UC San Diego

UC San Diego Electronic Theses and Dissertations

Title
Solar powered desalination system

Permalink
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/6hh2352r

Author
Mateo, Tiffany Alisa

Publication Date
2011

Peer reviewed|Thesis/dissertation

eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library

University of California
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN DIEGO

Solar Powered Desalination System

A Thesis submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements

for the degree Master of Science

in

Chemical Engineering

by

Tiffany Alisa Mateo

Committee in charge:

Professor Deli Wang, Chair

Professor Donald Sirbuly, Co-Chair
Professor Richard Herz

2011

i
ii
The Thesis of Tiffany Alisa Mateo is approved and it is acceptable in quality and form
for publication on microfilm and electronically.

Co-Chair

Chair

Univerisy of California, San Diego

2011

iii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Signature Page……………………………………………………………………………iii

Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………………iv

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..v

List of Tables……………………………………………………………………………..vi

List of Graphs…………………………………………………………………………….ix

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………………..x

Abstract of Thesis………………………………………………………………………...xi

Chapter 1: Desalination Study…………………………………………………………….1

1.1 Water…………………………………………………………………………..1
1.2 Desalination…………………………………………………………………...9
1.2.1 Desalination Process Evaluation…………………………………12
1.2.2 Multi-stage Flash Distillation……………………………………16
1.2.3 Multi-effect Distillation………………………………………….17
1.2.4 Reverse Osmosis…………………………………………………19
1.3 Hydrogen……………………………………………………………………..25
1.4 Solar Energy: PEC vs. PV…………………………………………………...30
1.4.1 Question 1………………………………………………………..34
1.4.2 Question 2………………………………………………………..35
1.4.3 Question 3………………………………………………………..43
1.5 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………...45

Chapter 2: Reverse Osmosis System…………………………………………………….46

2.1 Reverse Osmosis System Set Up…………………………………………….46
2.2 Feed Water…………………………………………………………………...49
2.3 Permeate Water………………………………………………………………51
2.4 Water Quality Testing………………………………………………………..52
2.5 Next Steps……………………………………………………………………56
2.5.1 PV Component……………………………………………………..56
2.5.2 Additional Testing…………………………………………………57

Chapter 3: Emergency Application Design……………………………………………...59

3.1 Single Element Design……………………………………………………….59

References………………………………………………………………………………..65

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: World Population Growth…………………………………………………….6

Figure 1.2: Definition of desalination process…………………………………………...12

Figure 1.3: Schematic of a multistage flash distillation………………………………….17

Figure 1.4: Schematic of a multi-effect distillation system……………………………...18

Figure 1.5: Investment costs of thermal seawater desalination plants…………………...19

Figure 1.6: Costs of water from thermal desalination plants…………………………….19

Figure 1.7: Relative size of common materials filter by process………………………...20

Figure 1.8: Cutaway Drawing of a Spiral Wound Membrane Element………………….23

Figure 1.9: Consumption of electrical energy by desalination processes………………..24

Figure 1.10: Harmonized energy consumption of desalination processes……………….24

Figure 1.11: PEC-MSF/MED System…………………………………………………...26

Figure 1.12: Thermal Dissociation of Water…………………………………………….28

Figure 1.13: California Power Generation by Source……………………………………31

Figure 1.14: Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Production……………………………….33

Figure 1.15: Schematic of a Generic PEC Photocell…………………………………….36

Figure 1.16: Type 1 PEC System Reactor, Single Bed Colloidal Suspension…………..36

Figure 1.17: Type 2 PEC System Reactor, Dual Bed Colloidal Suspension…………….37

Figure 1.18: Type 3 PEC System Reactor, Fixed Flat Panel…………………………….38

Figure 1.19: Type 4 PEC System Reactor, Tracking Concentration…………………….39

Figure 1.20: PV-RO System……………………………………………………………..42

Figure 1.21: Solar Energy Calculator……………………………………………………43

Figure 2.1: RO system line layout……………………………………………………….48

v
Figure 2.2: Photo of RO system………………………………………………………….49

Figure 2.3: Water Quality Test Result Strips…………………………………………….55

Figure 3.1: Tube within a tube design…………………………………………………...60

Figure 3.2: Single element housing design………………………………………………60

Figure 3.3: Single element with housing……..………………………………………….61

vi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Distribution of water resources across the globe………………………………1

Table 1.2: Typical composition of seawater………………………………………………2

Table 1.3: Average domestic water use in the U.S………………………………………..4

Table 1.4: Mean daily per capita water use……………………………………………….4

Table 1.5: Total water withdrawals and consumptive water use………………………….4

Table 1.6: Water Content of Thing………………………………………………………..5

Table 1.7: Desalination Processes………………………………………………………..13

Table 1.8: Membrane-based desalination processes……………………………………..20

Table 1.9: Comparison of Reverse Osmosis Membrane Types………………………….21

Table 1.10: Energy requirements of industrial desalination processes…………………..24

Table 1.11: Desalination Production Capacity and Energy Requirements by Process…..25

Table 1.12: Hydrogen Combustion Reaction Energy……………………………………26

Table 1.13: Hydrogen Requirements by Distillation Process……………………………27

Table 1.14: Global Hydrogen Production by Source…………………………………….29

Table 1.15: Hydrogen Production Requirements………………………………………...29

Table 1.16: Fossil Fuel Emission Levels………………………………………………...30

Table 1.17: California 2008 Total System Generation…………………………………..32

Table 1.18: Largest PV Power Plants……………………………………………………32

Table 1.19: Solar Desalination Systems…………………………………………………34

Table 1.20: Energy Requirements of Desalination Methods…………………………….35

Table 1.21: PEC Hydrogen Production………………………………………………….39

Table 1.22: Water Needed for Hydrogen Production……………………………………41

vii
Table 1.23: Water Consumed and Produced in PEC-Distillation System……………….41

Table 1.24: PV System Power Production……………………………………………….43

Table 1.25: PEC System Requirements for 1MG MSF and MED………………………44

Table 1.26: PV System Requirement for 1 MG RO……………………………………..44

Table 2.1 List of RO System Components………………………………………………47

Table 2.2:Percent Recovery of Feed Water……………………………………………...51

Table 2.3: Pro-Lab® Water Quality Test………………………………………………..53

Table 2.4: Prepared Solution Contents…………………………………………………..54

Table 2.5: Water Quality Test Results…………………………………………………...54

Table 2.6: PV System Requirements for 50 GPD RO…………………………………...57

Table 3.1: Membrane Surface Area and Permeate Flow Capacity………………………62

Table 3.2: Membrane Surface Area for 50 GPD System………………………………...63

Table 3.3: Dimensions for Membrane in 1 ft. Tube Configuration……………………...64

viii
 LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 2.1: Concentration vs. Osmotic Pressure…………………………………………50

Graph 3.1: Membrane Surface Area and Permeate Flow Capacity……………………...63

ix
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to acknowledge Professor Deli Wang for his support as the chair of

my committee. His dedication to this project was evident in the countless meetings

discussing ideas and information gathering. I am grateful for his guidance and support.

I would also like to acknowledge Ke Sun, Doctoral student in the Wang Research

Group at UCSD. His dedication and suggestions helped me immeasurably. I would not

have been able to achieve as much as I did in this project without his support.

x
 ABSTRACT OF THESIS

Solar Powered Desalination System

by

Tiffany Alisa Mateo

Master of Science in Chemical Engineering

University of California, San Diego, 2011

Professor Deli Wang, Chair

Professor Donald Sirbuly, Co-Chair

With the increasing need for fresh water sources, especially in California with its

―Water Crisis,‖ coupled with the global ―Energy Crisis,‖ there is rising desire for fresh

water production through renewable means. A study was conducted to evaluate the most

efficient design for a solar powered desalination system. Two basic design types were

considered. The first design type is using photoelectrochemical (PEC) cells to produce

hydrogen, which would then be used to produce thermal energy to desalinate by

distillation. The second design type is using photovoltaics (PV) to produce electrical

energy to desalinate by membrane.

xi
 The study concluded that a PV-reverse osmosis (RO) system would be the most

energy and space efficient. An RO system was assembled and tested to show feasibility.

Future work includes powering the RO system using PV and calculating the system

efficiency. Focusing on emergency drinking water applications, a single element design

was proposed. This single element design is meant for a compact, portable solar powered

desalination system.

xii
Chapter 1: Desalination Study

1.1 Water

Water is arguably the most important chemical on Earth; what made life possible.

Its simple yet unique chemical properties allow for the cycle and balance of life. Plants,

animals, and humans require water for survival. The diversity and proliferation of life on

Earth depends on water. Though water covers about 70% of the Earth’s surface area,

only about 2.5% is fresh water with 80% of this amount frozen in the icecaps or

combined as soil moisture.1 Table 1.1 outlines the distribution of water resources across

the globe.

Table 1.1: Distribution of water resources across the globe1

Resource Volume [km3] Percentage of total Percent of Fresh

water Water
Atmospheric Water 12,900 0.001 0.01
Glaciers 24,064,000 1.72 68.7
Ground Ice 300,000 0.021 0.86
Rivers 2,120 0.0002 0.006
Lakes 176,400 0.013 0.26
Marshes 11,470 0.0008 0.03
Soil Moisture 16,500 0.0012 0.05
Aquifers 10,530,000 0.75 30.1
Lithosphere 23,400,000 1.68
Oceans 1,338,000,000 95.81
Total 1,396,513,390

Sources of water used by humans throughout history are almost exclusively

rivers, lakes, and in more resent human history, aquifers, where ground water can be

extracted. These sources combine to less than 1% of all the water on Earth, yet it’s been

enough to supply the human population for centuries, as well as the vast array of flora

and fauna.

1
 2

Not only is water essential to life as a nutritional requirement, it also serves

purposes of agriculture, sanitation, and industrial processes. Types of water can be

classified based on the purpose for which it is used. The first grade is set for safe

drinking, household purposes, and a number of industrial applications and has a salinity

range of 5-1,000 ppm.1 Water falling under this range has low salinity and can be found

in rivers and lakes, or can be generated by desalination processes. On the industrial scale,

the most stringent water quality, limited to a maximum salinity of 5ppm, is set by the

makeup water for boilers and applications related to the electronic industry and

pharmaceuticals.1 Other industrial applications call for less stringent water quality and

include chemical reactions, dairy and food, washing and cleaning, and cooling.1

The second water category has a salinity range of 1,000-3,000ppm and is suitable

for irrigation purposes and industrial cooling.1 Water with salinity above 10,000ppm is

termed as high salinity water; seawater salinity ranges from 30,000ppm to 50,000ppm

and has an average salinity of 34,000ppm, which varies depending on local conditions

affected by ambient and topographical condiciotns.1 Table 1.2 shows the typical

composition of seawater as dissolved ions. Seawater includes other suspended materials

like sand, clay, microorganisms, viruses, and colloidal matter. The size of these

compounds vary over a range of 5x10-2 to 0.15µm.1 It is the salinity and the combination

of suspended compounds in seawater that makes it not only ―undrinkable,‖ but also not

useful for agricultural and industrial purposes.

