Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Engineering advance

Sustainable RO desalination – Energy demand and environmental impact MARK

⁎
Hilla Shemer, Raphael Semiat
Rabin Desalination Laboratory, Wolfson Faculty of Chemical Engineering, Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa 32000, Israel

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: The expedient solution to water scarcity worldwide is desalinization. Nevertheless, common misconceptions of
Reverse osmosis high cost, energy intensiveness and negative ecological footprint hinder global implementation. The objective of
Brine discharge, energy consumption, cost this paper is to refute some unsubstantiated claims regarding the energy demand and environmental impacts of
Marine environment reverse osmosis desalination. Energy consumption of RO desalination constitutes only a small fraction of a
Ecosystem
national cumulative energy demand. Meanwhile significant cost reductions of desalinated water are not ex-
pected in the near future. To date, worldwide chemical and biological monitoring programs show that brine
discharge from desalination plants have localized minimal impacts on the marine environment. Properly sited,
designed and operated RO desalination plants contribute to reduced energy demand and environmental foot-
print.

1. Introduction
Water is the cheapest natural resource on earth yet, its price varies
significantly worldwide.
Table 1 summarizes the Rickards Real Cost Water Index™. This
index is calculated using an algorithm that can be expressed in the
following simplified form: (energy costs + operating expenses + ca-
pital expense + interest expense) / volume of water supplied [1]. In
some places in the world tap water is free of charge due to historical
reasons, religious believes or just because it is of abundance. On the
other hand, the cost of 1.5 L bottled drinking water is very high, ran-
ging from 0.3 to 3.3 US$ [2]. The costs of agricultural water (i.e., ir-
rigation water) vary substantially with geographic location, water
sources, and institutional arrangements.
Water scarcity is among the main problems encountered by many
societies. Two thirds of the world's population currently live in areas
that experience water scarcity for at least one month a year. About 500
million people live in areas where water consumption exceeds the lo-
cally renewable water resources by a factor of two. Water shortage
results from climate changes (causing spatial and temporal variations of
water cycle dynamics), accelerated urbanization, increase in population
and life quality, and increased demand by industry and energy pro-
duction [4]. Additionally, water conflicts occurred throughout history
and are still occurring now days.
Water quality worldwide deteriorate due to discharge of untreated
domestic and industrial wastewater, agricultural runoff and release of
greenhouse gases, by polluting surface and ground water with
nutrients, pesticides, synthetic organics, NOx and SO2 as well dissolu-
tion of naturally occurring environmental pollutants. The need to
maintain clean water resources to supply all essentials is crucial. In
order to do so new modern high quality water supply, which are able to
accommodate the growing demand, should be prioritized. Industrially
made water consume energy, require special equipment, financial ex-
penses and trained worker. It is important on one hand, to find the best
low cost and sustained solutions and on the other hand, to educate and
regulate saving, smart use and minimize pollution.
Water may be generated from non-conventional resources in-
cluding: (i) recovery of urban wastewater for irrigation or industry use,
(ii) indirect potable reuse i.e., treated effluent is discharged into
groundwater or surface water, after treatment it is supplied as drinking
water; (iii) desalination techniques at which water is extracted from
seawater (SW) or brackish water.
Desalination techniques consist of membrane separation processes
such as reverse osmosis (RO) and electrodialysis (ED) or thermal pro-
cesses such as multi stage flash (MSF) and multi-effect distillation
(MED). At present, RO and MSF are the prevailing techniques for sea
and brackish water desalination, as shown in.
Fig. 1 [5]. Cost breakdown for a typical seawater RO desalination
plants, including capital expenses (CAPEX) and operational and main-
tenance (O & M) costs, can be found in Cohen et al., 2017 [6]. Overall,
the cost vary depending on plant location, plant size, feed water
quality, and local electrical energy cost [6].
Public awareness as well as the scientific community raise concerns
over the potential adverse effects of desalination. The objective of this

