High
reject Purity reject Purity
Water Water

Design 4 is a sodium cycle ion exchange softener Design 6 considers the use of double pass RO.
(when required) followed by a RO and final polishing Permeate of the 1st RO is used to feed the 2nd RO.
by an E-Cell EDI system. Softening the RO feed Caustic can be dosed between the passes to
water results in several advantages for RO convert CO2 to Bicarbonate to reduce the CO2 level
operation: reduced fouling, higher recovery, higher in the 2nd pass RO permeate. Final polishing is
specific flux and the option to raise feed pH to accomplished with an E-Cell unit. The double pass
reduce CO2 levels in the permeate. The concentrate design provides great flexibility in the salinity of the
of the E-Cell unit is re-circulated back to the front of feed water that can be tolerated (i.e. up to 10,000
the RO. ppm or higher).

Design 5: Reverse Osmosis + Decarbonator + Softener + Tool Limitations


E-Cell (RO-Sof-EDI)
The technology selection tool evaluates all of the
above-mentioned options for any given feed water
softener analysis. It is important to point out that it is not a
sAC
High
final design tool for each unit operation. The
reject
Purity objective of this tool is to help determine which is
Water
the most attractive design in terms of capital and
operating costs. Once the most attractive design is
established, detailed optimization design
Design 5 is similar to design 4 except that the calculations are required for each unit operation.
softener is moved to a position after the RO. Default parameters are provided for all input data,
Softening the RO feed water requires a considerable based on industry standards. These numbers can
amount of salt for softener regeneration if the feed be changed to reflect local costs and conditions.
water hardness is high. The softener must be sized
to accommodate the full RO feed flow rate. While a The costs for installation and commissioning are
softener before the RO results is a stable RO expressed as a percentage of the capital cost. For
operation, the resulting operating and equipment the Base Case, 40% was used for the ion exchange
costs can make RO permeate softening designs and 25% for the membrane designs. These
economically more attractive. In design 5 an numbers can also be changed to reflect local
antiscalant is used to allow RO operation on feed conditions.
waters containing high hardness and / or silica. If
the RO permeate produces a water quality with a
total hardness of less than 1 ppm (as CaCO3) there
is normally no need for a softener. A Decarbonator
or gas transfer membrane unit might need to be
added to reduce the level of CO2 in the E-Cell feed
water.

Technical Paper Page 3


Feedwater Analysis and Base Case
Operating Data Operating conditions

Table 1 provides the water analyses used for the IX- Regenerant dosage H2SO4 (100%) NaOH (100%)
comparisons. Case 1 is a low TDS water, at 48.8 Co-current (CFR) 6 lb/ft3 5 lb/ft3
ppm as CaCO3 (0.98 meq/l), which is typical in the
Northern parts of Europe or North America. In Case Counter-current (RFR) 5 lb/ft3 4 lb/ft3
2 to 5 salinity gradually increases to 488.9 ppm as Mixed Bed 8 lb/ft3 8 lb/ft3
CaCO3 (9.78 meq/l). Case 5 could be a typical well
water in a coastal area with some seawater RO Feed Pressure ( psi ) With GE PRO membranes
intrusion. Case 4, with a feed water TDS of 292.7 Design 3 (RO one Pass) 230.8
ppm as CaCO3 (5.85 meq/l), is the base water
analysis used for the initial evaluations prior to the Design 4 (RO one Pass) 302.8 Includes E-Cell
sensitivity studies. Design 5 (RO one Pass) 230.8

Design 6 (RO two Pass) 253.8 / 390.3 Includes E-Cell


Ion ppm (mg/l) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 Case 4 Case 5
Base cost
Ca 7.5 15 30 45 45
H2SO4 (100%) $0.05 $/lb
Mg 2 4 8 12 12
NaOH (100%) $0.18 $/lb
Na 10 20 40 60 150
Feed water $0.76 $/Kusg
Cl 12.7 25.4 50.8 76.2 215.3
Waste water $0.19 $/Kusg
SO4 10 20 40 60 60
Electricity $0.06 $/KWh
HCO3 25 50 100 150 150
Fuel cost $8.50 $/MM BTU
SiO2 5 10 10 10 10
Salt cost $0.04 $/lb
PH 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1 7.1
Equipment Amortization 20 years
Conductivity 103 206 398 590 918
mmhos Interest Rate 7.0% / year
TDS 48.8 97.6 195.2 292.7 488.9 Water Temperature 59o F
(ppm as CaCO3)
Table 2: Base Case Operating Conditions
TDS 0.98 1.95 3.9 5.85 9.78
(meq/l)
In addition to the Capital Expenditures (Capex) and
TDS 72.2 144.4 278.8 413.2 642.3
(total ppm) Operating Expenses (Opex) the tool allows the user
to estimate and enter various cost savings that are
Table 1: Feed Water Analysis in ppm ion (mg/l), site-specific. Several of these potential savings are
(case 4 is the base case) listed in table 3. The tool starts with estimates for
these site-specific savings that can be adjusted. For
the Base Case savings for the membrane designs
All other operating conditions for the base case are versus the IX designs are shown in Table 3. Site-
listed in Table 2. specific savings may be taken into account when
calculating the overall cost to produce water. Data
is provided with and without these site-specific
savings.

Page 4 Technical Paper


Results of comparison
Capital Cost Estimated Site Specific Saving Value ($)
Fig. 1 shows the capital plus installation costs for
Smaller building size in foot print and height 176,115
the various designs listed above, at a flow rate of
Reduced commissioning time required 17,612 440 usgpm using the base case operating
No contamination dikes required around chemical 14,089
conditions listed in table 1 and 2. For the membrane
storage options the capital site-specific savings from table 3
are shown. Significant reductions can be obtained if
Environmental reporting of chemicals eliminated 5,00
site-specific savings exist.
or reduced
Truck chemical loading station and dedicated drains 16907
with pump to neutralization system are eliminated Site specific savings on Capital & Installation
Net Capital & Installation cost
Acid and Caustic proof concrete, tiles, grout etc. 9,862
not required 2,000,000
1,750,000
Total 239,585
1,500,000

Operating Cost - Estimated Site Specific Saving Value ($) 1,250,000

Cost ( $ )
1,000,000
Cation, resin cleaners will not be required 5,520
750,000
Anion, resin cleaners and or brine squeeze will not 4,590 500,000
be required 250,000