Table 1.2: Typical composition of seawater with salinity of 36,000ppm1

Compound Composition Mass Percent ppm

Chloride Cl- 55.03 19,810.8
Sodium Na+ 30.61 11,019.6
 3

Table 1.2: Continued

Compound Composition Mass Percent ppm
Sulfate (SO4)- - 7.68 2,764.8
Magnesium Mg+ + 3.69 1,328.4
Calcium Ca+ + 1.16 417.6
Potassium K+ 1.16 417.6
Carbonic Acid (CO3)- - 0.41 147.6
Bromine Br- 0.19 68.4
Boric Acid H3BO3- 0.07 25.2
Strontium Sr+ + 0.04 14.4
Total 100 36,000

The average per capita consumption of the low salinity drinking water (150ppm)

is limited to 2 liters/day while higher salinity water of up to 1,000ppm has a per capita

consumption rate of 200-400 liters/day, which is used for cooking, washing, cleaning,

gardening, and other purposes.1 The Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension at

Penn State University determined that household water use is about 70 gallons per

person, per day.3 Table 1.3 breaks down this water use. It’s clear that while water is

essential for consumption, most water used by people is used for purposes other than

purely drinking water. Table 1.4 shows a similar break down of household water use by

the America Water Works Association Research Foundation. In addition to

residential/domestic use, water is used in other sectors including industrial, commercial,

and irrigation. Table 1.5 shows water withdrawals and consumptive water use. Though

the specific breakdown and values vary by region, it is shown that many millions of

gallons of water are used daily. Water is used to make beverages as well as in beverages.

It’s used in the production of many goods, the growing of crops, maintaining livestock,

and in industrial processes. Table 1.6 shows how much water is required in the

processing of common items. Again, it is clear that most of the water we use is not used

for consumption.
 4

Table 1.3: Average domestic water use in the United States3

Plumbing fixture Use (gal per person per

of appliance day)
Toilet 18.5
Clothes washer 15.0
Shower 11.6
Faucets 10.9
Leaks 9.5
Other 1.6
Bath 1.2
Dishwater 1.0
Total 69.3

Table 1.4: Mean daily per capita water use, 12 study sites4

Fixture/End Avg. gallons Avg. liters Indoor use Total use

Use per capita per capita percent percent
per day per day
Toilet 18.5 70.0 30.9% 10.8%
Clothes washer 15 56.8 25.1% 8.7%
Shower 11.6 43.9 19.4% 6.8%
Faucet 10.9 41.3 18.2% 6.3%
Other domestic 1.6 6.1 2.7% 0.9%
Bath 1.2 4.5 2.0% 0.7%
Dishwater 1 3.8 1.7% 0.6%
Indoor Total 59.8 226.3 100.0% 34.8%
Leak 9.5 36.0 NA 5.5%
Unknown 1.7 6.4 NA 1.0%
Outdoor 100.8 381.5 NA 58.7%
TOTAL 171.8 650.3 NA 100.0%

Table 1.5: Total water withdrawals and consumptive water use in Pennsylvania in 19953

Purpose Water Use (MGD) Consumptive Use (MGD)

Thermoelectric 5,930 239
Industrial 1,870 158
Domestic 740 74
Commercial 247 11.5
Mining 182 14
Livestock 55.3 41
Irrigation 15.9 15.9
 5

Table 1.6: Water Content of Things5

Liters water
Beverages (per liter)
Glass of beer 300
Malt beverages (processing) 50
Glass of water ~1
Bottled Water 3-4
Milk 1,000
Milk (processing) 7
Cup of coffee 1,120
Cup of tea 120
Glass of wine 960
Glass of apple juice 950
Glass of orange juice 850
Assorted Produced Goods (per kilogram)
Roasted coffee 21,000
Tea 9,200
Bread 1,300
Cheese 5,000
Cotton textile finished 11,000
Sheet paper 125
Potato chips 925
Hamburger 16,000
Leather shoes 16,600
Microchip 16,000
Assorted Crops (per kilogram)
Barley 1,300
Coconut 2,500
Corn 900
Sugar 1,500
Apple 700
Potato 500-1,500
Wheat 900-2,000
Alfalfa 900-2,000
Sorghum 1,100-1,800
Corn/maize 1,000-1,800
Rice 1,900-5,000
Soybeans 1,100-2,000
Assorted Animals (per kilogram of meat)
Sheep 6,100
Goat 4,000
Beef 15,000-70,000
 6

Table 1.6: Continued

Assorted Animals (per kilogram of meat) Liters Water
Chicken 3,500-5,700
Eggs 3,300
Assorted Industrial Products (per kilogram)
Steel 260
Primary copper 440
Primary aluminum 410
Phosphatic fertilizer 150
Nitrogenous fertilizer 120
Synthetic rubber 460
Inorganic pigments 410

With growing human population, the need for fresh water increases. The amount

of fresh water resources is nearly constant since the start of life on Earth. On the other

hand, the world population has increased more rapidly over a period of less than 200

years.1 Figure 1.1 illustrates the world population growth from 1950 to the projected

population in 2050. With such a rapid increase in population while the capacity of fresh

water resources remains the same, there is a concern for continued ability for these

sources to be enough.

Figure 1.1: World Population Growth2

 7

Recently, about 40% of the world’s population is suffering from serious water

shortages, and expected to increase to 60% by the year 2025.1 Not only is this due to the

increase in population, it can be attributed to changes in life-style, increase economic

activities, and pollution that limits the use of fresh water sources. Also, aquifers, lakes

and rivers are being used as a fresh water source in increasing rates that are proving to be

unsustainable and will not be able to support rapidly increasing populations. Not only is

water shortage a problem, but the use of unhealthy water in developing countries causes

80-90% of all diseases and 30% of all deaths. Fresh water supply problems are not only

due to population increase. In addition to pollution, other environmental factors, such as

global warming contribute to fresh water availability. Increase atmospheric temperature

can increase ice cap melting, which is a source of water during the summer season.

Glacial melting will cause sea level rise and can lead to salt water intrusion on fresh

water sources.

The state of California is familiar with the water crisis. The effects of global

warming on California’s water systems became clearer and increasingly challenging. Not

only is California known for its high population and economic activity, it is a largely

agricultural state, and water plays a key role in its operations and survival. An eight-year

drought on the Colorado River watershed complicated the state’s plans for living within

its actual allotments from tat over-allocated source. The ecosystem of the Sacramento-

San Joaquin Delta has come close to collapse, triggering a large court-ordered reduction

in pumping that impacted State Water Project and Central Valley Project customers.6

Water impacts may be the greatest of many challenges California will experience

from global warming. The Sierra Nevada snowpack could be 40% smaller by the year
 8

2050, with more precipitation arriving as rain, creating new challenges because reservoirs

have been traditionally operated to accommodate heavy spring runoff from the melting

snowpack, but they will instead have to deal with rapid runoff from winter rains.6 This

could lead to further problems such as flooding. Such problems cause contrasting effects,

too much water in some areas, and not enough in others. There is water, but not where

it’s needed; there will be decreased ability to control the sources of water. The Colorado

River’s two largest reservoirs are Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Human demands for

water from the reservoir system, along with predicted runoff declines and evaporation

increases due to global warming, would, as researchers with Scripps Institute predicted in

2008, produce a 50% chance that functional storage levels in the two reservoirs would be

gone by 2021.6

Other problems caused by water problems have to do with energy supply. In

Lake Mead and Lake Powell, there was a 50% chance that the minimum levels for hydro-

electric power generation would be reached in both lakes in 2017.6 Falling water levels

not only corresponds to reduced water supply, but reduced ability to utilize water to

produce electricity, a widely used and practiced method.

Water, especially fresh water, can be taken for granted. Today, the overall

demand exceeds the supply of developed water in California. Desalination of water

continues to attract interest, since the ocean is a dependable source of water in an era

when traditional sources have become less reliable.6

Ocean water makes up over 95% of the water on Earth. Because of the limited

natural resources of fresh water, the industrial desalination of seawater becomes a major

contender for providing sustainable sources of fresh water.1 Not only is the ocean a
 9

potentially vast source of water, more than 70% of the world population live within 70km

of seas or oceans.1 The combination of these facts makes desalination an attractive

alternative to diminishing fresh water sources.

During the second half of the twentieth century, desalination of seawater proved

to be the most practical and in many cases, the only possible solution for many countries,

such as the Gulf States, Mediterranean and Caribbean Islands. At the turn of the century,

desalination is being considered by a large number of countries as the most viable and

economical solution for providing fresh water.1 Desalination systems are currently used

around the world as large scale fresh water production. In a rough evaluation of whether

there is enough energy to use desalination to meet the world’s future fresh water needs,

the conclusion is that there are no fundamental showstoppers to desalination on a massive

scale.7 It would of course require a lot of energy and high costs, but desalination is a

viable way to extend fresh water resources.7

1.2 Desalination

Up to the 1800’s, desalination was practiced on ship boards. The process

involved using single sage stills operated in the batch mode and energy is supplied from

cock stoves or furnaces without recovering the heat of condensation.1 This method

separated the salts from ocean water by distillation thermally. The sugar industry

established in the early 1800’s resulted in considerable progress of evaporation processes

and involved developing more efficient and larger scale stills for producing syrup and

sugar.1 Today, distillation processes are widely used as an effective method for

separating solutes from solution.

 10

In 1912, a six effect desalination plant with a capacity of 75 m3/day was installed

in Egypt. The total production capacity of the desalination increased between 1929-1937,

due to the start of the oil industry and exponential growth occurred between 1935-1960 at

an annual rate of 17%.1 There are various sources, methods, and purposes for

desalination. These depend on geological region. Forty-eight percent of the global

desalination production takes place in the Middle East, mainly the Gulf countries, 19% is

produced in the Americas, 14% in Asia, 14% in Europe and 6% in Africa.8 The source

for desalination is primarily seawater, but can include brackish water and waste water.

Sixty-one percent of the global seawater desalination capacity is located in the six GCC

(Gulf Cooperation Council) states: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, Bahrain,

Qatar, and Oman; the three enclosed sea areas of the Gulf, the Red Sea, and the

Mediterranean therefore account for about three quarters of the global seawater

desalination capacity.8

Since fresh water has many uses and purposes, the water produced through

desalination serves a variety of purposes. Desalination water is mainly used for

municipal and industrial purposes: 70% of the globally desalinated water is used by

municipalities and 21% by industries; other end users include the power generation

industry (4%), irrigation (2%), military (1%) and tourism (1%).8 In California, a

potential for 15-20 seawater desalination projects with a combined capacity of 1.7

Mm3/day is expected for 2030, increasing the share of desalination to 6% of California’s

2000 urban water use.8 The two largest and most advanced projects are located in the

cities of Carlsbad and Huntington Beach with a proposed capacity of 200,000 m3/day.8
 11

Estimating that the daily use of water is about 70 gallons per person, such a capacity

could supply water for about 700,000 people.