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: cesemiat@technion.ac.il (R. Semiat).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.09.021
Received 10 August 2017; Received in revised form 19 September 2017; Accepted 19 September 2017
0011-9164/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
H. Shemer, R. Semiat
Table 1
Global water cost indices [3].
Location Water cost index (US$)
Global 1.39
London 2.16
Manila, Philippines 0.35
Sao Paulo 1.10
Singapore 1.66
Uganda 1.49
Fig. 1. Total worldwide installed capacity (85.6 Mm3/d) by feed water type [5].
paper is to present misconceptions about the energy demand and en-
vironmental impacts of reverse osmosis desalination.
2. Energy consumption
2.1. Minimum work or heat energy demand
The absolute minimum energy necessary for removal of cubic meter
of fresh water from very large quantity of seawater at 20 °C, as calcu-
lated based on the second law of thermodynamics, is 0.79 kWh/m3
regardless of the separation technique used. For most brackish water,
the minimum energy requirement is much less. For a process of 50%
recovery ratio, at an initial 3.5% NaCl solution, the minimum energy
increase to about 1.1 kWh/m3 [7].
Evaluation of separation processes such as desalination, based on
the second law of thermodynamics, is called exergy analysis. It provides
an assessment of the maximum work that can be extracted from a
certain system relative to the surrounding environment i.e., it identify
sources of the inefficiency. Therefore, it may be used to improve/op-
timize the process [8]. The simplest desalination technique of a single-
stage evaporator requires approximately 650 kWh of thermal heat per
one cubic meter of seawater, depending slightly on the evaporation
temperature [9]. Additional energy is needed to condense the vapor by
pumping cooling water. Modern evaporation techniques require much
less energy, not much higher than RO, as discussed in details previously
[9].
2.2. Energy consumption of RO desalination
Common energy consumption of SWRO desalination plant is of the
order of 3.5 kWh/m3 [10,11]. The range of energy demand for the RO
process itself, depending on the feed water salinity, the recovery ratio,
the efficiency of the pumps and the efficiency of the energy recovery
system, range between 1.7 and 2.5 kWh/m3. Additional costs such as
pumping, pre-treatment, brine discharge, and electric power used
within the plant total to 0.3–1.5 kWh/m3. Therefore, the overall energy
consumption is 2.0–4.0 kWh/m3. Smaller installations, remote loca-
tions, inexperience in design and/or operation may increase the energy
11
Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16
consumption in the range of 3–7 kWh/m3 [12].
There are several approaches aimed to reduce the energy con-
sumption of RO processes. These include: (i) improvements of mem-
brane technology by developing highly permeable membranes and/or
low fouling composites and by increasing the lifespan of the membrane
[13–16]. (ii) Energy recovery devices (reducing the total power con-
sumed by high pressure pumps) [17,18]. (iii) Efficient high pressure
pumps (to reduce electrical power consumption) [19–21]. (iv) Opti-
mization of the RO process (operating conditions and configuration)
[13]. (v) Intermediate chemical de-mineralization to obtain higher
water recovery (brackish and wastewater) [22], and (vi) use of re-
newable energy resources. With regard to the latter, coupling renew-
able energy sources (solar, wind, waves and geothermal) and desali-
nation processes is a mean to reduce the carbon footprint of the water
production process. Combining renewable technologies with desalina-
tion processes face technical challenges such as energy storage and
availability of low-cost renewable energy sources. Additionally, desa-
lination process requires a constant energy supply. Therefore, most
often the produced renewable power is added to the electricity grid to
overcome the intermittence of the renewable energy and to allow
straitening the electricity daily sine wave consumption. Otherwise, the
cost of the water produced will be much higher. More information may
be found in [9,23,24]. It should be realized, that none of the above
approaches could lead to energy savings of 50–80%, as claimed by
forward osmosis and humidification-dehumidification experts.
As example for an energy-efficient large-scale SWRO desalination
plant is Tuaspring plant, Singapore. It is equipped with a self-sufficient
on-site power plant, which enable significant capital and operating cost
advantages by only using one intake and one outfall and associated
pumps for both plants. An open seawater intake, with two separate inlet
channels, is used to pump the feed water from the straits of Johor. The
feed seawater salinity range between 28.5 and 32.0 g/L [25]. The lower
than average salinity feed water are firstly used as cooling water in
power plant. As a result, the temperature of the water, which is then fed
directly into the desalination plant, rises resulting in less energy con-
sumption by the RO pumps [26]. The intake is located about 50 m from
the plant and the brine discharge about 150 m downstream as shown in
Fig. 2. This configuration also contributes to the lower than average
pumping energy. All of the above bring this plant to energy consump-
tion of below 2 kWh/m3.
To get prospective, today, ~ 2000 kW/year is needed to desalinate
seawater to supply water for one household. This is less than that used
by a household's refrigerator [27]. Pumping a cubic meter of fresh
water for > 200 km requires more energy than desalinating the same
amount of seawater.