Neutralization tank associated problems 3,000 0


eliminated 1 2 3 4 5 6
Design
More consistent water quality, reduced chance for 8,806
silica breakthrough, resulting is less scaling in
boiler and/or turbine Figure 1: Capital and Installation Cost for Base Case
Safety improvements for Operators, Reduction in 5,000
hazardous chemicals Fig. 2 shows the annual operating cost for the same
Reduce damage / maintenance due to corrosion 2,000 system designs. Equipment financing cost are
from acid fumes included and site-specific savings for capital and
operation are shown.
Maintenance cost reduction on demin system, valves, 8,806
pumps, others

Labor savings in possible personnel reallocation 44,029 Annualized Site specific savings on Operation
Annualized Site specific savings on Capital & Inst.
Total 81,480 Annual financing cost
Net annual operating cost
900,000
Table 3: Estimated Site Specific saving, Membrane
800,000
versus IX design 700,000
600,000
Cost ( $ )

500,000

The system flow rates that have been evaluated are 400,000
300,000
110, 242, 440, 1100 and 2642 usgpm, which cover
200,000
the flow rate of most industrial boiler systems. 100,000
0
The flow rate of 440 usgpm is used for the
1 2 3 4 5 6
sensitivity analysis. Design

Figure 2: Annual Operating Cost for Base Case

Technical Paper Page 5


Fig. 3 shows the cost per produced 1,000 usg (Kusg) Water Chemicals
of high purity water. For the base case with Energy Equipment consumables
relatively high TDS of 293 ppm as CaCO3 (5.85 Annualized Equipment
meq/l), the membrane designs (3 to 6) show a lower 4.00
cost than the ion exchange designs 1 and 2. Option
3.50
3 (RO+MB) shows the lowest cost when site-specific
3.00
savings are not credited. If site-specific savings are

Cost ($/1000 usg)


2.50
taken into account option 4 and 5 become more
attractive. For option 3 the total site-specific 2.00

savings add up to $0.27 per Kusg and for option 4 1.50


to 6 the figure is $0.45 per Kusg. 1.00
0.50
Annualized Site specific savings on Capital & Inst. 0.00
Annualized Site specific savings on Operation 1 2 3 4 5 6
Net annual operating cost
Design
4.00
3.50 Fig. 4: Cost breakdown $/1000 Kusg
3.00
Cost ($/1000 usg)

2.50
The base case assumes a relatively low water and
2.00
waster water cost of $0.76/1000 usg and $0.19
1.50
/1000 usg respectively. Despite this low water cost
1.00 it represents a significant portion of the overall cost
0.50 in all cases. For the IX designs water cost is lower
0.00 due to the higher recovery compared to the
1 2 3 4 5 6 membrane designs. Energy consumption is higher
Design
for the membrane designs but chemicals
consumption is lower compared to the IX designs.
Fig. 3: Produced water cost per Kusg for base case
Figs. 5 to 7 show the capital and operating cost
Fig. 4 provides a detailed breakdown of the total numbers for the base case TDS of 293 ppm as
cost to produce water. Water cost includes the feed CaCO3 (5.85 meq/l). Fig. 5 shows the effect of
water plus the cost to dispose of the wastewater. system flow rate. Note the effect on operating cost
For the IX options, the chemicals cost includes the is quite small for all system designs.
acid and caustic for regeneration, plus the cost for
neutralization and resin cleaning. Energy cost 3 .50

includes the pressure for the booster pumps, the


3 .0 0
decarbonator fan and the heating of the caustic
solution. The equipment consumables are the cost 2 .50

of resin replacement.
$/1000 usg

2 .0 0

For the membrane designs, the cost for chemicals 1. 5 0

include caustic dosing, antiscalant, de-chlorination,


1. 0 0
softener salt and RO cleaning chemicals. The De s ign 1 De s ign 2
equipment consumables costs include the 0 .50 De s ign 3 De s ign 4
De s ign 5 De s ign 6
replacement costs for cartridge filters, RO elements 0 .0 0
and E-Cell stacks. Energy costs includes the 110 242 440 110 1 2642
decarbonator fan, high pressure pumps for the RO Flow rate usgpm
and booster pumps. Site-specific savings are not
included in this breakdown. Note that in all of the Fig. 5: Operating cost - $/1000 usg
following information, site-specific savings are no
longer included unless mentioned otherwise.

Page 6 Technical Paper


On the other hand, the capital cost per installed Fig. 7 shows the combined number of financed
usgpm declines when the flow rate increases as is (capital with installation) cost and operating cost.
shown in Fig. 6. This effect is more pronounced for
the IX designs. The reason is that the cost of the De s ign 1 De s ign 2
5 .0 0
peripheral equipment for IX is not very depended on De s ign 3 De s ign 4
the flow rate and the cost of the IX vessels per De s ign 5 De s ign 6
installed usgpm declines significantly with 4 .0 0

increasing vessel diameter. For the membrane

$/1000 usg
options, the cost is more linear with flow rate. 3 .0 0

2 .0 0
15,000
Design 1 Design 2
1.0 0
12,000 Design 3 Design 4
$ per installed usgpm

Design 5 Design 6
0 .0 0
9,000
110 242 440 110 1 2642
Flow rate usgpm
6,000

Fig. 7: Total operating cost $/1000 usg


3,000

0 Figs. 8 and 9 show the effect of feed water TDS on


110 242 440 1101 2642 water cost at the base case of 440 usgpm and at
Flow rate usgpm the highest flow rate of 2642 usgpm, respectively.

Design 1 Design 2 Design 3


Fig. 6: Capital & Inst. cost per usgpm installed
Design 4 Design 5 Design 6
6.00

5.50

5.00
Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
4.50
Design 4 Design 5 Design 6
4.00
6.00
$/1000 usg

3.50
5.50
3.00
5.00
2.50
4.50
2.00
4.00
1. 5 0
$/1000 usg

3.50
1. 0 0
3.00
0.50
2.50
0.00
2.00 0 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

1. 5 0
TDS PPM as CaCO3

1. 0 0

0.50
Fig. 9: Cost per 1000 usg versus TDS for 2642
0.00
0 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 usgpm
TDS PPM as CaCO3

Fig. 8: Cost per 1000 usg versus TDS for 440 usgpm

Technical Paper Page 7


The point at which the membrane designs become Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
more attractive than the IX designs (the cross-over Design 4 Design 5 Design 6
or break-even point) shifts towards higher TDS
3.00
levels with increasing flow rate. Note the position of
the arrows dropping down to the x-axis for the
most efficient IX design 2.
2.50

$/1000 usg
For the highest cost membrane design 6 (2RO-EDI)
the break-even point is at TDS 210 ppm as CaCO3
(4.2 meq/l) for a 440 usgpm flow rate and at TDS 2.00