Though there are a variety of desalination processes, there are a few that are more

widely used globally, especially for larger scale plants. Including all source water types,

reverse osmosis is the prevalent desalination process accounting for 51% of the global

capacity; 40% is produced by distillation plants, either multi-stage flash or multi-effect

distillation plants, with relative market shares of 32% and 8%.8 Minor desalination

processes include the membrane-based nanofiltration and electrodialysis processes with

about 4% market share each.8

The industrial desalination processes involve the separation of nearly salt-free

fresh water from sea or brackish water, where the salts are concentrated in the rejected

brine stream, as shown in Figure 1.2. The desalination process can be based on thermal

or mechanical separation methods. The thermal separation techniques include two main

categories; evaporation followed by condensation of the formed water vapor and freezing

followed by melting of the formed water ice crysatls.1 The first process is the most

common and nearly at all cases it is coupled with power generation units, which may be

based on steam or gas turbine systems.1 The evaporation process may take place over a

heat transfer area and is termed as boiling or within the liquid bulk and is defined as

flashing.1
 12

Figure 1.2: Definition of desalination process1

Though there are obvious advantages to water desalination, mainly having a

limitless supply of source water, there are of course some environmental considerations.

Desalination produces highly concentrated salt brines that may also contain other

chemical pollutants and safe disposal of this effluent is a challenge.9 The release of high

salinity brine may cause impingement and entrainment of marine organisms. Subsurface

and beach intake will affect the local shore environment as well as the wildlife in the

nearby area. These concerns may take a backseat as the alternative is considered,

depleting the natural freshwater sources, impacting those local ecosystems and leaving

the population with a devastating water shortage.

1.2.1 Desalination Process Evaluation

When choosing which desalination process to use in the design, each process was

evaluated primarily based on fresh water production capacity, production costs, and

energy requirements. Table 1.7 shows the comparison between various desalination

processes. Desalination by distillation requires large-scale evaporation that mimics the

natural hydrologic cycle and generally is high in costs and energy use. Distillation can

produce water with much lower salt content than membrane systems. The use of
 13

membranes to desalinate water mimics the natural biological process of osmosis and has

generally lower capital costs, which increase along with the salt content of water; and

requires less energy than thermal systems. Membranes can also remove microorganisms

and many organic contaminants.

Table 1.7: Desalination Processes

Method/Technique Capacity Energy Pros/Cons Uses

Requirements
Membranes Reverse osmosis - 46% - depend - needs better - municipal
(RO): uses pressure global directly on pretreatment purposes
on solutions with capacity the of feed water
concentrations of - concentration to reduce the
salt to force fresh Ashkelon, of salts in the use of
water to move largest RO water and chemicals that
through a semi- plant in lesser on the end up in the
permeable the world, temperature brine causing
membrane, leaving 100 MGD of the feed disposal
salts behind water problems
- major - needs
energy used improved
for membranes
pressurizing that are more
the feed durable and
water increase the
flux of pure
water
- needs to
reduce
biofouling in
membranes
- needs more
effective
energy
recovery and
use
- needs
development
of less
expensive
materials
 14

Table 1.7: Continued

Method/Technique Capacity Energy Pros/Cons Uses
Requirements
Membranes Electrodialysis 5% global - large part of - produce - industrial
(ED)/Electodialysis capacity costs due to more product and power
reversal (EDR): energy and less brine plant cooling
uses electrical requirements than towers
currents to move - direct distillation - freshwater
salt ions selectively current used processes fish farms
through a to separate - can treat - municipal
membrane leaving the ions in water with a uses: treat
fresh water behind membrane higher level of industrial
stack (EDR) suspended wastes,
solids than concentrate
RO polluted
- needs fewer ground water
pretreatment for further
chemicals treatment
- can operate
highly turbid
water and are
less prone to
biofouling
that RO
(EDR)
- higher water
recovery than
RO
Distillation Multi-effect - 3% - energy used - MSF units - smaller
distillation (MED): global for thermal with lower towns and
takes place in a capacity requirements costs and less industrial
series of vesses and - plants tendency to uses
reduces the typically scale have
ambient pressure, build in displaced this
allows seawater to units of process
undergo multiple 0.3-3
boilings without MGD
supplying
additional heat
after the first effect
 15

Table 1.7: Continued

Method/Technique Capacity Energy Pros/Cons Uses
Requirements
Distillation Multi-stage flash - 36% - energy - can produce - municipal
(MSF): global needed for high-quality purposes
evaporation capacity evaporation fresh water
―flashing‖ occurs - with very low
from the bulk Shuweihat, salt
liquid largest concentrations
MSF plant from water
(2005) 120 with high salt
MGD concentrations
- minimizes
scale
Vapor compression - 5% - small and
(VC): takes global medium-scale
advantage of capacity seawater
reducing the - units desalting
boiling point usually units
temperature by built in the - tourist
reducing ambient 0.066-0.5 resorts
pressure, but the MGD - small
heat for range industries
evaporating the - remote sites
water comes from
the compression of
vapor rather than
the direct exchange
of hear from steam
produced in a
boiler
Other Ion-exchange: use 5% global - - the greater - homes
resins to remove capacity economically the - municipal
undesirable ions in unattractive concentration water
water compared of dissolved treatment
with RO and solids, the plants to
ED more often the remove
expensive calcium and
resins have to magnesium
be replaced ions in ―hard‖
- effective at water
lower
concentrations
and for small
scale systems
 16

Table 1.7: Continued

Method/Technique Capacity Energy Pros/Cons Uses
Requirements
Other Freezing: when ice - 5% - lower - minimal - small
crystals form, global minimum potential for number of
dissolved salts are capacity energy corrosion demonstration
naturally excluded - units requirement - little scaling plants for
usually or treatment of
built in the precipitation some
0.066-0.5 - difficulty of industrial
MGD handling and wastes
range processing ice
and water
mixtures
- not proven
commercially
feasible
Membrane 5% global - requires - requires - best suited
distillation: capacity more more space for desalting
combines use of pumping - simple and saline water
thermal distillation energy per only small where
and membranes; unit of fresh temperature inexpensive
primarily uses water differential low-grade
thermal produced needed to thermal
evaporation and - requires operate energy is
uses membranes to more money available,
pass vapor, which than other such a from
is condensed to approaches industries or
produce fresh solar
water collectors

1.2.2 Multi-stage Flash Distillation

Multi-stage flash distillation (MSF) is the desalination process that distills sea

water by flashing a portion of the water into steam in multiple stages of what are

basically countercurrent heat exchangers. Figure 1.3 shows a schematic of a multistage

flash distillation system. The MSF process is an innovative concept, where vapor

formation takes place within the liquid bulk instead of the surface of hot tubes.1 This is a

major advantage over the original and simple concept of thermal evaporation where

submerged tubes of heating steam are used to perform fresh water evaporation.1
 17

Figure 1.3: Schematic of a multistage flash distillation system

The energy requirement for a MSF system is in two stages, electrical energy for

pumping the water, and steam energy for heating the brine; the total energy requirement

is in the order of 17 kWh/m3 of water produced.10 MSF distillation plants, especially

large ones are often paired with power plants in a cogeneration configuration where

waste heat from the power plant is used to heat the seawater, proving cooling for the

power plant at the same time.10 This reduces the energy needed by one-half or two-

thirds. Located on the Umm Al Nar island, 12 miles to the east of Abu Dhabi city, the

existing gas-fired plant has an installed power generation capacity of 850MW and uses

five 57,000 m³/day MSF units for desalination. Low grade steam from the adjacent

power plant heats the tubes within the distiller units' brine heaters, which in turn heat the

seawater intake.11

1.2.3 Multi-effect Distillation

A multi-effect distillation (MED) system is an evaporator consisting of several

consecutive cells, or effects, maintained at decreasing levels of pressure and temperature

 18

from the first (hot) cell to the last (cold) cell. The vapor reuse in the multiple effect

system allows reduction of the brine and the temperature due to low values and prevent

rejection of large amount of energy to the surrounding.1 A schematic of a MED system is

shown in Figure 1.4. Each cell mainly consists of a horizontal tubes bundle, the top of

the bundle is sprayed with the sea water make-up that then flows down from tube to tube

by gravity.12 Less electrical consumption is required for MED systems compared to other

thermal processes such as MSF.

Figure 1.4: Schematic of a multi-effect distillation system

There are several large thermal seawater desalination plants on the Arabian

Peninsula, using the MSF method or the MED method. Figures 1.5 and 1.6 show a

comparison of investment costs and costs of water diving water costs by thermal and

electrical energy among other production costs. (ME-TVC is multi-effect distillation

with thermocompression.) These comparisons show that the MSF method is favorable to

the MED method based on investment and production costs.13

 19

Figure 1.5: Investment costs of latest competition of very large thermal seawater
desalination plants on the Arabian Peninsula [$/(m3/d)]13

Figure 1.6: Costs of water from very large thermal desalination plants at the Arabian
Peninsula [$/m3]13

1.2.4 Reverse Osmosis

Reverse osmosis (RO) systems use a series of filters and membranes to separate

salts and other suspended solids from water. Instead of using thermal energy to distil the

source water, mechanical pressure is needed to drive water across a selective membrane.
 20

A number of membrane-based desalination processes are used on an industrial scale as

shown in Table 1.8. There is an inherent difference in the separation mechanism in all

filtration processes and the reverse osmosis process. In filtration, separation is made by a

sieving mechanism, where the membrane passes smaller particles and retains larger ones;

in osmosis or reverse osmosis processes, the membrane permeates only the solvent and

retains the solute.1 Figure 1.7 shows the relative size of common materials filtered by the

different separation processes.

Table 1.8: Membrane-based desalination processes1

Membrane-based process Particle size range (µm)

Microfiltration 0.15
Ultrafiltration 0.15 to 5x10-2
Nanofiltration 5x10-2 to 5x10-3
Reverse Osmosis 5x10-3 to 10-4

Figure 1.7: Relative size of common materials filter by process

 21

There is a need for pretreatment processes in RO systems. The feed water may

contain various amounts of suspended solids and dissolved matter. Reduction in the feed

water volume during the RO process results in increase of the concentration of suspended

particles and dissolved ions which results in physical masking of the membrane surface

area and blockage of the membrane module.1 This not only causes membrane damage

and increased maintenance, but reduces the efficiency of the system. In addition,

membrane damage can be caused by system operation at excessively low pH values, high

chlorine concentration, or presence of other aggressive chemical compounds that would

react and destruct the membrane material.1 A number of pretreatment processes are used

to remove particles, adjust pH, and reduce levels of free chlorine.