2.3. RO as part of the national energy consumption-Israel as a case study
The main issue that should be considered is the existent of water
need and the national energy consumption. In Israel, for example, the
water scarcity was solved by construction of five SWRO desalination
plants with total production capacity of 600 Mm3/year, accounting for
about 80% of domestic water consumption and approximately 40% of
the total water consumption. Multiplying this number by the typical
energy consumption of SWRO desalination (3.5 kWh/m3) and divide it
by the cumulative national energy consumption, it can be seen that the
energy used for desalination is < 1.3% of the Israeli national energy
consumption.
In fact, in Israel, about 60% of the desalinated water is produced
during the night (off-peak time) using electricity that would been
otherwise wasted. Prior to the desalination era, about 3% of the cu-
mulative national energy consumption was used to pump water from
the north to the south of Israel. Hence, it can be concluded the long
distance transportation of water is more energy intensive than desali-
nation. Taking in account all points raised above, the national energy
consumption is in fact slightly negative in similar cases and add no
H. Shemer, R. Semiat
Fig. 2. Feed intake point (A) and brine discharge location (B), Tuaspring, desalination plant, Singapore.
(Images from the roof of the power plant by R. Semiat.)
extra environmental load. The pollutants released to the atmosphere
from regular power stations are not changed if the total national energy
is not increased.
It is important to note that water production is inexpensive tech-
nique for energy storage. For example, pumping water (potable or
seawater) up to a mountain during the off-peak time and generate en-
ergy as it flows down, providing low evaporation rate. Additional
product water can be stored in aquifers and recovered when demand is
higher, thereby increasing overall system efficiency and reducing cost
[30].
3. Costing
3.1. Seawater desalination
The cost of desalination is not only depends on the technology, it is
also site specific. Energy contributes much of the total cost of seawater
desalination other constitutes are CAPEX and O & M (Fig. 3). Specifi-
cally, production cost of desalinated water is optimized based on the
cost of land, electric energy for pumping, cost of pre- and post-treat-
ments, equipment, brine disposal, labor, maintenance (including
membranes replacement) and financial charges [6]. Currently, the
cheapest cost of SWRO water is 0.5 US$/m3 while for the same design
and similar equipment, the cost may be as high as by a factor of 2.5
(Table 2).
The RO technique will probably prevailing the next few years,
especially due to the current low cost of energy and the technological
changes of the last years. However, no significant cost reductions are
expected in the near future, as seen in Table 2.
Fig. 3. Cost breakdown of seawater desalination [27].
12
Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16
Table 2
Desalinated water costs for medium and large size plants [27].
Cost of Year 2016 Expected cost in 5 years
Water (US$/m3) 0.5–1.2 0.5–1.0
Construction (US$/MLD) 1.2–2.2 1.0–1.8
Energy consumption (kWh/m3) 2.5–4.0 2.8–3.2
Environmental concerns were a key issue for the community during
planning and construction of desalination plants in Australia and
California, USA, resulting in. extra costs. These costs were passed on to
water consumers [28]. For example, higher price of desalinated water
in Australia are attributed to urban desalination plants operating with
offsetting green energy from renewable sources (i.e., wind); and an
expensive tunneled intakes and outfalls design mandatory in all but the
first major desalination plant [28,29]. In Carlsbad, California desali-
nation plant, an expensive intake structure, consisting of a pump station
and a wet well tied-in to the power plant discharge channel was con-
structed to avoid impingement and entrainment effects.
3.2. Brackish water desalination
Compared to seawater desalination, brackish water desalination
requires less energy in the range of 0.5–2.5 kWh/m3 [30]. This is due to
the lower salinity, which enable to apply lower pressure and to obtain
much higher water recovery. Brackish water desalination is consolidate
alternative to seawater desalination in semiarid inland areas. Yet, brine
management is considered one major challenges of inland desalination,
as disposal to the sea is not possible.
Conventional methods for inland brine management include: (i)
brine disposal such as surface water discharge, domestic sewer disposal,
deep well injections, and evaporation ponds; (ii) irrigation; and (iii)
brine treatment, zero-liquid-discharge (ZLD) techniques i.e., thermally
driven evaporative and crystallization systems.
Near ZLD technologies are available now, yet have not taken their
role in brackish water desalination plants. They are capable of reducing
RO brine discharge. Cost and energy consumption are the main barriers
to ZLD implementation in inland desalination applications [31]. An
economic study comparing between brine disposal to evaporating pond
and brine concentrator combined with crystallizer or evaporation pond
revealed that the land cost (1.4 km2) associated with disposal through
evaporation ponds is very high at 2.98 US$/m3. Brine concentrator
coupled with a crystallizer or evaporation ponds was evaluated at 1.10
and 0.82 US$/m3 respectively [32].
3.3. Produced water desalination
Produced water (PW) is the largest waste steam generated by oil and
H. Shemer, R. Semiat Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16