275 ppm as CaCO3 (5.5 meq/l) for a 2642 usgpm


flow rate.
1.50
The break-even points for the different designs also 0 50 10 0 15 0 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550

shift relative to each other with increasing flow rate. TDS PPM as CACO3

The reason is that the cost lines are not smooth Fig. 10: Cost per 1000 usg versus TDS for 110
curves. This is caused by the need for additional usgpm
equipment at higher feed water TDS levels.
At a higher CO2 level a decarbonator is often At higher flow rate this changes as is shown in fig.
needed and a softener might be required when feed 11. Above a TDS of 150 ppm as CaCO3 (3 meq/l) the
water total hardness increases. MB option is more attractive than the E-Cell options
at a flow rate of 1100 usgpm.
This additional equipment obviously affects the
water cost. Design 1 Design 2 Design 3
Design 4 Design 5 Design 6
Fig. 10 provides a close up view of the membrane
options at a flow rate of 110 usgpm. It shows that 3.00

the membrane options are more attractive for all


designs at a TDS levels above 75 ppm as CaCO3 (1.5
meq/l). 2.50
$/1000 usg

Design 4 (softener+RO+E-Cell) shows a steep


increase in cost between TDS 100 and 200 ppm as 2.00
CaCO3 (2 and 4 meq/l) due to the need for a
softener equipment and the additional operating
cost for salt. 1.50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Design 5 (RO+softener+E-Cell) requires a softener TDS PPM as CACO3
and decarbonator equipment but the salt
consumption is less and therefore the increase is Fig. 11: Cost per 1000 usg versus TDS for 1100
not as steep. usgpm
As a result design 4 is lowest cost up to TDS of 300
ppm as CaCO3 (6 meq/l) and design 5 is lowest cost Important to realize is that the site-specific savings
above TDS of 300 ppm (6 meq/l). are not included in any of these graphs. The
difference in site-specific savings for design 4 and 5
At a low flow rate the E-Cell options (design 4 and 5) with design 3 is $0.15/1000 usg for the base case at
are lower cost than the option with MB (design 1100 usgpm, which would make the net cost of the
3) for the entire TDS range. E-Cell and MB options equivalent at 1100 usgpm.

Page 8 Technical Paper


Sensitivity Analysis: Effect of utility Design-2- NaOH $0.045/lb Design-2- NaOH $0.18/lb
costs, chemical costs and membrane Design-2- NaOH $0.27/lb Design-2- NaOH $0.36/lb

selection on produced water cost Design-3- NaOH $0.27/lb


Design-5- NaOH $0.27/lb
Design-4- NaOH $0.27/lb
Design-6- NaOH $0.27/lb
7.00
The previous graphs are all based on the base case 6.50
operating conditions listed in table 2. The actual 6.00
cost for electricity, water, wastewater and 5.50

chemicals will have a significant impact on the final 5.00

water cost and the break-even point of membrane 4.50

$/1000 usg
versus IX options. 4.00

3.50

The cost of NaOH has the largest impact on the 3.00

2.50
chemical cost. The cost of NaOH has more than 2.00
tripled in most geographies since 2004. The 1.50
resulting effect on the Ion Exchange options is 1.00

considerable. 0.50

0.00

Figure 12 shows the result of varying the cost of 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
TDS PPM as CaCO3
NaOH from $ 0.18 to 0.36 per lb, for a 100%
solution. This represents the current range in NaOH
Fig. 12: Effect of NaOH costing on water cost for
costs worldwide. For comparison, data is provided
440 usgpm
for the lowest NaOH cost reported in 2004, which
was $ 0.045 /lb.
The effect of NaOH cost for the membrane options Break-even point TDS PPM as CaCO3
is small. For this reason, and for simplicity only the $
0.27/lb cost numbers are shown. Comparing the NaOH Cost ($/lb) 0.18 0.27 0.36
lowest cost IX design 2 with the highest cost Design 3 110 75 <50
membrane design 6 the break-even point ranges
Design 4 60 <50 <50
from TDS of 135 to 225 ppm as CaCO3 (2.7 to 4.5
meq/l). Design 5 110 75 50

For all other membrane designs the break-even Design 6 225 160 135
point is at TDS 75 ppm as CaCO3 (1.5 meq/l) or
Table 4: Break-even point at varying NaOH cost
below as is shown in table 4 for a NaOH cost of $
0.27/lb. comparing membrane designs vs. design 2

In 2004 with caustic pricing at $0.045/lb the break-


even point would have been at TDS of 340 ppm as The cost of electricity has also increased over the
CaCO3 (6.8 meq/l) for design 6. This remarkable last 5 years and this will affect mainly the mem-
difference clearly demonstrates that the effect of brane designs, since they operate at high pressure.
caustic pricing on the operating cost of an IX The effect of energy is most significant for the dou-
system is enormous. ble pass RO design 6.

This is one of the reasons why there has been a Table 5 shows a range of 50 to 160 ppm TDS as
clear shift towards membrane technology during CaCO3 (1.0 to 3.2 meq/l) for design 4 and 5.
recent years, not only for high TDS waters, but now,
for the first time, also for low TDS waters.

Technical Paper Page 9


The break-even point varies from TDS of 180 to 340
Break-even point TDS PPM as CaCO3
ppm as CaCO3 (3.6 to 6.8 meq/l). The break-even
Electricity Cost ($/KWh) 0.04 0.06 0.09 0.12 range for the other designs is shown in Table 6.
Design 3 95 100 115 135
Design 4 50 60 90 125
Design 5 95 110 135 160
Design 6 160 215 285 310

Table 5: Break-even point at varying electricity cost


of membrane designs vs. design 2

Fig. 13 compares design 2 and 6 showing a break-


even range of 160 to 320 ppm TDS as CaCO3 (3.2 to
6.4 meq/l) for an electricity cost of $ 0.04 to
0.12/kWh.

Design 2 Elect. $0.06/kWh Design 6 Elect. $0.04/kWh


Design 6 Elect. $0.06/kWh Design 6 Elect. $0.09/kWh
Design 6 Elect. $0.12/kWh

5.00

4.50

4.00
Fig. 14: Effect of Raw Water cost on produced water
3.50 cost for 440 usgpm flow rate
3.00
$/1000 usg

2.50
Break-even point TDS PPM as CaCO3
2.00
RW Cost ($/1000 usg) 0.19 0.76 1.89 3.79
1.50
Design 3 50 100 160 250
1.00
Design 4 <50 70 100 200
0.50
Design 5 65 110 185 280
0.00
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 Design 6 180 215 285 340
TDS PPM as CaCO3

Fig. 13: Effect of Electricity cost on water cost for Table 6: Break-even point at varying raw water cost
440 usgpm flow rate of membrane designs vs. design 2

Fig. 14 provides the cost of produced water with a The impact of the waste water cost is less dramatic
raw water cost ranging from $ 0.19 to 3.79 / 1000 on the produced water cost than the raw water
usg for options 2 and 6. The wastewater cost is kept cost but if both the raw water cost and waste water
constant in this graph at the base case value of $ cost increase simultaneously the effect is large as is
0.19 / 1000 usg. shown in fig. 15.