The majority of RO membranes are made almost exclusively from two polymers:

cellulose acetate blends and aromatic polyamides.14 Membranes are a fairly new

technology for desalination compared to distillation methods. Cellulose acetate was the

first polymer used for manufacturing reverse osmosis membranes, developed by Loeb

and Sourirajan in the late 1950s, and is derived from cellulose, a material naturally

present in plant tissue.14 Peterson et al. introduced the second membrane material,

aromatic polyamide, in the early 1980s.14 More recently, thin film composites can be

used for reverse osmosis membranes. Table 1.9 compares the three types of membranes.

Table 1.9: Comparison of Reverse Osmosis Membrane Types

Type Description Pros Cons

Cellulosic Thin surface layers Low cost, Easily compacted (in
Membrane that are dense convenient to high temp/press),
install limited pH range: 3-8
pH, degrades if temp
high at 35C, vulnerable
to bacteria
 22

Table 1.9: Continued

Type Description Pros Cons
Thin Film Surface film that is One of the most Degrade when exposed
Composites dense and thin. efficient to free chlorine, need
(TFC) Types: polyfurane constant monitoring of
cyanurate, aromatic carbon prefilter
polyamide, alkyl-
aryl poly urea
Aromatic Developed by Like cellulosic Constant exposure to
Polyamide Dupont membrane, but has high temp will damage
Membrane higher resistance
to biological
attacks and
hydrolysis, able to
sustain sudden rise
in temp

The design of RO membranes needs to provide high packing density and allows

for convenient separation of feed, permeate, and concentrated streams. The two major

membrane module configurations are hollow fiber and spiral wound; at present, the spiral

wound configuration is most commonly used in commercial desalination systems.14 A

cutaway drawing of a spiral wound membrane element can be seen in Figure 1.8,

provided by FLUIDSYSTEMS®. Commercial elements have between 20 and 40

membrane envelopes attached to the permeate tube, forming an element with a 20cm

diameter and a length of 1m; such an element would contain 37-41m2 of active

membrane area.14
 23

Figure 1.8: Cutaway Drawing of a Spiral Wound Membrane Element

RO systems require more electrical energy compared to distillation methods

because of the high pressures needed to drive water across the membrane. Figure 1.9

shows electrical energy consumption of the MSF, MED, and RO desalination methods.

While RO systems require higher electrical energy, there is no need for the high thermal

energy required by the distillation methods, making the overall energy requirements for

RO systems much less, as shown in Figure 1.10. Table 1.10 compares the fresh water

production capacity and energy consumption of four industrial desalination processes,

provided by Wangnick Consulting, 2010, which is summarized in Table 1.11. RO

desalination systems have a fair production capacity as well as being on the low end of

energy consumption per volume of water produced.

 24

Figure 1.9: Consumption of electrical energy by desalination processes [kWh/m3]13

Figure 1.10: Harmonized energy consumption of desalination processes [kWh/m3]13

Table 1.10: Energy requirements of industrial desalination processes

MSF MED-TVC MED MVC RO

Typical unit 50,000 - 10,000 - 5,000 - 100 - 2500 24,000
size m3 d-1 70,000 35,000 15,000
Electrical 4–6 1.5 – 2.5 1.5 – 2.5 7 - 12 3 – 5.5
Energy
Consumption
kWh m-3
 25

Table 1.10: Continued

MSF MED-TVC MED MVC RO
Thermal Energy 190 (GOR 145 (GOR 230 (GOR None None
Consumption kJ =12.2) – =16) – 390 =10) – 390
kg -1 390 (GOR (GOR =6) #1 (GOR =6)
=6)
Electrical #3 #4 #5 None None
2
Equivalent #
for Thermal 9.5 – 19.5 9.5 – 25.5 5 – 8.5
-
Energy kWh m
3

Total 13.5 - 25.5 11 - 28 6.5 - 11 7 - 12 3 - 3.5

Equivalent (Up to 7
Energy with
Consumption Boron
kWh m-3 treatment)
GOR – Gain Output Ratio
#1 Lower Value to be applied only if heating energy is extremely expensive, e.g in combination with
solar energy heating.
#2 Electrical equivalent is that electrical energy which cannot be produced in a turbine because of
extraction of the heating steam
#3 Assuming that pressure in the condonser of a large commercial steam turbine is kept at 0.1 bara at a
seawater temperature of 35 0C and steam extraction pressure is some 3.5 bara (loss is 475 kJ /kg
steam)
#4 Assuming that pressure in the condenser of a large commercial steam turbine is kept at 0.1 bara at a
seawater temperature of 35 0C and steam extraction pressure is some 15 bara (loss is 737 kJ/kg steam)
#5 Assuming that pressure in the condenser of a large commercial steam turbine is kept at 0.1 bara at a
seawater temperature of 35 0C and steam extraction pressure is some 0.5 bara (loss is 258 kJ/kg steam)
Note: In this case GOR includes Steam/heat for Vacuum system
Source: WANGNICK CONSULTING (2010)

Table 1.11: Desalination Production Capacity and Energy Requirements by Process

Process Water Production [m3/day] Energy Consumption [kWh/m3]

MSF 50,000 - 70,000 13.5 - 25.5
RO 24,000 3 – 3.5 (7 w/ Boron treatment)
MED-TVC 10,000 – 35,000 11 – 28
MED 5,000 – 15,000 6.5 – 11
MVC 100 – 2500 7 – 12

1.3 Hydrogen

Focusing on MSF and MED methods for salt water desalination, the idea is to use

hydrogen combustion as thermal energy required for the distillation process. A simple
 26

schematic of such a system can be seen in Figure 1.11. There is a major environmental

advantage to using hydrogen as a fuel source. Compared to the combustion of fossil fuels

and natural gas, hydrogen combustion produces no greenhouse gases. It is the ultimate

clean fuel. Another advantage is that it stores approximately 2.6 times the energy per

unit mass as gasoline. Table 1.12 shows the reaction energy for hydrogen combustion.

Figure 1.11: PEC-MSF/MED System

Table 1.12: Hydrogen Combustion Reaction Energy

Reaction
H2(g) + ½ O2(g) ↔ H2O(g) 242 kJ/mol 3.75 kWh/kg
H2(g) + ½ O2(g) ↔ H2O(l) 286 kJ/mol 4.37 kWh/kg

Theoretically, the combustion of hydrogen produces 286 kJ/mol or 4.37 kWh/kg

of hydrogen. Using the values from Table 1.10 to estimate the amount of hydrogen

needed to supply the energy for MSF and MED processes is shown in Table 1.13. The

MSF process would roughly require an average of 4.5 kg of hydrogen per 1 m3 of fresh

water produced; the MED process requiring roughly an average of 2 kg/m 3.

 27

Table 1.13: Hydrogen Requirements by Distillation Process

Process Energy Consumption Hydrogen Required

[kWh/m3] [kg/m3]
MSF 13.5 – 25.5 3.09 – 5.84
MED 6.5 – 11 1.49 – 2.52

Hydrogen is produced by the dissociation of water, or splitting water. The

thermal dissociation of water is shown in Figure 1.12, requiring very high temperatures,

around 4000°C. Generally, ceramic membranes are used to separate hydrogen gas from

oxygen gas to prevent them from reforming water. The use of a catalyst can reduce the

temperatures to 800-1200°C. These catalysts are usually iron oxide containing 8-14%

weight of CrO3, though Cr+6 is highly toxic and harmful to human health and the

environment. There are many alternative catalysts being developed. The extremely high

temperatures needed to thermally dissociate water impose strict constraints on the

materials used in the system, not to mention high energy costs. Because of the high

temperature required for hydrogen production by thermolysis, large-scale hydrogen

production is often coupled with other reactors, such as nuclear-thermal and solar-

thermal. Hydrosol II, a 100 kW hydrogen production pilot plant in Spain that has been in

operation since 2008, uses concentrated solar power to split water.

 28

Figure 1.12: Thermal Dissociation of Water15

Electrolysis is also used to split water. An electric current passing through water

can decompose it into oxygen and hydrogen. Producing hydrogen from water requires

large amounts of energy making it uncompetitive compared to production from coal or

natural gas. High-temperature electrolysis has been demonstrated in a laboratory at 30

kWh per kg of hydrogen produced. Knowing that the combustion of hydrogen gives 4.37

kWh/kg shows that the electricity consumed in hydrogen production is worth more than

the hydrogen produced.

Electrolysis accounts for only about 4% of global hydrogen production, the bulk

using natural gas at 48% and oil at 30% as shown in Table 1.14, according to the U.S.

Department of Energy. Table 1.15 outlines the energy requirements and costs per

hydrogen gasoline gas equivalent. The most cost effective method is using coal to

produce hydrogen. This seems counterintuitive since hydrogen is used as a clean fuel
 29

source but coal and natural gas are used to produce it; both sources being fuels that

produce greenhouse gases. Table 1.16 shows the fossil fuel emission levels for natural

gas, oil, and coal.16 The use of fossil fuels to produce hydrogen negates the purpose of

using hydrogen as a clean fuel source.

Table 1.14: Global Hydrogen Production by Source

Source Hydrogen Produced in billions Percent

Nm3/year
Natural Gas 240 48
Oil 150 30
Coal 90 18
Electrolysis 20 4
Total 500 100

Table 1.15: Hydrogen Production Requirements

Energy Requirements Cost per H2

Source GGE
Natural Gas Uses steam reformation. Requires 15.9 million cubic $ 3.00
feet (450,000 m3) of gas, which, if produced by small
500 kg/day reformers at the point of dispensing (i.e.,
the filling station), would equate to 777,000 reformers
costing $1 trillion dollars.
Nuclear Provides energy for electrolysis of water. Would $ 2.50
require 240,000 tons of unenriched uranium — that's
2,000 600-megawatt power plants, which would cost
$840 billion.
Solar Provides energy for electrolysis of water. Would $ 9.50
require 2,500 kWh of sun per square meter, 113 million
40-kilowatt systems, which would cost $22 trillion.
Wind Provides energy for electrolysis of water. At 7 meters $ 3.00
per second average wind speed, it would require
1 million 2-MW wind turbines, which would cost
$3 trillion dollars.
Biomass Gasification plants would produce gas with steam $ 1.90
reformation. 1.5 billion tons of dry biomass, 3,300
plants which would require 113.4 million acres
(460,000 km²) of farm to produce the biomass.
$565 billion dollars in cost.
 30

Table 1.15: Continued

Energy Requirements Cost per H2
Source GGE
Coal FutureGen plants use coal gasification then steam $ 1.00
reformation. Requires 1 billion tons of coal or about
1,000 275-megawatt plants with a cost of about
$500 billion.