Table 3
Produced water range of management costs [34].

Constituent Cost (US$/bbl)

Transportation 0.5–8.0
Water sourcing 0.25–1.75
Disposal 0.07–1.60
Treatment 0.20–8.50

gas production. It is characterized by high salts concentration, hydro-

carbons, solids, oils, gases and scaling ions. Reuse of produced water
faces similar challenges to other types of wastewater. These challenges
include high treatment cost, potential chronic toxicity, and public ac-
ceptance for the different applications. Additionally, the amount and
properties of the produced water change over time, making customized
treatment solutions a necessity [33].
Management costs in the oil and gas industry (i.e., transportation,
water sourcing, treatment, and disposal) are highly variable as dis-
played Table 3 [34]. Application of RO membranes for treating PW is
hindered by membrane scaling limiting the water recovery to 30–60%
[35], fouling by hydrocarbons adsorption on the membrane surface,
and damage of the polysulfone support layer of the membrane by
aromatic hydrocarbons [36]. The costs of RO desalination of PW range
from only 2 US$/m3 to as high as 25 US$/m3. This wide range is at-
tributed to sharp increase in operation and maintenance costs with
augmentation of the feed water TDS as well as the economies of scale
formation [37].

3.4. Developing countries

Lack of safe and unreliable drinking water is a globally recognized
problem in developing countries. Desalination is considered a vital
option yet cost is a major obstacle in its implementation. While non-
governmental organizations can provide seed funding they are less
capable of covering the running costs and the population is unable to
pay the production costs.
Real questions one should ask are what is the cost of: (i) Fetching
water in rural areas; millions of women and girls spend hours every day
walking to water sources, waiting in line and carrying heavy loads –
often several times a day. The average distance women walk to fetch
water in Asia and Africa is 6 km/d. UNICEF estimated that women
spent 16 million hours collecting water each day in 25 countries in sub-
Saharan Africa. This responsibility represent lost opportunities for
women's employment and education [38]; (ii) Tankering drinking
water, these operations are expensive and relatively time-consuming to
administer; (iii) Losing water through system infrastructure leaks.
Generally, leaks are thought to make up 70% of the overall losses in
water distribution systems [39]; (iv) value of human life lost due to
scarcity of water or at water wars.
4. Environmental impacts
Most of the published literature discuss the potential impacts of
desalination plants on the marine and terrestrial environment
[24,40–44]. However, limited field research is available, particularly on
the long-term effects on the marine environment. In brief, the potential
impacts include: (i) Construction stage, which share its terrestrial ef-
fects with any other land development projects; (ii) Impact on the
marine environment-high salinity brine discharge, chemical disposal,
entrainment and impingement of marine organisms from the intake of
seawater; (iii) Air pollution and greenhouse gases emission.
A comprehensive detailed analysis of the impacts of desalination on
the marine environment is brought herein. Israel was chosen as a case
study since regulatory requires monitoring of the marine environment
baseline (before the SWRO plants operation) along with operational
Fig. 4. SWRO desalination plants along the Israeli Mediterranean seashore (Haaretz 3-2-
2017 in Hebrew).
monitoring related to the brine discharge. This enables to conduct be-
fore and after comparisons. Additionally, along a narrow strip of 80 km
of the Mediterranean seashore (Fig. 4) five desalination plant (Table 4)
are in full operation. Monitoring programs by the Israel Oceanographic
and Limnological Research institute (IOLR) and the Israel Electric
Corporation (IEC) were implemented shortly after the commissioning
stage of each of these plants. The extensive monitoring of the water and
sediment quality, benthic organisms and biological diversity, enables to
assess the environmental impacts and their spatial extent. Sampling are
conducted during the years, in the spring and fall. Monitoring of the
water column (at the sea surface and near the seafloor) include the
following parameters: temperature, salinity, total suspended solids,
turbidity, pH, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, total
organic carbon (TOC), nutrients, chlorophyll-a, heavy metals, and mi-
croalgae. Sediments analysis include: granulometry, TOC, heavy me-
tals, infauna, and epifauna This is done in several locations around in
the vicinity of the desalination plants [45].
Interesting is the case of Palmachim and Sorek RO desalination
plants, located in south Israel. These plants production capacity is 90
and 150 Mm3/year of freshwater water, with brine discharge through
two separate outfalls of 104 and 187 Mm3/year respectively. The dis-
tances between the intakes and outfalls of the two plants are short as
displayed in Table 5. The outfalls are located at 1.98 and 1.85 km from
the shore, for Palmachim and Sorek respectively, at water depth of
20 m. The outfalls specifications are listed in. (See Table 6.)
Throughout the years of these two plants operation, no significant
effects on the marine and sediments environment were monitored as
compared to background measurements. Herein is a detailed descrip-
tion of the main findings reported by the IOLR [46]. Salinity variation
was found to be within the range of the natural annual changes in
coastal waters. The area with 5% higher salinity than the background
was < 0.1 km2 and confined to the Sorek outfall in the spring and the

13
H. Shemer, R. Semiat Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16

Table 4
Desalination plants located on the Israeli Mediterranean seashore.

Plant Water production date Yearly production (Mm3/year) Brine discharge

Ashkelon Aug. 2005 115 With power station cooling waters

Palmachim May 2007 90 Outfall 1.98 km from shore (20 m depth)
Hadera Dec. 2009 127 With power station cooling waters
Sorek Nov. 2013 150 Outfall 1.95 km from shore (20 m depth)
Ashdod Oct. 2015 100 Outfall 2.20 km from shore (22 m depth)

Table 5
Distances (in m) between intakes and outfalls of Palmachim and Sorek desalination
plants.