The membrane options operate at a lower recovery


than the IX options and therefore the impact of an
increase in raw water cost is more pronounced for
the membrane options.

Page 10 Technical Paper


Fig. 16 compares design 3 (RO+MB) and 4
(Softener+RO+E-Cell). Up to a TDS of 225 ppm as
CaCO3 (4.5 meq/l) design 4 with PRO HR is more
attractive than the other designs. The main reason
is that the softener is not required up to this TDS
due to the higher rejection of hardness. The
reduction in capital cost and reduced salt
consumption make up for the increased energy
cost. Above TDS of 225 ppm as CaCO3 (4.5 meq/l)
PRO HR in combination with design 3 is most
attractive.
In this range the increase in energy consumption of
the PRO HR makes up for the reduced regeneration
chemical requirement of the polishing MB. The
breakeven point for all membrane types is less
than 105 ppm (2.1 meq/l) when comparing to
design 2. The design 4 with the PRO-LE membrane
is shown as a dotted line above a TDS of 300 ppm (6
meq/l) because the RO product water quality at this
Fig. 15: Effect of Raw Water and Wastewater cost point is no longer acceptable to the E-Cell unit.
on produced water cost for 440 usgpm flow rate
2.30
Table 7 shows a TDS range of 170 to 400 ppm as
CaCO3 (3.4 to 8.0 meq/l) comparing design 2 and 6.

2.10
$/1000 usg

Break-even point TDS PPM as CaCO3


Design 3 - PRO
RW + WW Cost ($/1000 usg) 0.19 0.764 1.89 3.79 Design 3 - PRO LE
1.90
Design 3 - PRO HR
Design 3 50 135 245 320 Design 4 - PRO
Design 4 - PRO LE
Design 4 <50 100 175 290 Design 4 - PRO HR
Design 2
Design 5 60 150 265 340 1.70
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550
Design 6 170 265 340 400 TDS PPM as CaCO3

Table 7: Break-even point at varying raw water and Fig. 16: Effect of membrane selection on produced
wastewater cost of membrane designs vs. design 2 water cost for 440 usgpm flow rate

The final parameter analyzed is the selection of the


membrane type in the RO. The base case is using
GE PRO elements, which are medium operating
pressure, and medium rejection elements. A
comparison was made with PRO LE elements,
operating at lower pressure and lower rejection and
PRO HR elements operating at higher pressure and
higher rejection.

Technical Paper Page 11


Break-even point TDS PPM as CaCO3 Conclusions
Membrane Type PRO LE HR 1. Selection of the right technology to produce a
Design 3 105 90 95 high purity boiler feed water requires careful
analysis of all the parameters affecting capital
Design 4 60 20 55
and operating costs.
Design 5 110 85 105
2. It has always been helpful to develop rules of
Design 6 215 150 200 thumb to guide engineers in the choice
between membrane- and ion exchange-based
Table 8: Break-even point at different RO
demineralization systems. In the last 5 years
membrane types of membrane designs vs. design 2
this has become increasingly difficult. Due to
the availability of many new products and
In Fig. 17 both membrane type and electricity cost design options, and because of radically higher
are varied for design 2 and 6. As expected the effect energy, chemical and water costs, the old rules
of energy cost is less pronounced in design 6 for the of thumb no longer apply.
PRO-LE membrane. In a double pass RO
arrangement this membrane is preferred over the 3. Conditions favorable for the membrane designs
PRO element. The average savings using PRO-LE are:
over PRO add up to $ 0.284 / 1000 usg at an
High feed water TDS
electricity cost of $ 0.06 kWh and to $ 0.57 / 1000
usg at an electricity cost of $ 0.12 / kWh. The water Low product water flow
quality out of a PRO-LE double pass RO is
acceptable for the E-Cell over the entire TDS range High chemical costs (particularly NaOH)
that was evaluated.
Low water and wastewater costs
Design 2 - Electr. $ 0.06/kWh Design 2 - Electr $ 0.12/kWh

Design 6 - PRO - Electr. $ 0.06/kWh Design 6 - PRO - Electr. $ 0.12/kWh Low electricity cost.
5.00
Design 6 - PRO LE - Electr. $ 0.06/kWh Design 6 - PRO LE - Electr. $ 0.12/kWh
4. If one or more of the last 4 conditions apply, the
4.50
break-even point favoring the membrane
4.00 designs versus ion exchange could be as low as
TDS of approx. 50 ppm as CaCO3 (1.0 meq/l) or
$/1000 usg

3.50
100 S/cm conductivity.
3.00

5. For the TDS range and parameters that were


2.50
evaluated, membrane options are always more
2.00 attractive than ion exchange above a TDS of
approx. 400 ppm as CaCO3 (8 meq/l) or 750
1.50
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 S/cm conductivity.
TDS PPM as CaCO3
6. Below 400 ppm (8 meq/l) a detailed analysis is
Fig. 17: Effect of membrane selection and electricity often required. This can only be achieved using
cost on produced water cost for 440 usgpm flow a tool that considers all parameters.
rate 7. Site-specific savings can play an important role
in technology selection. These savings generally
Important to realize is that Figs. 16 and 17 only favor membrane options.
apply to a flow rate of 400 usgpm and the base cost
for water, waste water and NaOH. If additional 8. The use of high rejection RO membrane
parameters are varied, the conclusion as to which elements is attractive if they allow operation of
design is most attractive might change. the E-Cell EDI designs without a softener. In a
double pass RO design, use of low energy

Page 12 Technical Paper


membranes provide the lowest produced water 10. Water conditioning manual, Dowex ion
cost. exchange resins, 1985
9. In all membrane designs it is important to 11. Kunin Robert, Amber-hi-lites Fifty years of ion
optimize recovery since water and wastewater exchange technology, Tall Oaks Publishing Inc.,
costs are significant. In this analysis design 4 1996
(Softener+RO+E-Cell) provides the lowest cost in
most situations due to the ability to operate at 12. Paul Tan, Optimizing a high-purity water
higher recovery. system, Tall Oaks Publishing Inc., 2007

10. The use of E-Cell EDI technology after RO is


attractive versus Mixed Bed at most flow rates.
When site-specific savings apply the membrane
options with E-Cell produce the lowest cost
water at flow rates from 110-1100 usgpm and
above.