Table 1.16: Fossil Fuel Emission Levels16

Fossil Fuel Emission Levels – Pounds per Billion Btu of

Energy Input
Pollutant Natural Gas Oil Coal
Carbon Dioxide 117,000 164,000 208,000
Carbon Monoxide 40 33 208
Nitrogen Oxides 92 448 457
Sulfur Dioxide 1 1,122 2,591
Particulates 7 84 2,744
Mercury 0.000 0.007 0.016

1.4 Solar Energy: PEC vs. PV

Solar energy is just as important to life as water. Photosynthesis is a process that

uses sunlight to convert carbon dioxide into organic compounds, which occurs in plants,

algae, and many species of bacteria. This process allowed for the proliferation of life on

Earth. Sunlight is also useful for natural lighting, heating, and electricity production.

More energy from sunlight strikes Earth in one hour than all of the energy consumed by

humans in an entire year.17 This awesome fact is perhaps the main reason the potential

for solar power is boundless. As a clean energy source, solar power is inexhaustible,

fairly constant, and not as geographically restrictive. The disadvantages are that power

production is lower on cloudy days and during the winter season; and currently, solar

power is not yet cost competitive to fossil fuel.

 31

In California, renewables accounts for about 10.6% of power generation, as

shown in Figure 1.13; of that, only about 2% is solar, the details shown in Table 1.17.18

There are many solar photovoltaic power plants internationally and in the United States.

A list of the largest plants by power capacity is shown in Table 1.18.19 Since the passing

of Assembly Bill 32 in 2006, it has been a goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to

1990 levels by 2020. The desire to be more environmentally conscious and responsible

will increase the use of renewables for energy sources, including solar power. Also, the

goals of continued research in solar technology are to make solar power more efficient

and cost effective.

Figure 1.13: California Power Generation by Source 200818

 32

Table 1.17: California 2008 Total System Generation18

Fuel Type In-State Northwest Southwest Total Energy

Imports Imports System
Coal 3,977 8,581 43,271 55,829
Large Hydro 21,040 9,334 3,359 33,733
Natural Gas 122,216 2,939 15,060 140,215
Nuclear 32,482 747 11,039 44,268
Renewables 28,804 2,344 1,384 32,532
Biomass 5,720 654 3 6,377
Geothermal 12,907 0 755 13,662
Small Hydro 3,729 674 13 4,415
Solar 724 0 22 746
Wind 5,724 1,016 591 7,331
Total 208,519 23,945 74,113 306,577

Table 1.18: Largest PV Power Plants19

Power Location Description Constructed

(MW)
Largest in the World
97 Canada, Sarnia PV power plant 2009-2010
Sarnia (Ontario)
84.2 Italy, Montalto di Castro 2009-2010
Montalto di Castro
(Lazio)
80.7 Germany, Finsterwalde Solarpark Finsterwalde I, II, III 2009-2010
70 Italy, Rovigo Rovigo 2010
60 Spain, Olmedilla Parque Fotovoltaico Olmedilla de 2008
(Castilla-La Mancha) Alarcon
Largest in the U.S.
48 USA, Boulder City, Copper Mountain Solar Facility 2010
NV
25 USA, Arcadia, FL DeSoto Next Generation Solar 2009
Energy Center
21 USA, Blythe, CA Solar electric power plant, Blythe 2009
16 USA, San Antonio, TX Blue Wing solar electric power 2009
plant
15.01 USA, Jacksonville, FL Jacksonville Solar Energy 2010
Generation Facility
 33

Systems that produce electricity from solar energy potentially offer the cleanest

way to produce hydrogen. This can be done using photovoltaic systems or by a

photoelectrochemical cell (PEC) process. Of course, photovoltaic systems convert

sunlight directly into electricity and are made of semiconducting materials, such as

silicon. High efficiency PEC systems produce hydrogen directly from water using

sunlight; a schematic of this process is shown in Figure 1.14.20 Sunlight shining on a

photoelectrode comprising a semiconductor photovoltaic generator coated with catalytic

thin films produces electric current which drives the hydrogen and oxygen evolution

reactions at the respective surfaces (Figure 1.14a).20 Figure 1.14b shows the design for a

large scale reactor where arrays of photoelectrodes are arrange in tubular reactors with

include gas-separating membranes to collect the high-purity hydrogen and oxygen.20

Figure 1.14: Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen Production17

 34

There are a few developers of solar desalination systems with a variety of power

sources, desalination processes, and fresh water production capacity, which is

summarized in Table 1.19. In developing our own solar powered desalination system, we

purposed three questions.

(1) What are the overall requirements for the MSF, MED, and RO methods for

water desalination?

(2) Which route would be more energy effective: PEC with hydrogen combustion

for distillation or PV with pumps for separation by membrane?

(3) What will be the area of the devices needed for one million gallon a day (1

MGD) production of fresh water?

Table 1.19: Solar Desalination Systems

Developers Power Desalination Process Capacity

MIT Solar PV cells Reverse osmosis 1,000 gallons/day
BARC Solar PV cells Reverse osmosis 3-4 families
IMB 10 MW solar (not specified) 7.9 million gallons/day
farm
Francisco Solar pond Membrane (not specified)
Suarez distillation
Alan Williams Large area solar Multi-effect 100,000 m3/day (about
collector humidification 24.6 million gallons/day)

1.4.1 Question 1

The first question can be answered from the information in Table 1.10, which is

simplified in Table 1.20 by taking the average values. MSF requires an average of 19.5

kWh/m3 total energy equivalent, MED an average of 10.25 kWh/m3, and RO an average
 35

of 4.25 kWh/m3. The MSF process is the most energy intensive, requiring the most

electrical and thermal energy, however has the largest production capacity, as most MSF

desalination plants are typically larger compared to MED and RO plants. The MED

process requires the least amount of electrical energy, less thermal energy compared to

MSF, but more total energy compared to RO. Typically, MED plants are smaller scale

compared to both MSF and RO. The RO method requires no thermal energy and least

amount of total energy compared to the two distillation processes, MSF and MED;

however typical large-scale RO plants have only about half the production capacity as

most MSF plants.

Table 1.20: Energy Requirements of Desalination Methods

Method MSF MED RO

Electrical Energy (kWh/m3) 5 2 4.25
Thermal Energy equivalent 14.5 8.25 0
(kWh/m3)
Total Energy equivalent (kWh/m3) 19.5 10.25 4.25

1.4.2 Question 2

To answer the first part of the second question, we looked to the techno-economic

evaluation of four PEC systems done by Directed Technologies Inc. under contract to the

U.S. Department of Energy.21 Type 1 and 2 system configurations utilize aqueous reactor

beds containing colloidal suspensions of PV-active nanoparticles, each nanoparticle being

composed of the appropriate layered PV materials to achieve sufficient band gap voltage

to carry out the electrolysis reaction.21 Type 3 and 4 system configurations use multi-

layer planar PV cells in electrical contact with a small electrolyte reservoir and produce
 36

oxygen gas on the anode and hydrogen gas on the cathode, which is shown in Figure

1.15.21

Figure 1.15: Schematic of a Generic PEC Photocell21

The Type 1 system reactor is a single bed colloidal suspension reactor where both

hydrogen and oxygen are evolved from the surface of the nanoparticles. An end view of

three baggie/bed structures is shown in Figure 1.16. A single baggie/bed is 1060 ft long

and 40 ft wide; the system for 1 tonne per day (TPD) hydrogen yearly average production

would require 18 baggies. The assumed baseline solar-to-hydrogen (STH) conversion

efficiency is 10%. (STH conversion efficiency is power in/power out, where the power

in is the incident light intensity and power out is they hydrogen production

photocurrent.22) The Type 1 reactor is the simplest PEC embodiment and has the lowest

capital cost.

Figure 1.16: Type 1 PEC System Reactor, Single Bed Colloidal Suspension, End View21
 37

The Type 2 system reactor is a dual bed colloidal suspension reactor that employs

separate beds for oxygen and hydrogen gas production reaction. The beds are linked

together with diffusion bridges to allow the transport of ions but prevent gas and particle

mixing. A schematic of the system is shown in Figure 1.17, consisting of one half-baggie

(H2), one full size baggie (O2), a second full size baggie (H2), and a second half-baggie

(O2). Dimensions of the baggie/bed assembly are 200 ft long and 20 ft wide. Type 2

system requires approximately double the solar absorption area as Type 1 because of the

separation of the complete reaction into dual beds; this and other factors make they Type

2 reactor about 4 times the cost of the Type 1 reactor. The STH efficiency for the Type 2

system is 5% and the system for 1 TPD hydrogen average production consists of 347

such assemblies.

Figure 1.17: Type 2 PEC System Reactor, Dual Bed Colloidal Suspension, Front View21

The Type 3 reactor uses planar PEC arrays that are fixed in place and inclined

toward the sun at a tilt angle from horizontal equal to the local latitude. A schematic is

shown in Figure 1.18 and each individual panel is 1 m wide and 2 m in length, having a

baseline STH efficiency of 10%. They system for 1 TPD hydrogen average production

requires 26,923 panels.

 38

Figure 1.18: Type 3 PEC System Reactor, Fixed Flat Panel21

The Type 4 reactor uses a solar concentrator reflector to focus direct solar

radiation onto the PEC cell and tracking is used to maximize direct radiation capture.

Solar concentrators reduce the cost impact of the PV component of the system by

focusing solar energy, but add to the cost of the steering systems. This system uses a

concentration ratio of 10 suns, however a PEC concentrator system can potentially use a

concentration ratio of 10-50 suns. Figure 1.19 shows the concentrator PEC design,

which uses an offset parabolic cylinder array to focus radiation on a linear PEC receiver.

Each individual concentration array is 6 m wide and 3 m in height with a baseline STH

efficiency of 15%. The system for 1 TPD hydrogen average production needs 1,885 such

reactors.
 39

Figure 1.19: Type 4 PEC System Reactor, Tracking Concentrator21

Comparing these four types of PEC systems for a net production of 1 TPD

hydrogen is summarized in Table 1.21. Types 1 and 2 have substantially lower capital

and hydrogen production costs but require more photon capture area. Type 4 has the

highest STH efficiency, as well as requiring the least photon capture area and electrical

power consumption. Both the hydrogen production costs and total capital costs are

higher compared to types 1 and 2 but less than Type 3.