Outfall Intake 1 Intake 2 Outlet

Palmachim Sorek Sorek Sorek

Intake Palmachim 679 685 649 712

Outlet Palmachim 1190 1177 829
Intake 1 Sorek 50 584
Intake 2 Sorek 608

Table 6
Palmachim and Sorek outfall diffusers specifications.

Specifications Palmachim Sorek

No. pf ports 3 4
Port inner diameter (m) 0.8 0.8
Port spacing (m) 6 2.5
Port elevation above the seabed (m) 6 4
Discharge angle relative to horizontal (°) 45 45
Outflow rate (m/s) 1.4 4.0

Fig. 6. Cooling water and brine discharge in Hadera. Distance between surface outfalls
Palmachim outfall in the fall (Fig. 5). Higher temperature, by only up to 80 m [47].
0.3 °C, compared to the background was measured near the bottom.
Natural (below water quality criteria for the protection of marine life)
Metal and organic carbon concentrations in the sediments were low
of pH, turbidity, suspended particulate material, and nutrients (nitrate
and natural for the area and lower than the ERL criterion (i.e., low
+ nitrite, ammonium, total nitrogen, phosphate and silicic acid) were
metal concentration causing biological effect in 10% of the cases). The
measured in both outfalls.
characteristics of the faunal assemblage (number of individuals,
The monitoring findings confirm that the brine discharges from the
number of taxa, species evenness and species diversity index, except
two desalination plants did not affect the chlorophyll and TOC con-
perhaps the diversity index in the fall) as well as multivariate analysis
centrations. Total metal concentrations in the seawater (arsenic, cad-
of the assemblage, indicated no impact of the brine in the entire
mium, chromium, copper, iron, manganese, nickel, lead, selenium,
monitoring areas.
vanadium, zinc, and mercury) were below or at the detection limit of
Similar conclusions were reported with regard to the other three
the methods in all samples and lower than the seawater guidelines.
plants, which discharge brine with the cooling water of the power
Similarly, no deviations in dissolved oxygen was found from the
stations (Ashkelon, Ashdod and Hadera). Fig. 6 displays the surface
Environmental Quality Standards.

Fig. 5. Salinity distribution next to the seafloor measured in May (left) and September (right) 2015 [46].

