Perspectives on Desalination
John S. Young, Jr., PEPresident, AWWSCOctober 13, 2009
2
Desalination Key Drivers & Challenges
Drivers• Risk of water shortage and
restrictions• Population Growth• Aging infrastructure• Technology cost reduction• Consistent water quality and
quantity
Challenges• Getting approval for the
appropriate site• Energy Intensive • Permit and political support• Cheaper alternative water
resources• Environmental opposition due to
waste and brine disposal• Financial constraints and rate
increases• Growth inducing
3
Global Desalination Capacity
63.6 m3/d - 16,800 mgd
WDR vol. 44. no. 33 - Sept 08
More than Doubled in the Last 10 years!
4
Cumulative U.S. Desalting Capacity Has Doubled in Last Decade
- 47 projects in the planning stage with 811 mgd proposed
2008 Data
- 29 plants in construction with 205 mgd under contract
- 1432 plants online with 2132 mgd production
Source: GWI 10/06 and DesalData 1/09
US Desalination Capacity
CT
WA
ORID
MT
WY
UT
CO
NV
CA
AZNM
ND
SD
MN
IA
WI
TX
OK
KS
NE
MO
IL
KY
MI
AK
MS AL GA
PA
LA
FL
SC
VAWV
NY
ME
NH
RI
MD
NC
OHIN
VT
MA
TN
NJ
Hawaii
DE
WV
KY
> 500 mgd> 200 mgd> 100 mgd > 50 mgd> 10 mgd> 5 mgd> 1 mgd> 0.1 mgd< 0.1 mgd
Added Desalination Capacity by State (U.S.) 1995-2006
6
Total Water Cost for Desal
24.6
2.84
7.57
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
$20.00
$25.00
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
$/kg
alCost of desal water is decreasing
Source: Ionics Presentation 2003
Desalination Cost Trends
7
Desalination
Conventional resources
Recycling/Resuse
Marginal resources
1995 2005 2015 2025 2035
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
$/kgal
Source: Global Water Intelligence 10/06
$5/kgal
Convergence of Costs
Costs of Water by Source
8
Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant
• Largest of its kind in U.S.
• 25 mgd design capacity
• Treatment Process• Disinfection• Chemical Feed• Coagulation/Flocculation• Sand Filtration• Diatomaceous Earth• Cartridge Filters• Two pass Reverse Osmosis
• 10,032 membranes installed• Disinfection• Stabilization
• 14 megawatt power demand
• 30 - 40% energy recovery
9
DELAYED MODIFICATION OF WASTE CLEANING SOLUTION DISCHARGE PERMIT– VERY COSTLY
10
CARTRIDGE FILTERS – NEW AND OLD
11
Tampa – Plant Modifications
Residuals Treatment
DE Filter Building
Post Treatment RO Modifications
Pretreatment
12
Facility Acceptance Test
• Acceptance Testing was to demonstrate the sustainable and reliable operation of the facility.
• The overall reliability demonstration was a (30) day period consisting of a (16) day Run-In Period at 25 MGD, followed by a (14) day Acceptance Test.
• Acceptance Test were defined to demonstrate product water production for fourteen (14) consecutive days, during which the first seven (7) days were to be at 28.75 MGD, and the second seven (7) days at 25 MGD.
13
Tampa – Acceptance Testing
Parameter Guarantee ActualProduct water flow average -
week 128.75 MGD 29.33 MGD
Product water flow average -week 2
25.00 MGD 25.23 MGD
RO Differential pressure increase 8 psi (Max.) <2.0 psi
Pretreatment SDI - Primary <5 - all times 4.00 (Max.)
Pretreatment SDI – Secondary <4 - 90% 3.86 (Ave.)
Power Consumption - kW-hr/kgal 15.74 (Max) <14.00
Sludge Production –tons/yr 10,898 <6,000
Chemical Consumption Based on Each Each Under Chemical Max. Limit
14
Acceptance Test: Objective and Goal
• Acceptance Testing was to demonstrate the sustainable and reliable operation of the facility.
• The overall reliability demonstration was a (30) day period consisting of a (16) day Run-In Period at 25 MGD, followed by a (14) day Acceptance Test.
• Acceptance Test were defined to demonstrate product water production for fourteen (14) consecutive days, during which the first seven (7) days were to be at 28.75 MGD, and the second seven (7) days at 25 MGD.
Operational Milestone Test• Four month at an average production rate of 25MGD.• In-Progress
15
US Desalination Market – General Overview
• 1432 plants online or presumed online with 2132 mgd (8.07 billion m3/d)production
• 29 plants in construction with 205 mgd (779 million m3/d)• 47 projects in the planning stage with 811 mgd ( 3.07 billion m3/d)
proposed• Of the 2008 capacity, 11% is SWRO, 75% is brackish water, and 14%
is industrial high purity water supply.• SWRO has increased 10% per annum while Brackish RO increased 3-5%
and Industrial/other has increased 4%• Most contracts awarded through Design-Bid-Build procurement approach
rather than DBO
Source: www.DesalData.com/WDR
16
Proposing Entity Location Water Type Cap. mgd
California
Marin Municipal WD SF Bay Area SWRO 5-15
SF Bay Area Regional SF Bay Area Brackish/SWRO 71
Santa Cruz/Soquel Creek Santa Cruz SWRO 2.5
California American Monterey SWRO 10
Sand City Monterey SWRO 0.3
City of Santa Barbara Barbara County SWRO 5-10
Los Angeles DWP Los Angeles SWRO 25
West Basin MWD Los Angeles SWRO 20
Long Beach Water Dept Haynes P. Plant Nano/Nano 9
Poseidon Huntington Beach SWRO 50
MWD Orange County Dana Point SWRO 15
Poseidon Carlsbad/ Encina SWRO 50
Representative Existing and Proposed US Desal Projects
17
Representative Existing and Proposed US Desal Projects
Texas
El Paso Utilities/Fort Bliss El Paso Brackish RO 27.4
Brownsville PUB Brownsville SWRO 2.5 / 25
San Antonio Water Siystem. San Antonio Brackish RO 20
Brazos River Authority Lake Granbury Surface BRO 15.5
Florida
Tampa Bay Water Big Bend/Tampa SWRO 25 – 28
City of Tarpon Springs Tarpon Springs Brackish RO 6
City of Hialeah/Miami Miami Dade County. Brackish RO 17.5
Coquina Coast Palm Coast SWRO 50
Other Areas
United Water of NY Rocklin County Brackish RO 4
Taunton Mass Taunton River Brackish RO 5
18
Managing Public Concerns with Desalination Implementation Requires:
• Emphasizing Investment is Needed• Exploring All Options• Developing Meaningful Costs and Values• Community Involvement• Energy Consumption Minimization/Carbon Neutrality Strategy• Mitigating Marine and Coastal Environment Issue• Minimizing Concentrate Disposal Impact