Table 1.21: PEC Hydrogen Production21

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Net H2 produced (kg/day) 1000 1000 1000 1000
Photon capture area (m2) 70,540 126,969 53,845 33,924
Electrical power consumption
(kWh/kg H2) 3.29 2.01 2 0.16
PEC efficiency (kg/m2) 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03
Hydrogen Production Costs ($/kg H2) 1.63 3.19 10.36 4.05
Total capital cost ($) 1,081,814 1,710,807 9,607,621 3,476,291
STH Efficiency (%) 10 5 10 15
 40

Electrical power consumption for these PEC systems is primarily for the gas

processing subassembly, items consuming power being the compressor, water pumps,

slurry circulation pumps, and control systems. Consumption per kg of H2 produced is

included in Table 1.21. Considering the theoretical 4.37 kWh per kg of hydrogen

produced, it is obvious that the PEC method for producing hydrogen is advantageous

from an energy and environmental point of view compared to the traditional electrolysis

and thermolysis methods. In the best case, the Type 4 system, only 0.16 kWh/kg H2 is

consumed, making the energy gain over 20 fold. In other words, in the ideal case, for

every unit of energy input into producing hydrogen, the hydrogen can provide over 20

units of energy.

Considering this, it is definitely energy effective to produce hydrogen by PEC and

then combust that hydrogen to produce the thermal energy needed for desalination by

distillation. However, in addition to thermal energy, MSF and MED systems as well as

they PEC system would require electrical energy. A combustion engine or turbine can be

used to convert thermal energy into electrical energy, but system efficiencies need to be

considered.

Also, the water consumption for the PEC hydrogen production system should be

considered. A combined system can run on a cycle, as shown in Figure 1.11. Fresh

water is needed to produce hydrogen, and then the combustion of hydrogen is used to

desalinate water. Calculations were done to ensure that this system produces more fresh

water than the amount of water needed to produce hydrogen and power the system.

Table 1.22 shows the water requirements of hydrogen production for the four types of

PEC systems; which is about 2.3 gallons of water for each kilogram of hydrogen
 41

produced. Based on hydrogen combustion energy and hydrogen requirements for

distillation systems, as shown in Tables 1.12 and 1.13, the water requirements for a PEC-

MSF/MED system can be calculated. This calculation is summarized in Table 1.23. For

a PEC-MED desalination system, for every gallon of fresh water produced, about 0.02

gallon of water was needed to produce the hydrogen powering the system. This shows

that much more fresh water is produced than consumed.

Table 1.22: Water Needed for Hydrogen Production

Type 1 Type 2 Type 3 Type 4

Total Water Consumption (gal/day) 2637 2369 2369 2369
Average gross H2 production
(kg/day) 1111 1000 1000 1000
Water use for H2 production (gal/kg) 2.373537 2.369 2.369 2.369

Table 1.23: Water Consumed and Produced in PEC-Distillation System

MSF MED
H2 needed per gal H20 produced
(kg/gal) 0.016891 0.008879

H20 needed to produce H20 (gal/gal) MSF MED

Type 1 0.040092 0.021074
Type 2 0.040016 0.021034
Type 3 0.040016 0.021034
Type 4 0.040016 0.021034

The next part of question 2, considers a PV-RO system; a simple schematic can

be seen in Figure 1.20. To assess this system, we have averaged local solar irradiance

and estimated electrical production for a PV system. A project at UCSD by Bryan

Urquhart created a Google Maps interface, the ―Solar Energy Calculator.‖22 This

computes the monthly and annual solar energy impinging upon a 1 m2 tilted panel in San

Diego. Using Google Maps, a spot is chosen and inputs are needed: panel tilt (degrees)
 42

and panel Azimuth (degrees). For a fixed panel, the optimal panel tilt (angle relative to

horizontal) is the latitude of the location, allowing for maximum solar irradiance

collection throughout the day. The Azimuth angle is the panel face angle relative to

North. Regions in the Northern Hemisphere face South (giving an Azimuth angle of

180°) for optimal solar irradiance collection, and regions in the Southern Hemisphere

face North.

Figure 1.20: PV-RO System

A spot located in the parking lot north of Jacobs Hall was chosen, and tilt angle

33° and Azimuth angle 180° given to calculate the annual solar irradiance. A screen shot

of the results can be seen in Figure 1.21. The result was an annual energy density value

of 2006 kWh/m2, giving an average daily irradiance of 5.5 kWh/m2. Assuming an

instillation efficiency of 90% and a labeled efficiency of 12% (efficiency for a PV system

is a ratio of the electrical power output to the solar power input), a PV system will have

0.59 kWh/m2 electric energy output density, these values are listed in Table 1.24. Since
 43

only electric power is needed for RO systems at a consumption rate of 4.25 kWh/m3, it is

feasible to power an RO desalination system using PV.

Figure 1.21: Solar Energy Calculator using Google Maps23

Table 1.24: PV System Power Production

Average Daily Irradiance (kWh/m2) 5.50

Instillation Efficiency 0.90
Labeled Efficiency 0.12
Output Electric Energy Density (kWh/m2) 0.59

1.4.3 Question 3

Considering solar powered MSF, MED, and RO desalination systems with the

production capacity of one million gallons per day of fresh water, we can compare the

energy consumption and area of devices needed, the area required by the PEC and PV

system. The energy and area requirements for a PEC hydrogen production system

coupled with a MSF and MED desalination process is shown in Table 1.25. The rough

calculations were made using the values from Tables 1.20 and 1.21. The total energy
 44

equivalent values were used and all four types of PEC systems were compared. Since the

Type 4 PEC system is the most efficient, it requires the least energy and area. A MED

desalination plant producing 1 MG/day would require about 1,421 kWh and 301,205 m2.

A higher energy intense MSF plant of the same production capacity would require about

2,701 kWh and 573,025 m2. The area requirement calculations for a PV system coupled

with a RO desalination process is listed in Table 1.26. Using a PV system to power a RO

plant production 1 MG/day would require 27,267.8 m2.

Table 1.25: PEC System Requirement for 1 MG MSF and MED

Requirements for 1MG

MSF MED
Total Energy equivalent (kWh/MG) 73,816 38,800
H2 required (kg/MG) 16,891 8,879

Energy required to produce needed H2 (kWh)

MSF MED
Type 1: single bed colloidal suspension 55,573 29,211
Type 2: dual bed colloidal suspension 33,952 17,846
Type 3: fixed flat panel 33,783 17,758
Type 4: tracking concentrator 2,703 1,421

Area required to produce needed H2 (m2)

MSF MED
Type 1: single bed colloidal suspension 1,191,521 626,312
Type 2: dual bed colloidal suspension 2,144,687 1,127,336
Type 3: fixed flat panel 909,519 478,080
Type 4: tracking concentrator 573,025 301,205

Table 1.26: PV System Requirement for 1 MG RO

Total Energy equivalent (kWh/m3) 4.25

Total Energy equivalent (kWh/MG) 16,088
Electric Energy Density (kWh/m2) 0.59
Area Required (m2) 27,268
 45

1.5 Conclusion

Looking at the energy consumption and area requirements for the purposed solar

powered desalination systems, it is clear that reverse osmosis powered by photovoltaics is

the best design. The RO desalination system requires the least total energy, all of which

is electrical, which a PV system can provide. Though PEC is the most energy effective

method to produce hydrogen, coupled with desalination by MSF/MED systems, it is not

energy or space effective, especially compared to RO. A PEC-MED system would

require over 11 times more area than a PV-RO system that produces the same volume of

fresh water.
Chapter 2: Reverse Osmosis System

2.1 Reverse Osmosis System Set Up

Having determined that a PV-RO system would be the most energy and space

efficient for a solar-powered desalination system, next is to build and test such a system.

Aiming for a small-scale system, a 50 gallon per day system is sufficient.

For the reverse osmosis part of the system, the main components are the pump,

filters, and the membrane. The pump needs to supply the required high pressure to drive

the water across the membrane and preferably requires a direct current power supply,

since it will be powered by the photovoltaic system. Also, a typical reverse osmosis

system has five stages. The first stage consists of a sediment filter. These filters are

made from thermally bonded fibers of polypropylene and are used to trap sediment.

Second and third stage filters are carbon black filters which have a 5 µm nominal

filtration. The filter is manufactured from high purity acid-washed activated carbon,

finished with an outer polypropylene spun bonded prefiltration medium, and has a

protective polypropylene netting as well as end caps with compression gaskets.

The fourth stage is the reverse osmosis membrane. As mentioned earlier, the

spiral wound membrane is most common. Filmtec® provides advanced and reliable

reverse osmosis membranes for home drinking water. Polyamide thin-film composite is

the membrane type. The membrane has a maximum operating temperature of 45°C,

maximum operating pressure of 300 psi, and works with a pH range of 2-11. The

membrane has excellent salt and organic rejection, microbiological resistance, and

usually lasts 3-5 years. Membranes also require housing, or membrane pressure vessels.

These vessels need to be sealed and able to withstand high pressures. The inlet allows

46
 47

water to pass through the membrane and the outlet has an opening for the permeate, the

fresh water, and an opening for the concentrate.

The fifth stage is another filter that removes chlorine, odor and taste. The brand

OMNIPURE® supplies a fifth stage carbon filter composed of acid-washed carbon media

designed for maximum chlorine, taste, and odor reduction. It also has its own versatile

and disposable inline filter housing design. The other filters and the reverse osmosis

membrane require separate housing.

The housing elements are typically made of polypropylene and can withstand the

high pressures needed for the system. They feature a single inlet port and two outlet

ports, one for the permeate, and one for the concentrate. The reverse osmosis membrane

meets the NSF/ANSI Standard 58 for reverse osmosis drinking water treatment systems

and all other elements meets the NSF/ANSI Standard 42 for drinking water treatment

units. The reverse osmosis system components are listed in Table 2.1, which includes

prices for the specific items purchased for this project.

Table 2.1: List of RO System Components

Item Qt. Price

Reverse Osmosis System
Pump (Puroflo) 1 $115
Filter (PURTREX), stage 1 - sediment filter 1 $9
Filter (MATRIKX), stage 2/3 – traps particles 2 $15
Filter (OMIPURE), stage 5 – removes chlorine, odor, taste 1 $15
Filter Housing 4 $14
Membrane (FILMTEC) 1 $45
RO Membrane Housing 1 $20

Fittings and Tubing

Valves/connectors Est. 12 Est. $30
Tubing 10 ft. cut $5

TOTAL $325
 48

This reverse osmosis system consists of a 10 pound pump and five separate filter

elements. There are several options for the layout of this system, given that the elements

will be fixed together. The line layout is most simple and material optimizing as the first

three stages can be connected using a single connector, minimizing the need for tubing.

The membrane housing and stage five filter do not line up like the first three stages. In

the first three stages, the housing is designed so that both the inlet and outlet ports are

located at the top. For the membrane housing and stage five filter, the inlet and outlets

are located at opposite ends. They can be assembled in line with the other stages,

however, tubing is necessary to connect them. Figure 2.1 shows a simple schematic of a

reverse osmosis system using the line layout. The arrows show the flow of water and the

location of the inlet and outlet at each stage. Figure 2.2 is a photo of the reverse osmosis

system assembled.