References
1. P.A. Newell, S.P. Wrigley, P. Sehn and S.S.
Whipple, An Economic Comparison of Reverse
Osmosis and Ion Exchange in Europe, Ion
Exchange Developments and Applications, p.
58-66, Proceedings of IEX 96, Royal Society of
Chemistry
2. S. Whipple, E. Ebach and S. Beardsley, UltraPure
Water, October 1987
3. Beardsley, S., Coker, S., and Whipple, S., The
Economocs of Reverse Osmosis and Ion
Exchange, paper presented at WATERTECH 94,
Nov 9-11, 1994
4. Rohm and Haas, IXCalc Ion Exchange Design
Software
5. Owens DL, Practical Principals of Ion Exchange
water treatment, Tall Oaks Publishing Inc., 1985
6. BetzDearborn Handbook of Industrial Water
Conditioning, 9th edition 1991
7. R. Gerard, H. Hachisuka, M. Hirose, Desalination
119 (1998) 47-55
8. Strathmann H., Membrane and Membrane
Separation Processes Ellmanns Encyclopedia
of Industrial Chemistry, (2005),
http://mrw.intersience.wiley.com [2008-2-15]
9. Bornak W, Ion Exchange deionization for
industrial users, Tall Oaks Publishing Inc., 2003

Technical Paper Page 13


G E W a te r & Proc e s s Apendix A: Technology Selection Tool Printout for Base Case
Te c hnologie s

Capital & Operating Cost evaluation RO-EDI versus Demin - Mixed bed
Raw water analysis Fill in yellow cells Select the unit system you want to use: 1 1=US , 2=Metric Euro , 3= Metric $
Water source City Equipment selection for Demin system, Mixed Bed, RO, Softener & E-Cell
PPM PPM / mg/l meq/l System criteria
ions mg/l ion as CACO3 Please enter the average High Purity Water Production 440.3 usgpm
Calcium 45.00 112.5 2.25 The system calculation takes into account that one unit is always on standby
Magnesium 12.00 49.4 0.99 ( Demin train, Mixed bed, Softener, RO & E-cell )
Sodium 60.00 130.80 2.62 A decarbonator will be selected if flow > 99 usgpm and M alk (as CaCO3) > 59 ppm
Potassium 0.00 0 0.00 Decarbonator will be in place? 1 1 = Yes, 0 = No Type 1
+2
Iron Fe 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regeneration effluent will be neutralised? 1 1 = Yes, 0 = No
+2
Mangenese Mn 0.00 0.00 0.00 What kind of acid will be used? 2 1 = HCl, 2 = H2SO4
Lead 0 0.00 0.00 Demin system: capacity based on Rohm & Haas resin SAC IR1200, SBA IRA4200
Barium 0 0.00 0.00 Regenerants dosage CFR Acid 6.0 lb/ft3 Caustic 5.0 lb/ft3
Strontium 0 0.00 0.00 Regenerants dosage RFR Acid 5.0 lb/ft3 Caustic 4.0 lb/ft3
Aluminium 0 0.00 0.00 Regenerants pricing Acid 0.05 $/lb Caustic 0.18 $/lb
Chloride 76.2 107.40 2.15 Resin life expectation Cations 6 years Anions 4 years
Sulfate 60.0 62.36 1.25 Water cost Raw water 0.76 $/Kusg Waste 0.19 $/Kusg
HCO3- M Alkalinity 150.0 123.0 2.46 Safety factor for resin capacity SAC 0.85 SBA 0.80
Fluoride 0.00 0.00 0.00 Mixed Beds system :
Nitrate 0.00 0.00 0.00 Regenerants dosage Acid 8.0 lb/ft3 Caustic 8.0 lb/ft3
pH 7.10 Resin life expectation Cations 5 years Anions 5 years
Silica 10.00 8.30 0.17 Equipment Ammortization Period, months 240 Interest Rate, % 7%
CO2 19.49 22.21 0.44 Equipment installation cost express as % of capital cost Demin 40% RO + EDI 25%
Calculated TDS 413.12 RO to MB or Softener one pass % Recovery 75% PSI increase 230.80 psi
Conductivity mmhos 590 Softener to RO - one pass % Recovery 85% PSI increase 302.80 psi
TOC - ppm 1.10 Two pass - RO - fisrt pass % Recovery 75% PSI increase 253.80 psi
NTU - Turbidity 1.2 Two pass - RO - second pass % Recovery 85% PSI increase 390.35 psi
TSS - ppm 1.0 Select the type of RO membranes to be used 1 Pro RO 365 Pump efficiency % 65%
Total Cation 292.720 5.85 AVERAGE water temperature 59.0 F Motor efficiency % 95%
Total Anion 292.708 5.85 Anion regen, energy cost Fuel Cost, $/MM BTU 8.50 Electricity cost 0.06 $/Kwh
Charge balance 0.00% MK-3 System Parameters E-cell Energy consum. 1-Pass 0.760 KWh/Kusg
Adjusted Chloride value to be enter in cell C20 76.18 Stack life expectation 7 years Energy consum. 2-Pass 0.380 KWh/Kusg
TEC 292.720 5.85 Rectifier efficiency % 70% 40% - 95% Target Resistivity (Mohm.cm)
TEA 324.322 6.49 Rectifier DC output (Volts) 300 300 or 400 VDC 10 1-18 MW cm

Annual Operating cost Annual


Capital cost +
including project cost & Operating $/1000 usg
installation cost financing cost only
Options Systems produced
Option -1- Conventional demin system ( CFR ) follow by mixed bed 1,981,300 $ 847,100 $ 662,800 3.66 $
Option -2- Amberpack demin system ( RFR ) follow by mixed bed 1,949,500 $ 729,400 $ 548,000 3.15 $
Option -3- RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by Mixed Bed 1,347,000 $ 515,800 $ 390,500 2.23 $
Option -4- Softener - RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by E-cell 1,100,300 $ 538,900 $ 436,500 2.33 $
Option -5- RO system ( 1 Pass ) - Softener followed by E-cell 1,152,900 $ 537,500 $ 430,200 2.32 $
Option -6- RO two pass system followed by E-cell 1,347,000 $ 651,360 $ 526,060 2.81 $