14
H. Shemer, R. Semiat
Table 7
Salinity change near the seafloor during 2013–2015 [47].
Year Season Max. salinity Area with Area with
addition (%) salinity > 5% (km2) salinity > 2.5% (km2)
2013 Spring 3.6 0.00 0.1
Autumn 6.4 0.06 1.3a
2014 Spring 5.5 0.03 0.3
Autumn 3.6 0.00 0.1
2015 Spring 6.5 0.10 1.9a
Autumn 3.6 0.00 0.2
a
Four units of the power station operated.
outfall of the cooling water and brine in Hadera [47]. Generally, the
field monitoring indicated that the brine of the SWRO plants did not
have significant adverse impacts on the recipient marine environments
[48]. For example, in Hadera, the area affected by salinity changes is
restricted to 400–700 m from the outfall with only small differences
measured between the affected area and the background salinities of
one salinity unit (2.6% salinity change). Areas of 0.1–0.2 km2 near the
seafloor exhibited salinity increased by more than one unit Table 7.
Exceptions were observed once the power plant operation was reduced
to four units. In spring of 2015 the total area where the salinity > 2.5%
1.9 km2 at distance of 1400 m of the cooling water outlets [47].
The elevated temperatures in the receiving marine areas are due to
the temperature of the power plants cooling water (ΔCCooling
water = 5–11 °C) while the SWRO brine temperature is ambient. The
elevated temperatures and saline brine dispersing is depending on the
velocity and direction of the wind as well as on hydrogeological factors
characteristic of the site [24]. An example of the temperature changes is
given for the Hadera desalination plant where, the sampling points
most affected by temperature are located 120 to 1320 m from the
outfalls exhibiting Δ TSurface of 3.8–5.4 °C. Next to the bottom the two
most affected points are located 120 and 600 m from the outfall with
Δ TBottom of 4.6–6.3 °C [47].
Phytoplankton biomass has not changed significantly in any of the
areas. Changes in the benthic infaunal communities were confined to
very small areas of < 0.2 km2 near the outfalls. It is highly unlikely that
such changes have significant ecosystem impacts. Coagulant (i.e., ferric
chloride) did not accumulate in the sediments indicating that sessile
organisms are not exposed to smothering and sediment feeders are not
at risk of ingesting foreign materials. Heavy metals concentration, in
both the water column and the sediments, were much lower than reg-
ulatory levels and thus, do not threat marine life or benthic organisms
[45].
To date, the Israeli experience, of > 12 years, revealed that by
choosing proper sites and discharge methods, large SWRO plants brine
discharge can be environmentally safe [48]. A similar conclusion was
obtained for the Australia's Gold Coast Desalination Plant, based on
environmental monitoring with particular focus on the marine intake
and brine discharge. It was shown that the plant's features and opera-
tional procedures ensured minimal impact on the marine environment
[49].
4.1. Arabian Gulf and Eastern Mediterranean Sea
The Arabian Gulf countries produce about 60% of the global desa-
linated water. This Gulf is a marginal and semi-enclosed sea
(2.4 × 105 km2) characterized by extreme environmental conditions
due to geographic position, relative shallowness and high evaporation
rates. Despite these harsh environmental conditions, the Arabian Gulf
supports a range of coastal and marine ecosystems such as mangrove
swamps, seagrass beds, coral reefs, and mud and sand flats [50]. Weak
circulation and extremely low freshwater input result in surface cur-
rents of typical speeds of 10–20 cm/s while the bottom flow attain ty-
pical speeds of 5–10 cm/s, but magnifies to 20–30 cm/s past the Strait
15
Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16
of Hormuz [51].
Time trend revealed an increased salinity in the Arabian Gulf, at-
tributed to desalination, and a drop of > 0.2 pH predominantly at-
tributed to CO2 sequestration in the Gulf's waters. Interestingly, the
acidifying waters of the Gulf have utilized the elevated salinity to buffer
the pH effect [52]. Studies, conducted in the Arabian Gulf, indicated
that the levels of heavy metals measured in sediments were within the
natural background levels [53]. Others have reported localized elevated
concentrations of heavy metals (such as Cu, As, Cr, Mn, and Zr) in
proximity to desalination plants along the coastline of the Arabian Gulf
[54,55]. It should be mentioned that coastal and marine environments
in the Arabian Gulf are under permanent threat from oil related pol-
lution [50]. Field measurements, conducted by Naser (2013) [56], re-
vealed localized severe impacts on macrobenthos at the proximity of
brine discharge outlet of a desalination plants in Bahrain.
Israel is located on the eastern boundary of the Mediterranean Sea
(a mid-latitude semi-enclosed sea with an area of 2.5 × 106 km2). In
this region, the background current circulates counterclockwise and
parallel to the coastline (south to north along Israel's coast) with a mean
velocity of about 15 to 25 cm/s. Its activity is observed mainly way
offshore, in the region where the water depth is 20 m or more. Most of
the time (90%), the speed of the near-surface current does not exceed
15–35 cm/s. The largest near-surface and near-bottom speeds recorded
occur during winter [57].
It is evident, that the currents regimes of the Arabian Gulf and the
eastern Mediterranean Sea are different suggesting better mixing con-