Figure 2.1: RO system line layout

 49

Figure 2.2: Photo of RO system

2.2 Feed Water

The operation of the system depends on the feed water concentration, which is

typically represented as total dissolved solids (TDS) with units of parts per million, ppm,

which for water is approximately milligram per liter (mg/l). The higher the

concentration, the higher the osmotic pressure; the system should have a minimum

capacity of the highest concentrated water in the system, the produced concentrate, or

brine. The osmotic pressure (π) can be determined by the parameters: concentration

(Σxi), temperature (T), and using the universal gas constant (R), as the equation shows.
1

Given that the system is at a constant temperature, the osmotic pressure is linearly

related to the concentration. The osmotic pressure for a solution with the concentration
 50

of 1,000 ppm can be approximated to be 75.84 kPa (about 11 psi).1 Filmtec® also

estimates 1 psi is required for every 100 mg/L of concentration. Graph 2.1 shows the

linear relationship of concentration and osmotic pressure for both of these estimations.

Graph 2.1: Concentration vs. Osmotic Pressure

400

350
Osmotic Pressure (psi)

300

250

200
Filmtec
150
El-Dessouky & Ettouney
100

50

0
0 10000 20000 30000 40000
Concentration (ppm)

The system capacity should be greater than the osmotic pressure of the most

concentrated solution, the concentrate. To determine the maximum concentration of feed

water this system can accept, the Filmtec® and El-Dessouky & Ettouney estimations

were used. The pump pressure capacity is 120 psi, therefore the osmotic pressure of the

concentrated water must not exceed 120 psi. Using the Filmtec® estimation, the

maximum concentration is 12,000 ppm. According to El-Dessouky & Ettouney, the

maximum concentration is approximately 10,909 ppm. Water containing these

concentrations, while not as concentrated as sea water, is too high to be classified as

drinking water and would have to be filtered before acceptable for consumption. Natural
 51

sources of water that may have such concentrations are ground water, rain water, and

water from streams, rivers, and lakes.

2.3 Permeate Water

The percent recovery is the amount of water that permeates relative to the amount

that is feed into the system. The percent recovery depends on the concentration of the

feed water and the system capacity. For this system, with a pump pressure of 120 psi,

Table 2.2 shows the percent recovery possible for different concentrations of feed water.

Both Filmtec® and El-Dessouky & Ettouney (E&E) estimations are shown. For this

system, the maximum concentration of feed water is about 11,000 ppm. This system can

filter natural sources of water such as rainwater, groundwater, and streams, rivers, and

lakes. A system with a pump capacity over 400 psi should be able to filter seawater.

Table 2.2: Percent Recovery of Feed Water

Feed Water Recovery (%)

Concentration
(ppm) Filmtec® E&E
12,000 0% -
11,000 8% -
10,000 17% 8%
9,000 25% 17%
8,000 33% 27%
7,000 42% 36%
6,000 50% 45%
5,000 58% 54%
4,000 67% 63%
3,000 75% 72%
2,000 83% 82%
1,000 92% 91%

Salt rejection is an important measurement for a reverse osmosis system. This

value, represented as a percentage, depends on the concentration of the feed water (Xf)
 52

and permeate water (Xp). The equation below shows how to calculate the salt rejection

(SR).

– 1

Another parameter that is important in reverse osmosis systems is permeate

recovery, also given as a percentage. The permeate recovery (R) is calculated using the

permeate flow rate (Mp) and feed flow rate (Mf) as shown in the equation below.

( )1

Of course the quality of the permeate is important in determining the success of

the reverse osmosis system. The permeate is used for consumption purposes and should

be of safe drinking water quality.

2.4 Water Quality Testing

To test for water quality, Pro-Lab® offers a ―Do It Yourself Test Kit.‖ This kit

tests for pH, total alkalinity, total chlorine, total hardness, iron, copper, nitrates, and

nitrites. The results of the test determine if the water is safe to drink or not. The pH test

measures the acidic or basic character of water and values in the range 6.5-8.5 is

generally accepted as safe. Total alkalinity is the ability of water to resist changes in pH;

ideal values are 80-180 ppm. Chlorine affects the taste and odor of water and may irritate

skin and eyes. A concentration of chlorine below 4 ppm is considered safe. Water

hardness is a measure of calcium and magnesium in the water and a value of 50 ppm is

considered ideal. Water hardness is measured for considerations to plumbing. Soft

water, less than 54 ppm can be corrosive to plumbing, but is not considered dangerous to

drink. Iron can be present in water from minerals in the ground but high levels can cause
 53

discoloration in water; values below 0.3 ppm are considered safe. Copper may be present

in water but high levels can cause jaundice, pancreatitis, poisoning of the red blood cells,

gastrointestinal problem and anemia. Levels under 1.3 ppm are considered safe.

Nitrate/Nitrite nitrogen presence in water can result from fertilizer, waste, and other

geological elements. High concentrations can cause blood poisoning and be fatal, but

nitrate concentrations under 10 ppm and nitrite concentrations under 1 ppm are

considered safe. Table 2.3 summarizes the Pro-Lab® water quality ideal test results as

well as its nominal sensitivity.

Table 2.3: Pro-Lab® Water Quality Test

Test Ideal Result Measurement Range

pH 6.5-8.5 2.0-12.1
Total Alkalinity 80-180 ppm 0-240 ppm
Total Chlorine 0.2-4 ppm 0-10 ppm
Total Hardness 50 ppm 0-425 ppm
Iron 0-0.03 ppm 0-5 ppm
Copper 0-1.3 ppm 0-5 ppm
Nitrate 0-10 ppm 0-50 ppm
Nitrite 0-1 ppm 0-5 ppm

To test the reverse osmosis system, three solutions were prepared with various

concentrations of dissolved solids, based on the test sensitivity. Solution 1 is the low

concentration solution, or the control with no chemicals added, just deionized water.

Solution 2 is the mid-range solution with very low amounts of solids added. Solution 3 is

the high concentration solution, considered unsafe or dangerous to drink. For each

solution, three liters of volume were prepared. Potassium chloride was used to supply the

chlorine. Magnesium acetate contains magnesium, to contribute to water hardness, as

well as acetate, which affects the water’s pH. Iron (III) nitrate nonahydrate was used to
 54

add iron and nitrate to the solutions. Cupric sulfate provided the source of copper and

well as sulfate affecting the pH of the water. The list of chemicals added and the specific

amounts are shown in Table 2.4.

Table 2.4: Prepared Solutions Contents

Chemical Weight (g)

Solution 1: Solution 2: Solution 3:
Name Formula Low Mid-range High
Potassium Chloride KCl 0 0.013 0.072
Magnesium Acetate Mg(CH3COO)2 0 0.348 2.843
Iron (III) Nitrate
Nonahydrate Fe(NO3)3 0 0.004 0.077
Cupric Sulfate CuSO4 0 0.008 0.033

Estimated TDS (ppm) 0 124 1,008

The solutions were tested as feed water, before entering the reverse osmosis

system. The tests were performed using test strips where color hue and intensity can

quantify chemical concentrations in the water, though the overall test is qualitative,

determining whether the water is safe to drink or not.. The test results are summarized in

Table 2.5, indicating where levels can be considered high/low or unsafe. Figure 2.3

shows the resulting test strips, before on the left and after on the right with the test key to

compare.

Table 2.5: Water Quality Test Results

Results
Solution 1: Low Solution 2: Mid-Range Solution 3: High
Test Before After Before After Before After
pH 4 (caution) 8 6 (caution) 8.5 5 (caution) 8.5
Total
Alkalinity 40 (low) 120 60 (low) 180 50 (low) 180
Total
Chlorine 0.2 0.1 0 0 0.1 0
 55

Table 2.5: Continued

Results
Solution 1: Low Solution 2: Mid-range Solution 3: High
Test Before After Before After Before After
Total
Hardness 50 10 (soft) 50 10 (soft) 300 (hard) 10 (soft)
Iron 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.03
Copper 0 0 0 0 0.5 0
Nitrate 0 0 0 0 8 0
Nitrite 0 0 0 0 0 0

Figure 2.3: Water Quality Test Result Strips

Generally, each solution before going through the reverse osmosis system had low

pH and total alkalinity. Solution 3 had high total hardness. After going through the

system, the permeate water was tested to be safe drinking water, having ideal pH, total
 56

alkalinity, and low concentrations for total chlorine, total hardness, iron, copper, nitrates,

and nitrites. As expected, the reverse osmosis system produces safe drinking water.

With the proper test equipment, salt rejection and recovery could be measured

accurately. Based on observation, the rate of intake of the feed water and rate of output

of permeate were roughly the same, about 125 mL/min. Also, roughly 2.8 L of permeate

were recovered from the feed water volume of 3 L for each of the three test solutions,

giving a recovery of approximately 93%. This high recovery is due to the relatively low

concentration of total dissolved solids in the feed water. With increasing concentration,

the recovery will decrease.

2.5 Next Steps

2.5.1 PV Component

The reverse osmosis system was assembled and tested. Next steps include

building/assembling a solar panel to power the pump. The pump can directly be powered

by a PV system capable of supplying a load of 24 VDC.

Single solar cells can be obtained and arranged in a circuit to supply the required

electricity to run the pump. The resulting photovoltaic panel can be made flexible for

convenience and portability.

The RO system capacity of 50 GPD is significantly less than the previously

calculated 1 MGD system. The same calculations, however, can be applied to determine

the required area needed for the PV system to produce the electricity to run the RO

system. Analogous to the calculations in Table 1.26, the values listed in Table 2.6 show

the approximated size of PV panel needed to supple the 50 GPD RO system. This is

assuming that the RO production of fresh water and energy consumption are scalable.
 57

The calculation results show that about four by four feet square is the area needed, a

feasible and manageable size.

Table 2.6: PV System Requirements for 50 GPD RO

RO System Capacity 50 gal

Fresh Water Production 0.19 m3
Energy Required 0.80 kWh
1.36 m2
Area Required
14.6 ft2

Once the PV panel is assembled and used to power the pump, the solar-powered

reverse osmosis system can be taken to a fresh water source, a local lake or river, and be

used to filter the water. The water produced should be of safe quality drinking water.

This will be a proof of concept demonstration, assuming there is no energy lost.

However, in reality, energy lost will need to be considered. Moreover, a battery will be

needed to restore the solar electricity harvest at the hours of the peak solar power for the

usage at later or evening time.

2.5.2 Additional Testing

In addition to water quality tests, other measurements can be taken to determine

the overall efficiency of the system. The efficiency of the system will be a ratio of the

theoretical energy required to desalinate the water and the actual energy required to

desalinate the water, the equation shown below.