Option # colored in red : This option is not recommended, ( TDS going into the E-Cell is too high )

Including the site specific savings impact on Capital & Operating Cost
Annual Operating cost Annual
Capital cost +
including project cost & Operating $/1000 usg
installation cost financing cost only
Options Systems produced
Option -1- Conventional demin system ( CFR ) follow by mixed bed 1,981,300 $ 847,100 $ 662,800 3.66 $
Option -2- Amberpack demin system ( RFR ) follow by mixed bed 1,949,500 $ 729,400 $ 548,000 3.15 $
Option -3- RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by Mixed Bed 1,299,083 $ 454,304 $ 333,464 1.96 $
Option -4- Softener - RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by E-cell 860,715 $ 435,120 $ 355,020 1.88 $
Option -5- RO system ( 1 Pass ) - Softener followed by E-cell 913,315 $ 433,720 $ 348,720 1.87 $
Option -6- RO two pass system followed by E-cell 1,107,415 $ 547,580 $ 444,580 2.37 $

Page 14 Technical Paper


Capital & Operating Cost evaluation RO-EDI versus Demin - Mixed bed
Systems
Option -1- Conventional demin system ( CFR ) follow by mixed bed
Option -2- Amberpack demin system ( RFR ) follow by mixed bed
Option -3- RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by Mixed Bed
Option -4- Softener - RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by E-cell
Option -5- RO system ( 1 Pass ) - Softener followed by E-cell
Option -6- RO two pass system followed by E-cell

Capital & Installation cost with site specific savings included


Reduced Capital & Inst. cost Site specific savings on Capital & Inst.

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Options

Annual operating cost with site specific savings included


Net annual operating cost Annual financing cost
Annualized Site specific savings on Capital & Inst. Annualized Site specific savings on Operation
900,000

800,000

700,000

600,000

500,000

400,000

300,000

200,000

100,000

0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Options

Cost to produce high purity water cost/1000 usg or cost/m3


Net operating cost Annualized Site specific savings on Operation Annualized Site specific savings on Capital & Inst.

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Options

Technical Paper Page 15


Capital & Operating Cost evaluation RO-EDI versus Demin - Mixed bed
Systems
Option -1- Conventional demin system ( CFR ) follow by mixed bed
Option -2- Amberpack demin system ( RFR ) follow by mixed bed
Option -3- RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by Mixed Bed
Option -4- Softener - RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by E-cell
Option -5- RO system ( 1 Pass ) - Softener followed by E-cell
Option -6- RO two pass system followed by E-cell

Annual Operating Cost Breakdown express as cost/1000usg or cost/m3


Water Chemicals Energy Equipment consumables Annualized Equipment

4.00

3.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6
Options

Annual Operating Cost Repartition

50.0%

45.0%

40.0%

35.0%

30.0%

25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
1 2 3 4 5 6
Water 26.2% 27.8% 48.7% 43.2% 47.9% 41.5%
Chemicals 40.8% 35.0% 9.1% 10.6% 5.3% 6.3%
Energy 8.4% 9.2% 13.5% 16.1% 16.0% 24.9%
Equipment consumables 3.1% 3.4% 4.5% 11.1% 10.9% 8.1%
Annualized Equipment 21.5% 24.5% 24.3% 19.0% 20.0% 19.2%

Page 16 Technical Paper


Option -1- Conventional demin system ( CFR ) follow by mixed bed
Treated Decarbonator

Water Tank 540.9 PRO-FDD-60 PRE High Purity


usgpm 1 Water produced
3 3 441.6 usgpm 3 440.3 usgpm
MB
SAC-CFR-96-S SAC SBA SBA-CFR-72-S PRO-MB-60-S
SAC
SBA

18.4% 0.29%
99.4 100.6 18.61% 1.29
Reject usgpm Reject Total usgpm usgpm Reject

Equipment selection Capital cost Annual Operating cost Cost $/1000 usg produced
Demin system # of units Cost Water cost 225,300 $ 0.974 $
-raw water 215,300 $ 0.930 $
SAC-CFR-96-S 3 335,200 $ -Waste water 10,000 $ 0.043 $
PRO-FDD-60 PRE Decarbonator 1 46,100 $ Treated water pumps electricity 18,100 $ 0.078 $
SBA-CFR-72-S 3 298,400 $ DM-Regenerant (acid & caustic) 332,200 $ 1.436 $
Anion regeneration Energy cost 40,100 $ 0.173 $
Acid & caustic pumps skid 2 144,400 $ Demin-Neutralization cost Caustic 0 $ 0.000 $
Acid & NaOH tanks 2 107,500 $ Demin- Resin replacement 22,300 $ 0.096 $
Neutralisation tank 1 100,000 $ Decarbonator - Electricity 13,900 $ 0.060 $
PLC 1 36,800 $ MB-Regenerant (acid & caustic) 5,800 $ 0.025 $
PRO-MB-60-S 3 333,100 $ MB-Neutralization cost Acid 500 $ 0.002 $
Blower 1 13,700 $ MB - Resin replacement 4,600 $ 0.020 $
Total equipment 1,415,200 $ Total annual operating cost 662,800 $ 2.864 $
Installation cost 566,100 $ Annualized project Equipment Cost 184,300 $ 0.796 $
Total equipment + installation 1,981,300 $ Total annual oper. including Project cost 847,100 $ 3.661 $

All calculations are done pre-tax. No credit is calculated for the decreased tax effect of the depreciation stream.
For full accounting of the project, after-tax, consult your customer accounting department for their incremental tax rate and treatment of depreciation.

Option -2- Amberpack demin system ( RFR ) follow by mixed bed


Decarbonator

PRO-FDD-60 PRE 440.9 High Purity


1 usgpm Water produced
3 440.3 usgpm
AP AP MB
3 3
SAC SBA SAC
SAC-AP-72-S SBA-AP-60-S PRO-MB-60-S SBA

Treated 501.9 12.1% Reject total 0.15%


Water Tank usgpm 61.0 61.6 12.28% 0.64
Reject usgpm Reject Total usgpm usgpm Reject