ditions in the latter, which might assists with dispersal of the desali-
nation plants brine. Yet, in both these geographic areas, the marine
environment effect is localized in nature.
5. Concluding remarks
Misconceptions of desalination energy demand, environmental im-
pacts and overall cost hampers implementation of RO plants world-
wide.
The energy used for desalination constitutes only a small fraction of
a cumulative national energy consumption, with the advantageous
option of partially production during the off-peak time.
The cost of desalination is site specific. Currently, the cheapest cost
of SWRO water is 0.5 US$/m3 while for the same design and similar
equipment, the cost may be as high as by a factor of 2.5.
Monitoring programs showed that proper sites selection and brine
discharge methods of SWRO plants can be environmentally safe.
References
[1] P. Williams, S. Rickards, Waterfund/IBM the true cost of water, International
Conference on Sustainable Infrastructure (ICSI), Long Beach, California, USA, 6–8
Nov 2014.
[2] https://tvaraj.com/2013/11/11/price-of-bottled-potable-water-around-the-world ,
Accessed date: July 2017.
[3] http://worldswaterfund.com/water-cost-index-overview.html , Accessed date: July
2017.
[4] The United Nations World Water Development Report, Wastewater the untapped
resource, http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0024/002471/247153e.pdf, (2017) ,
Accessed date: July 2017.
[5] V. Pankratz, F. Gasson TJ., IDA Desalination Yearbook 2015–2016, Oxford, UK,
Global Water Intell, 2016.
[6] Y. Cohen, R. Semiat, A. Rahardianto, A perspective on reverse osmosis water de-
salination: quest for sustainability, AIChE J 63 (2017) 1771–1784.
[7] Report of the Desalination Research Conference, Convened by the National
Academy of Sciences, National Research Council: Desalination Research and Water
Problem, (1962) (Library of Congress Catalog number 61-64602).
[8] R.S. El-Emam, I. Dincer, Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of seawater
reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery, Energy 64 (2014)
154–163.
[9] R. Semiat, Energy demands in desalination processes, Environ. Sci. Technol. 42
(2008) 8193–8201.
[10] Desalination project costs, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, P. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.),
Proceedings of International Conference on Desalination Costing, Limassol, Cyprus,
The middle East Desalination Research Center, Muscat, Oman, 2004.
H. Shemer, R. Semiat
[11] A. Tenne, Sea Water Desalination in Israel: Planning, Coping With Difficulties, and
Economic Aspects of Long-term Risks, Israel Water Authority, Desalination
Division, 2010.
[12] A. Alkaisi, R. Mossad, A. Sharifian-Barforoush, A review of the water desalination
systems integrated with renewable energy, Energy Procedia 110 (2017) 268–274.
[13] M. Li, Reducing specific energy consumption in Reverse Osmosis (RO) water de-
salination: an analysis from first principles, Desalination 276 (2011) 128–135.
[14] A. Zhu, P.D. Christofides, Y. Cohen, On RO membrane and energy costs and asso-
ciated incentives for future enhancements of membrane permeability, J. Membr.
Sci. 344 (2009) 1–5.
[15] L. Song, J.Y. Hu, S.L. Ong, W.J. Ng, M. Elimelech, M. Wilf, Emergence of thermo-
dynamic restriction and its implications for full-scale reverse osmosis processes,
Desalination 155 (2003) 213–228.
[16] M. Wilf, S. Alt, Application of low fouling RO membrane elements for reclamation
of municipal wastewater, Desalination 132 (2000) 11–19.
[17] T.H. Chong, S.L. Loo, A.G. Fane, W.B. Krantz, Energy-efficient reverse osmosis
desalination: effect of retentate recycle and pump and energy recovery device ef-
ficiencies, Desalination 366 (2015) 15–31.
[18] B. Penate, L. Garcia-Rodriguez, Energy optimization of existing SWRO (seawater
reverse osmosis) plants with ERT (energy recovery turbines): technical and ther-
moeconomic assessment, Energy 36 (2011) 613–626.
[19] V.G. Gude, Energy consumption and recovery in reverse osmosis, Desalin. Water
Treat. 36 (2011) 239–260.
[20] C. Fritzmann, J. Lowenberg, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, State-of-the-art of reverse os-
mosis desalination, Desalination 216 (2007) 1–76.
[21] N.M. Eshoul, B. Agnew, A. Anderson, M.S. Atab, Exergetic and economic analysis of
two-pass RO desalination proposed plant for domestic water and irrigation, Energy
122 (2017) 319–328.
[22] C.J. Gabelich, A. Rahardianto, R. Northrup, T.I. Yun, Y. Cohen, Process evaluation
of intermediate chemical demineralization for water recovery enhancement in
production-scale brackish water desalting, Desalination 272 (2011) 36–45.
[23] R. Semiat, J. Sapoznik, D. Hasson, Energy aspects in osmotic processes, Desalin.
Water Treat. 15 (2010) 228–235.
[24] S. Miller, H. Shemer, R. Semiat, Energy and environmental issues in desalination,
Desalination 366 (2015) 2–8.
[25] P.K.L. Ng, N. Sivasothi (Eds.), A Guide to Mangroves of Singapore 1: The Ecosystem
and Plant Diversity, Singapore Science Centre, 2002.
[26] C. Hurn, T. Hagedorn, Tuaspring Sea Water Desalination with CCPP in Singapore:
An Example for Sustainable Power Generation, PowerGen Asia Bangkok, 3–5 Oct
2012.
[27] N. Voutchkov, Desalination – past, present and future, The IDA International
Conference on Water Reuse and Recycling: Turning Vision into Reality, Nice,
France, 25–27 Sept 2016.
[28] B. Spies, G. Dandy, Sustainable Water Management: Securing Australia's future in a
