Forward Osmosis Energy Use

Comparisons to RO, MSF, MED

R. McGinnis, J. McCutcheon M. Elimelech

Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Environmental Engineering Program
Yale University

NAMS 2007, Orlando, FL

 Outline
• Overview of NH3/CO2 FO
• Solute Removal / Recycle Methods
• Modeling Methods
• FO Energy Estimates
• Comparison to RO, MSF, MED
• Impact of Membrane Efficiency on Heat
Use
The Ammonia-Carbon
Dioxide FO Process
 Reverse Osmosis
Saline
Membrane
Water HP Pump

J w = A(ΔP − σΔπ )
Energy
Input

Brine Energy Product Water

Recovery
 Forward Osmosis Process
Membrane
Saline Water
Energy
Input

Draw Solution Draw Solute

NH3/CO2 Recovery

Product
Water
Brine

0
J w = A(σΔπ − ΔP )
 Potential Benefits
• Low Energy Costs
– Can use low temperature heat
– Low cost of heat favors low total water costs

• Lower Energy Use than Other Thermal Methods

– Phase change of solute, not solvent

• High Feedwater Recovery

– No osmotic pressure limitation to recovery
– Pretreatment to prevent scaling will be limiting factor

• Reduced Brine Discharge

• May be Effective for Difficult Feedwaters
– FO uses so far: food concentration, landfill leachate treatment,
anaerobic sludge centrate treatment
Solute Removal /
Recycle Methods
 Seawater Distillation
Kg water
GOR = ≈1
Kg steam

Image from Wikipedia

 Multi-Stage Distillation

Kg water
GOR = ≈ 8 − 12
Kg steam
Image from Encarta Encyclopedia Online
 MED Desalination
Energy
Temperature,
Pressure
Feed

Brine

Kg water
GOR = ≈ 8 − 14
Kg steam
Product
Water
 Forward Osmosis Process
Membrane
Saline Water
Distillation
Column

Draw Solution Draw Solute

NH3/CO2 Recovery

Product
Water
Brine
 Single Distillation Column
To Membrane System

From Membrane System

Column

Reboiler
Product Water

Heat Duty
(Steam in, Condensate out)
 Multi-Stage Column
Distillation

• Benefits from Heat Reuse Efficiencies of

MSF / MED
• Reduces Quantity of Energy Required by
60-70%
• May use Higher Temperatures than MSF
or MED (to increase range of increased
efficiency)
 Multiple Column Operation
Temperature,
Pressure
From Membrane System
From Membrane System
Heat Duty
Column
Product Water
Reboiler
To Membrane System

From Membrane System

Column
Product Water
To Membrane System
Reboiler
 Multi-Stage Column Distillation
(MSCD)
Temperature,
Pressure Energy

Feed

Draw Solution

Product
Water
McGinnis, Elimelech, “Energy Requirements of Ammonia–Carbon Dioxide Forward
Osmosis Desalination”, Desalination, 207 (2007) 370-382.
 Modeling Methods

• AspenTech Hysys Chemical Process

Modeling Software
• OLI Electrolyte Property Database (high
ionic strength)
• Draw Solution Concentrations Based on
Experimental Flux Data
Hysys / OLI
 Heat Duty versus
Temperature of Heat
400
MED
MSF
FO MSCD
300
Heat Duty (MJ/m )
3

Electrical Power:
MED = 1.60 kWh/m3
200 MSF = 2.65 kWh/m3
FO = 0.24 kWh/m3

100

0
50 100 150 200 250
o
Heat Temp. ( C)
MED plot based on Performance Ratios (lbs water / 1000 BTU) of 8 - 14.73 for heat temperatures of 70-131 oC;
MSF for GOR of 12 for 115 oC (from Morin, O.J., Design and Operating Comparison of MSF and MED Systems.
Desalination,93(1-3) (1993) 69-109)
 Heat Duty vs. Temp. of Heat
35
30
25
20
GOR

15
10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
o
Heat Temp. ( C)

GOR =
[(H steam ) − (H water @ 35 C )](kJ/kg)
0
GOR =
Kg water
Heat Duty FO (kJ/kg) Kg steam
 Equivalent Work
Decreasing Steam Pressure, Decreasing Ability to do Work

Mechanical work not done by steam

Steam In Steam Out

LP Steam Turbine Condenser

Kgwater
GOR =
Kgsteam
Steam to Desalination Process

⎛ m3 water ⎞
Wequiv =⎜ ⎟[( H in − H out ) × Eturbine ]× ⎛⎜ 2.77 ×10−6 kWh ⎞⎟ + Welec
⎜ GOR 0 ⎟ ⎝ MJ ⎠
⎝ 35 C ⎠
 Equivalent Work vs
Heat Temperature (FO MSCD)
3 RO

Equiv. Work (kWh/m )

3

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
o
Heat Temp. ( C)
⎛ m3 water ⎞
Wequiv =⎜ ⎟[( H in − H out ) × Eturbine ]× ⎛⎜ 2.77 ×10−6 kWh ⎞⎟ + Welec
⎜ GOR 0 ⎟ ⎝ MJ ⎠
⎝ 35 C ⎠
Comparison of Desalination Technologies
Based on Equivalent Work
6
MSF
MED-TVC
5 MED-LT
RO
FO-LT
4
3
kWh/m

0
Contribution from
Electrical Power
 Draw Concentration vs.
Energy Use
4
40 160 C
160 C

Equiv. Work (kWh/m )

40-44 C

3
40-44C
3
30
GOR

20 2

10 1

0 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5
Draw Conc. (M) Draw Conc (M)

Adapted from: McGinnis, Elimelech, “Energy Requirements of Ammonia–Carbon Dioxide

Forward Osmosis Desalination”, Desalination, 207 (2007) 370-382.
 Concluding Remarks
• Availability of heat determines best
desalination method
– If heat is available for cogeneration, FO is likely
preferable to RO in energy cost
– If only electricity or fuel is available, RO is best

• Multiple columns useful to produce the most

water yield for a given heat source

• FO membrane performance drives energy

use of FO
 Acknowledgements
• Funding by the Office of Naval
Research

• Hydration Technologies

• Dow Filmtec

• Cascade Designs