Equipment selection Capital cost Annual Operating cost Cost $/1000 usg produced
Demin system # of units Cost Water cost 205,800 $ 0.889 $
-raw water 199,700 $ 0.863 $
SAC-AP-72-S 3 294,200 $ -Waste water 6,100 $ 0.026 $
PRO-FDD-60 PRE Decarbonator 1 46,100 $ Treated water pumps electricity 16,800 $ 0.073 $
SBA-AP-60-S 3 279,500 $ DM-Regenerant (acid & caustic) 245,300 $ 1.060 $
Anion regeneration Energy cost 37,400 $ 0.162 $
Acid & caustic pumps skid 2 131,700 $ Demin-Neutralization cost Acid 700 $ 0.003 $
Acid & NaOH tanks 2 107,500 $ Demin- Resin replacement 20,400 $ 0.088 $
Resin BackWash Tank 2 64,900 $ Decarbonator pump - Electricity 13,900 $ 0.060 $
Neutralisation tank 1 85,000 $ MB-Regenerant (acid & caustic) 2,900 $ 0.013 $
PLC 1 36,800 $ MB-Neutralization cost Acid 200 $ 0.001 $
PRO-MB-60-S 3 333,100 $ MB - Resin replacement 4,600 $ 0.020 $
Blower 1 13,700 $
Total equipment 1,392,500 $ Total annual operating cost 548,000 $ 2.368 $
Installation cost 557,000 $ Annualized project Equipment Cost 181,400 $ 0.784 $
Total equipment + installation 1,949,500 $ Total annual oper. including Project cost 729,400 $ 3.152 $

All calculations are done pre-tax. No credit is calculated for the decreased tax effect of the depreciation stream.
For full accounting of the project, after-tax, consult your customer accounting department for their incremental tax rate and treatment of depreciation.

Technical Paper Page 17


Option -3- RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by Mixed Bed

444.5 High Purity


# of units 2 444.5 usgpm usgpm Water produced
PRO-300 Permeate PRO-FDD-60 PRE 3 440.3 usgpm
Treated 1 MB
SAC
Water Tank PRO-MB-60-S
SBA

592.7 0.97%
usgpm 4.26
% Recovery Reject 25% usgpm Reject to waste
RO pressure 230.80 75% 148.2 usgpm Decarbonator 152.44 Total Reject RO + MB
psi RO reject to waste 25.7%

Equipment selection Capital cost Annual Operating cost Cost $/1000 usg produced
RO system # of units Cost Water cost 251,100 $ 1.085 $
-raw water 235,900 $ 1.019 $
Chemical injection skid ( 2 products ) 1 8,000 $ -Waste water 15,200 $ 0.066 $
PRO-300 2 306,300 $ Treated water pumps electricity 8,800 $ 0.038 $
CIP skid for RO cleaning 1 9,400 $ RO Power Cost (electricity) 50,800 $ 0.220 $
PRO-FDD-60 PRE Decarbonator 1 46,100 $ RO chemicals cost (antiscalant + dechlore) 19,000 $ 0.082 $
PRO-MB-60-S 3 333,100 $ Membranes chemical cleaning cost 6,000 $ 0.026 $
Acid & caustic pumps skid 2 131,700 $ Membranes replacement cost 13,000 $ 0.056 $
Acid & NaOH tanks 2 107,500 $ Cartridge filters replacement 5,500 $ 0.024 $
Neutralisation tank 1 85,000 $ Decarbonator pump electricity 9,900 $ 0.043 $
PLC 1 36,800 $ MB-Regenerant (acid & caustic) 19,200 $ 0.083 $
Blower 1 13,700 $ MB-Neutralization cost Acid 2,600 $ 0.011 $
Total equipment 1,077,600 $ MB - Resin replacement 4,600 $ 0.020 $
Installation cost 269,400 $ Total annual operating cost 390,500 $ 1.687 $
Total equipment + installation 1,347,000 $ Annualized project Equipment Cost 125,300 $ 0.541 $
Total annual oper. including Project cost 515,800 $ 2.229 $

All calculations are done pre-tax. No credit is calculated for the decreased tax effect of the depreciation stream.
For full accounting of the project, after-tax, consult your customer accounting department for their incremental tax rate and treatment of depreciation.

Treated
Water Tank Option -4- Softener - RO system ( 1 Pass ) followed by E-cell
556.4
usgpm 463.5 High Purity
3 # of units 2 463.5 usgpm usgpm Water produced
softener S84-VN-S PRO-300 Permeate 440.3 usgpm
sAC NaOH inj. Recirc. 2
Conc. GEMK3-24
3.0%
531.3 13.90 2.00%
Reject usgpm usgpm 9.27
25.1 % Recovery Reject 15% usgpm Reject electrolyte to waste
usgpm RO pressure 302.80 85% 81.8 usgpm 116.16 Total Reject Softener + RO + E-Cell
4.5% psi RO reject to waste 20.9%
13.90 usgpm

Equipment selection Capital cost Annual Operating cost Cost $/1000 usg produced
Softener # of units Cost Water cost 233,000 $ 1.007 $
S84-VN-S 3 123,700 $ -raw water 221,400 $ 0.957 $
-Waste water 11,600 $ 0.050 $
RO system Treated water pumps electricity 14,500 $ 0.063 $
Chemical injection skid ( 2 products ) 1 8,000$ Softener Salt cost 29,300 $ 0.127 $
caustic pump skid 1 4,000 $ Softener- Resin replacement 3,500 $ 0.015 $
PRO-300 2 306,300 $ RO- Caustic injection cost 8,700 $ 0.038 $
CIP skid for RO cleaning 1 9,400 $ RO Power Cost 61,400 $ 0.265 $
RO chemicals cost (antiscalant + dechlore) 13,300 $ 0.057 $
E-Cell Membranes chemical cleaning cost 6,000 $ 0.026 $
GEMK3-24 2 428,800 $ Membranes replacement cost 13,000 $ 0.056 $
Cartridge filters replacement 5,500 $ 0.024 $
Total equipment 880,200 $ E-Cell Power Cost 10,600 $ 0.046 $
Installation cost 220,100 $ E-Cell replacement Cost 37,700 $ 0.163 $
Total equipment + installation 1,100,300 $ Total annual operating cost 436,500 $ 1.886 $
Annualized project Equipment Cost 102,400 $ 0.442 $
Total annual oper. including Project cost 538,900 $ 2.329 $

All calculations are done pre-tax. No credit is calculated for the decreased tax effect of the depreciation stream.
For full accounting of the project, after-tax, consult your customer accounting department for their incremental tax rate and treatment of depreciation.