Green Economy, Australian Academy of Technological Sciences and Engineering,
2012, http://www.atse.org.au/Documents/Publications/Reports/Water/ATSE
%202012%20Sustainable%20Water%20Management%20REPORT.pdf.
[29] P. Baudish, Design considerations for tunnelled seawater intakes, Chapter 2, in:
T.M. Missimer, B. Jones, R.G. Maliva (Eds.), Intakes and Outfalls for Seawater
Reverse-osmosis Desalination Facilities, Springer Internetional publishing, AG
Switzerland, 2015.
[30] N. Ghaffour, T.M. Missimer, G.L. Amy, Technical review and evaluation of the
economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water
supply sustainability, Desalination 309 (2013) 197–207.
[31] T. Tiezheng, M. Elimelech, The global rise of zero liquid discharge for wastewater
management: drivers, technologies, and future directions, Environ. Sci. Technol. 50
(2016) 6846–6855.
[32] B.D. Stanford, J.F. Leising, R.G. Bond, S.A. Snyder, Chapter 11 inland desalination:
current practices, environmental implications, and case studies in Las Vegas, NV,
Sustain. Sci. Eng. 2 (2010) 327–350.
[33] T. Whalen, The challenges of reusing produced water, J. Pet. Technol. 64 (2012),
http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/1112-0018-JPT.
16
Desalination 424 (2017) 10–16
[34] K. Dahm, M. Chapman, Produced Water Treatment Primer: Case Studies of
Treatment Applications, Research Project #1617, U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation, Aug. 2014, https://www.usbr.gov/research/projects/
detail.cfm?id=1617.
[35] J.E. Drewes, T.Y. Cath, P. Xu, J. Graydon, J. Veil, S. Snyder, An integrated frame-
work for treatment and management of produced water, EPSEA Project Report
07122-12, 2009.
[36] A. Venkatesan, P.C. Wankat, Produced water desalination: an exploratory study,
Desalination 404 (2017) 328–340.
[37] J. Hackney, M.R. Wiesner, Cost assessment of produced water treatment, https://
wiesner.cee.duke.edu/sites/wiesner.cee.duke.edu/files/u18/Produced%20Water
%20Costs.pdf, (1996) , Accessed date: July 2017.
[38] Progress on Drinking Water 2012 UPDATE. UNICEF and World Health
Organization, https://www.unicef.org/media/files/JMPreport2012.pdf, (2012) ,
Accessed date: July 2017.
[39] N. Marchettini, C.A. Brebbia, R. Pulselli, S. Bastianoni, The Sustainable City IX:
Urban Regeneration and Sustainability (2 Volume Set), WIT press, UK, 2014.
[40] S. Lattemann, T. Hopner, Environmental impact and impact assessment of seawater
desalination, Desalination 220 (2008) 1–15.
[41] S.J. Khan, D. Murchland, K. Rhodes, T.D. Waite, Management of concentrated waste
streams from high pressure membrane water treatment systems, Crit. Rev. Environ.
Sci. Technol. 39 (2009) 367–515.
[42] D.A. Roberts, E.L. Johnson, N.A. Knott, Impact of desalination plant discharges on
the marine environment: a critical review of published studies, Water Res. 44
(2010) 5117–5128.
[43] M. Elimelech, W.A. Phillip, The future of desalination: energy, technology, and the
environment, Science 333 (2011) 712–717.
[44] J.S. Chang, Understanding the role of ecological indicator use in assessing the ef-
fects of desalination plants, Desalination 365 (2015) 416–433.
[45] Y. Cohen, Seawater desalination and the environment - the Israeli experience, The
12th Annual Conference of the Israel Desalination Society on Desalination - Visions
for the Future, Haifa, Israel, 14–15 Dec. 2011.
[46] N. Kress, E. Shoham-Frider, H. Lubinevsky, Marine environmental monitoring of the
Palmachim and Sorek plants, IOLR Report H12/2016, 2015 (in Hebrew).
[47] A. Glazer, Monitoring of the marine and coastal environment: Orot Rabin Power
Plant, H2ID Desalination Plant. Report for 2013. Israel Electric Co. RELP-5-2016,
July 2016 (in Hebrew).
[48] F. Lokiec, Sustainable desalination: environmental approaches, The International
Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, Tianjin,
China, 20–25 Oct 2013 (REF: IDAWC/TIAN13-012).
[49] H.F. Gordon, P.G. Viskovich, A.L. Thompson, S.D. Costanzo, E.J. West,
S.F.E. Boerlage, The effects of gold coast desalination plant operations on the
marine environment, IDA J. Desalin. Water Reuse 4 (2012) 12–21.
[50] H.A. Naser, Marine ecosystem diversity in the Arabian Gulf: threats and conserva-
tion, chapter 13, in: O. Grillo (Ed.), Biodiversity - The Dynamic Balance of the
Planet, InTech publisher, 2014.
[51] J. Kampf, M. Sadrinasab, The circulation of the Persian Gulf: a numerical study,
Ocean Sci. 2 (2006) 27–41.
[52] S. Uddin, Environmental impacts of desalination activities in the Arabian Gulf, Int.
J. Environ. Sci. 5 (2014) 114–117.
[53] H.A. Naser, Assessment and management of heavy metal pollution in the marine
environment of the Arabian Gulf: a review, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 72 (2013) 6–13.
[54] M. Sadiq, Metal contamination in sediments from a desalination plant effluent
outfall area, Sci. Total Environ. 287 (2002) 37–44.
[55] F. Alshahri, Heavy metal contamination in sand and sediments near to disposal site
of reject brine from desalination plant, Arabian Gulf: assessment of environmental
pollution, Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 24 (2017) 1821–1831.
[56] H.A. Naser, Effects of multi-stage and reverse osmosis desalinations on benthic
assemblages in Bahrain, Arabian Gulf, J. Environ. Prot. 4 (2013) 180–187.
[57] E. Kit, U. Kroszynski, Marine Policy Plan for Israel: Physical Oceanography, Deep
Sea and Coastal Zone Overview, P.N. 800/14 http://msp-israel.net.technion.ac.il/
files/2014/12/ATOS-report-final.pdf.