The theoretical energy is the minimum power input required to produce fresh water. This

can be calculated using the equation below, which calculates the minimum work required

to produce fresh water24:

 58

( )
[ ( (( )
)

( ) ( ) ( )
(( )
) ) ( ( )
) ( ( )
) ] 24

where Ru is the universal gas constant (kJ/kmol K), T0 is the temperature of the incoming

water (K), Mproduct is the mass of the produced fresh water (kg), χs is the mole fraction of

salt, and χw is the mole fraction of water. The work is in units of kJ/kg of fresh water

produced. Multiplying the minimum work by the mass flow rate of the produced water

(kg/s) will give the minimum power input in kW. This will be the theoretical energy.

The mole fraction of salt and water of each of the three solutions, the feed water,

the produced water, and the brine, can be determined based on the solution

concentrations. A conductivity meter can be used to measure the conductivity of the

solutions, which is proportional to the ion concentration of the solutions.

The actual energy is the electrical consumption of the pump. Knowing the pump

potential (24 VDC for this system) and the current of the PV system, the power

consumption can be determined. With all these measurements, the overall efficiency of

the system can be calculated.

Chapter 3: Emergency Application Design

3.1 Single Element Design

There are several applications a solar-powered reverse osmosis system can be

used for such as commercially, on sea vessels, or residentially. Also, with a small

system, such as the 50 GPD system, a light-weight compact design can have other

applications. A portable solar-powered reverse osmosis system can be used in remote

locations near natural water sources, such as for camping, military, and emergency

purposes.

A flexible photovoltaic panel is ideal for portable purposes. The option to fold or

roll the panel allows for easy storage. Also, the 50 GPD system requires only a one-half

foot square panel.

The reverse osmosis component does need to be optimized. The chosen pump

should be as small and light-weight as possible while still having a high pressure

capability. Also, the five stages can be compacted and combined into a single element.

A ―tube within a tube‖ design would work. The pre-filtration stages can be combined

into a single filter, which would consist of the inner-most tube. Surrounding that would

be the thin film reverse osmosis membrane, configured as a hollow tube. Surrounding

the membrane would be the last filter. A cutaway schematic of the ―tube within a tube‖

design is shown in Figure 3.1. These components layered as such combines the five

stages into one element, requiring its own housing. This housing will be configured

much in the same way as the standard filter housing with the inlet concentrated water

feed in the center and the purified fresh water collecting at the outlet. An exploded view

of the single element housing design is shown in Figure 3.2. The end cap is fully

59
 60

connected to the housing body, but cut of in the view to show the grooves to hold the

single element and O-ring for a tight seal. Figure 3.3 shows the single element design

with its housing.

Figure 3.1: Tube within a tube design

Figure 3.2: Single element housing design

 61

Figure 3.3: Single element with housing

Considerations for the single element design are the life time on each filter. The

pre-filter, membrane, and post-filter parts should have close to the same life times to

ensure maximum usage of the materials, since all three filters combine in a single part to

be replaced at one time. Also, the housing may include a blockable output for buildup

brine that can be opened and flushed to prevent highly concentrated solutions. Excess

buildup will put unnecessary stress on the system, making it less effective over time.

The dimensions of this single element reverse osmosis system should be

determined by the membrane size. The active surface area of the membrane correlates to

the permeate flow capacity. In this specific case, a flow capacity of 50 GPD is used.

Data from Filmtec was used to determine the relationship between membrane active

surface area and permeate flow rate, shown in Table 3.1. Data was given for three

commercial and light industrial reverse osmosis membrane model types: TW30/BW30

high rejection series, XLE low pressure series, and LP low energy/high solute rejection
 62

series. The three series were plotted, as shown in Graph 3.1, and trend lines added to

determine a linear relationship. Given the desired flow capacity, the active surface area

of the membrane can be calculated.

Table 3.1: Membrane Surface Area and Permeate Flow Capacity

Active Surface Area Permeate Flow Capacity

Model
ft2 m2 GPD m3/day
Filmtec TW30/BW30 Series High Rejection Commercial & Light Industrial RO
Membranes
Filmtec TW30-2514 7 0.7 200 0.76
Filmtec TW30-2026 7 0.7 220 0.83
Filmtec TW30-2521 13 1.2 325 1.23
Filmtec TW30-4014 20 1.9 525 1.99
Filmtec TW30-2540 28 2.6 850 3.2
Filmtec BW30-2540 28 2.6 850 3.2
Filmtec TW30-4021 36 3.3 900 3.4
Filmtec TW30-4040 78 7.2 2400 9.1
Filmtec XLE Series Low Pressure Commercial & Light Industrial RO Membranes
Filmtec XLE-2521 13 1.2 365 1.38
Filmtec XLE-2540 28 2.6 850 3.2
Filmtec XLE-4021 36 3.3 1025 3.9
Filmtec XLE-4040 87 8.1 2600 9.8
Filmtec LP Series Low Energy/High Solute Rejection Commercial & Light Industrial
RO Membranes
Filmtec LP-2540 28 2.6 1000 3.8
Filmtec LP-4040 78 7.2 2900 11
 63

Graph 3.1: Membrane Surface Area and Permeate Flow Capacity

100

90
y = 0.0337x
80 y = 0.0336x
y = 0.027x
Active Surface Area (ft2)

70

60

50 TW30/BW30
XLE
40
LP
30

20

10

0
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
Permeate Flow Capacity (GPD)

Table 3.2 shows the approximate active surface area of membrane needed for a

permeate flow capacity of 50 GPD for the three model types, which is 1.35 ft2 for the

TW30/BW30 series, 1.685 ft2 for the XLE series, and 1.68 ft2 for the LP series.

Table 3.2: Membrane Surface Area for 50 GPD System

Needed Capacity (GPD) 50

2
Surface Area (ft )
TW30/BW30 1.35
XLE 1.685
LP 1.68

For this, the dimensions of the single element reverse osmosis system can be

designed. If the membrane is made to be one foot, or 12 inches, the radius and diameter
 64

of a tube configured membrane can be calculated, as shown in Table 3.3. The

TW30/BW30 series gives the smallest dimensions. A tube configured membrane that is

1 foot in length would need to be approximately 5 inches in diameter to have a flow rate

of 50 GPD.

Table 3.3: Dimensions for Membrane in 1 ft Tube Configuration

Radius (ft) (in) (cm)

TW30/BW30 0.214859 2.57831 6.548908
XLE 0.268176 3.218113 8.174007
LP 0.26738 3.208564 8.149752
Diameter (ft) (in) (cm)
TW30/BW30 0.429718 5.15662 13.09782
XLE 0.536352 6.436226 16.34801
LP 0.534761 6.417127 16.2995

Combined with the filters within, and surrounding, this single element housing

can be approximated to be 1 foot in length and 6 inches in diameter, an entirely feasible

size for a portable system. This single element along with the pump, rollable PV panel,

and other necessary components, such as valves and tubing, can feasibly be stored

together in a light-weight, sealable tube. This tube, containing everything necessary to

provide quality drinking water, can be easily stored and carried, a strap can even be

attached.

During an emergency situation, a 50 GPD system can provide drinking water to

approximately 95 people, estimating that each person consumes about 2 liters (about 0.53

gallons) of water per day. Using a pump with a higher capacity will provide more water

and can be used by more people. Needing only sunlight to run, such a device will be

beneficial.
References

1. El-Dessouky, H.T. and Ettouney, H.M. Fundamentals of Salt Water

Desalination. New York: Elsevier, 2002.

2. http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldpopgraph.php (4.4.2011 12:18pm

PDT)

3. Household Water Conservation. Penn State, College of Agricultural Sciences,

Agricultural Research and Cooperative Extension (2008).

4. Residential Water Use Summary. AWWARF Residential End Uses of Water

study. Aquacraft, Inc. and American Water Works Association Research
Foundation, 1999.

5. The World’s Water, Pacific Institute. The World’s Water 2008-2009.

6. Carle, David. Introduction to Water in California. Los Angeles: University of

California Press, 2009.

7. Lightbucket. Large scale desalination: is there enough energy to do it? Blog at

WorldPress.com, April 4, 2008.

8. Lattemann, Sabine. Development of an Environmental Impact Assessment and

Decision Support System for Seawater Desalination Plants. The Netherlands:
CRC Press/Balkema, 2010.

9. Cooley, Heather; Gleick, Peter H.; Wolff, Gary. Desalination, With a Grain of
Salt: A California Perspective. June 2006

10. Johnzactruba. How Desalination by Multi-stage Flash Distillation Works. Lamar

Stonecypher, Bright Hub Inc., December 23, 2009.

11. Water-technology.net. Umm Al Nar Desalination Plant, Abu Dhabi, United Arab
Emirates. Net Resources International, 2011.

12. Entropie Company. Multiple Effect Distillation (MED). Veolia Water Solutions
& Technologies – Water Treatment Specialist, 2010.

65
 66

13. Wangnick, K. 2004 IDA Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory No. 18.
Wangnick Consulting, June 2004.

14. Cipollina, Andrea; Micale, Giorgio; Rizzuti, Lucio. Seawater Desalination,

Conventional and Renewable Energy Processes. New York: Spinger, 2009.

15. Thermal Water Dissociation. H2 Power Systems Ltd

16. Natural Gas Issues and Trends 1998. EIA – U.S. Energy Information
Administration.

17. J. Goldenberg, T.B. Johansson, Eds. World Energy Assessment Overview, 2004
Update. United Nations Development Programme, New York, 2004.

18. California Energy Commission, 2009 Integrated Energy Policy Report, Final
Commission Report, December 2009, CEC-100-2009-003-CMF.

19. Pvresources® Copyright Denis Lenardic, 2011.

http://www.pvresources.com/en/top100pv.php

20. Miller, Eric and Rocheleau, Richard. Photoelectrochemical Hydrogen

Production. Proceedings of the 2000 Hydrogen Program Review. NREL/CP-
570-28890.

21. James, Brian D.; Baum, George N.; Perez, Julie; Baum, Kevin N.
Technoeconomic Analysis of Photoelectrochemical (PEC) Hydrogen Production.
Directed Technologies Inc., December 2009.

22. Bansal, A., Khaselev O., Turner, J.A. Photoelectrochemical System Studies.
Proceeding of the 2000 DOE Hydrogen Program Review. NREL/CP-570-28890.

23. http://solar.ucsd.edu/

24. Cerci, Yunus, et.al. Improving the Thermodynamic and Economic Efficiencies of
Desalination Plants: Minimum Work Required for Desalination and Case Studies
of Four Working Plants. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation,
Technical Service Center, Environmental Services Division, Water Treatment
Engineering and Research Group, D-8230. November 2003.