Page 18 Technical Paper


Option -5- RO system ( 1 Pass ) - Softener followed by E-cell

PRO-300 463.5 High Purity


Treated # of units 464.4 usgpm usgpm Water produced
Water Tank 2 Permeate 440.3 usgpm
605.3 PRO-FDD-60 PRE 3 Recirc. 2
usgpm 1 softener Conc. GEMK3-24
sAC 3.0%
13.90 2.00%
Reject usgpm 9.27
RO in with recirc. % Recovery Reject 25% 0.93 S84-VN-S usgpm Reject electrolyte to waste
619.2 75% 154.8 usgpm Decarbonator usgpm 164.99 Total Reject RO + Softener + E-Cell
usgpm RO pressure 230.80 RO reject to waste 0.20% 27.3%
psi

Equipment selection Capital cost Annual Operating cost Cost $/1000 usg produced
RO system # of units Cost Water cost 257,300 $ 1.112 $
-raw water 240,900 $ 1.041 $
Chemical injection skid ( 2 products ) 1 8,000 $ -Waste water 16,400 $ 0.071 $
PRO-300 2 306,300 $ Treated water pumps electricity 9,200 $ 0.040 $
CIP skid for RO cleaning 1 9,400 $ RO Power Cost 53,100 $ 0.229 $
PRO-FDD-60 PRE Decarbonator 1 46,100 $ RO chemicals cost (antiscalant + dechlore) 19,800 $ 0.086 $
Softener Membranes chemical cleaning cost 6,000 $ 0.026 $
S84-VN-S 3 123,700 $ Membranes replacement cost 13,000 $ 0.056 $
E-Cell Cartridge filters replacement 5,500 $ 0.024 $
GEMK3-24 2 428,800 $ Decarbonator pump electricity 12,900 $ 0.056 $
Softener Salt cost 2,700 $ 0.012 $
Softener- Resin replacement 2,400 $ 0.010 $
Total equipment 922,300$ E-Cell Power Cost 10,600 $ 0.046 $
Installation cost 230,600 $ E-Cell replacement Cost 37,700 $ 0.163 $
Total equipment + installation 1,152,900 $ Total annual operating cost 430,200 $ 1.859 $
Annualized project Equipment Cost 107,300 $ 0.464 $
Total annual oper. including Project cost 537,500 $ 2.323 $

All calculations are done pre-tax. No credit is calculated for the decreased tax effect of the depreciation stream.
For full accounting of the project, after-tax, consult your customer accounting department for their incremental tax rate and treatment of depreciation.

Option -6- RO two pass system followed by E-cell

GE PRO-450-PRE-FRP-60 usgpm GE PRO-300-PRE-FRP-60 usgpm 463.5 High Purity


Treated # of units 545.2 # of units 463.5 usgpm Water produced
Water Tank 2 Permeate 1 2 Permeate 2 440.3 usgpm
631.3 Recirc. 2
usgpm Conc. GEMK3-15
3.0%
13.90 2.00%
First pass Second pass usgpm 9.27
RO in with recirc. % Recovery 25% Reject NaOH inj. % Recovery usgpm Reject electrolyte to waste
727.0 75% 181.7 usgpm 85% 191.02 Total Reject RO + E-Cell
usgpm Pump Pressure in 390.35 psi Conc. recir. 15% 30.3%
253.80 RO reject to waste 81.8 usgpm
psi

Equipment selection Capital cost Annual Operating cost Cost $/1000 usg produced
RO system # of units Cost Water cost 270,200 $ 1.168 $
-raw water 251,200 $ 1.085 $
Chemical injection skid ( 2 products ) 1 8,000 $ -Waste water 19,000 $ 0.082 $
First Pass RO Treated water pumps electricity 9,380 $ 0.041 $
GE PRO-450-PRE-FRP-60 2 422,300 $ RO Fisrt pass Power Cost 68,600 $ 0.296 $
caustic pump skid 1 4,000 $ RO Second pass Power Cost 79,100 $ 0.342 $
Second Pass RO RO Power Cost 147,700 $ 0.638 $
GE PRO-300-PRE-FRP-60 2 306,300 $ RO chemicals cost (antiscalant + dechlore) 20,200 $ 0.087 $
CIP skid for RO cleaning 1 10,800 $ RO 2- Caustic injection cost 8,680 $ 0.038 $
E-Cell Membranes chemical cleaning cost 12,100 $ 0.052 $
GEMK3-15 2 326,200 $ Membranes replacement cost 28,700 $ 0.124 $
Cartridge filters replacement 7,300 $ 0.032 $
Total equipment 1,077,600 $ E-Cell Power Cost 5,300 $ 0.023 $
Installation cost 269,400 $ E-Cell replacement Cost 16,500 $ 0.071 $
Total equipment + installation 1,347,000 $ Total annual operating cost 526,060 $ 2.273 $
Annualized project Equipment Cost 125,300 $ 0.541 $
Total annual oper. including Project cost 651,360 $ 2.815 $

All calculations are done pre-tax. No credit is calculated for the decreased tax effect of the depreciation stream.
For full accounting of the project, after-tax, consult your customer accounting department for their incremental tax rate and treatment of depreciation.

Technical Paper Page 19


Other Benefits of using RO/E-Cell technologies versus Demineralizers
that can possibly be translated into Capital Savings
Site specific savings, has to be validated by the Customer, all may or may not apply.
Value
176,115 Smaller building size in foot print and height

17,612 Reduced commisioning time required

14,089 No contamination dikes required around chemical storage


5,000 Environmental reporting of chemical eliminated
16,907 Truck chemical loading station and dedicated drains with pump to neutralization system are eliminated
0 You can enter here others benefits that are not listed
0 You can enter here others benefits that are not listed
0 You can enter here others benefits that are not listed
0 You can enter here others benefits that are not listed
9,862 Acid and Caustic proof concrete, tiles, grout etc. not required
0 You can enter here others benefits that are not listed
239,585 Total $ claimed for other annual benefits 22300

Other Benefits of using RO-E-Cell technology versus Demineralizers


that can possibly be translated into Operating Savings
Site specific savings, has to be validated by the Customer, all may or may not apply.
Value
5,250 Cation, resin cleaners and or brine squeeze, will not be needed

4,590 Anion, resin cleaners and or brine squeeze, will not be needed anymore

3,000 Neutralization tank associated problems, maintenance cost + time delay


0 More consistent water quality, reduced chance for silica breakthrough resulting is less scaling in boiler or turbine
5,000 Safety improvements for Operators, Reduction in hazardous chemicals
8,806 ecomagination - less "salts" discharged to the environment, no need to desalt downstream!!
0 Value of "bad" regenerations that have to be repeated
2,000 Reduced damage / maintenance due to corrosion from acid fumes
0 You can enter here others benefits that are not listed
8,806 Maintenance cost reduction on demin system, valves, pumps, others
44,029 Labor savings in possible personnel relocation or reallocation
81,480 Total $ claimed for other annual benefits

Page 20 Technical Paper