Overview on Seawater Distillation Technologies

Paper prepared for the meeting

“Jornada sobre la dessalació d’aigües”
organized by
Commissió de Medi Ambient
and
Associació d'
Enginyers Industrials de Catalunya

Barcelona, May 3rd 2005

Dario Breschi
 SUMMARY

1. Introduction
1.a. Scope of the document
1.b. Market share of seawater distillation technologies

2. Review of seawater distillation processes

2.a. Multi-stage Flash Distillation
2.a.1 Brine recirculation scheme
2.a.2 Once through scheme
2.a.3 Cross-tube Vs. long-tube arrangement
2.b. Multi-Effect Distillation
2.b.1 Spray film ME distillation - basic arrangement
2.b.2 Performance increase by vapour recycle for MED evaporators: MVC
and TVC

3. Analysis of the basic parameters for the specification of seawater distillation

units

4. Comparative cost analysis of different selections

2
1. Introduction

1.a. Scope of the document

Seawater distillation is still nowadays the best-proven and most widespread seawater
desalination process worldwide, even if membrane technology has been dramatically
improved, in terms of increased reliability and reduced energy consumption, over the last
ten years. It is therefore of paramount importance for engineers, operators and decision
makers involved in the water supply business to understand the merits, limitations and
applicability range of the different seawater distillation technologies at today’s state of the
art. The scope of these notes is just to provide some basic guidelines on this subject.

1.b. Market share of seawater distillation technologies

Distillation processes still hold a very strong market position in seawater desalination
industry. More than 54% of the total seawater desalination capacity contracted within the
past 10 years is made of thermal plants, of which some 76 % are MSF plants. Most of the
large projects currently underway involve a thermal process.

Since seawater distillation is cost effective when low-grade steam is available as main
energy source, thermal processes are less used in countries where the coupling with power
stations is not possible or difficult. On the other hand, almost 100% of the largest
desalination plants in the Arabian Peninsula are based on distillation, as in those countries
the power and water cogeneration prevails. Some 76 % (11,880,000 m3/d) of all thermal
plants (15,700,000 m3/d) are installed on the Arabian Peninsula, with the United Arab
Emirates having the largest installed or contracted capacity with 4,800,000 m3/d, followed
by Saudi Arabia with 4,000,000 m3/d.

Figure 1.1 below shows the worldwide distribution of total desalination installed capacity,
while figure 1.2 depicts the share of the different technologies in the world regions. The
source in both cases is Wangnick Consulting GmbH.

3
 Figure 1.1 - Total contracted desalination capacity vs. region

100%

90%
MSF
80% TVC-MVC
MED
70% RO
OTHERS
Proportion of proceses %

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
World Europe Middle East Asia Africa

Figure 1.2 - Distribution of desalination technologies in the world regions

4
2. Review of seawater distillation processes

Many different processes have been conceived and experienced for the conversion of
seawater to fresh water, with a wide range of purpose, application, capacity, reliability and
cost. In this study, only the seawater distillation processes that have shown to be reliable
and cost effective in severe industrial applications are considered, namely:

Multi-stage Flash Distillation (MSF);

Multi-Effect Distillation featuring horizontal tube, thin film evaporation (MED)
MED with vapour recirculation by a Thermo Compressor (MED-TVC);
Single or Multi-effect Distillation with Mechanical Vapour Compression (MVC).

Distillation is defined as a process in which a portion of a solution is first made to

evaporate, the vapour being subsequently condensed by a cooler medium. In the case of
uncontaminated seawater, distillation is an effective means of separating the solvent from
solute components, as volatility of constituents other than H2O is negligible and the liquid-
vapour interface may be considered practically impermeable to salt components up to
about 150°C. Multi-effect distillation is historically the older application in this field, as it
was first experienced about 1930, but its first applications, submerged-type evaporators
having two to four effects and capacity in the order of a few m³/day, were prone to severe
scale formation and their diffusion was limited to shipboard units.

The first introduction of the flash evaporators was with a small number of stages, similarly
to the multi-effect units. The recognition in the late fifties of the unjustified limitation of
the number of stages from both the thermodynamic and the economic point of view was a
breakthrough to improved performances and higher production capacity. MSF process has
nowadays gained a predominant role in seawater distillation. More recently, multi-effect
process has however received a significant improvement, by the introduction of thin-film
spray evaporators in lieu of submerged tube construction (dramatically decreasing the scale
formation phenomena and improving thermodynamic performances) and often including a
thermo compressor or a mechanical vapour compressor.

The reasons for the still predominant selection of seawater distillation units worldwide, in
particular in the power industry, may be resumed as follows:

a) Distillation processes produce water at high purity (having a residual salinity in the order
of 1-2 ppm), not dependent on salinity of feed seawater, while membrane processes are
strongly dependent on seawater TDS and composition and require more passes to produce
permeate having the adequate purity.

b) The main energy consumption of seawater distillation units is the heat input by low-grade
steam (in the range 0.5 to 4.5 bar abs), always available at comparatively low cost in
thermal power stations as bleed or exhaust from steam turbines.

c) Seawater distillation plants are much less sensitive to seawater quality than desalination
units based on membranes, for which seawater pre-treatment is a very critical issue.

d) Operation and maintenance costs, in the context of a power station, are generally lower for
seawater distillation units than for membrane units.

5
 2.a Flash Distillation
The modern version of multi-stage flash distillation is comparatively new, having been
invented in the late 1950's, although before that time the principle of flash distillation had
been known. The final development to the present MSF configuration is credited to
Professor R. S. Silver, who worked as a design engineer at Weir Westgarth (UK). Probably
the first true example of a modern MSF arrangement can be found in the installation
supplied by Weir Westgarth at Shuwaikh, Kuwait, in 1960. Since that time, MSF
distillation has gained a predominant position in the production of fresh water from
seawater: more than one half of total installed desalination capacity in the world is
nowadays based on MSF distillation, being this process largely predominant in the Middle
East.

Two main alternative process schemes are used in MSF practice: brine recirculation and
once through. Both are discussed in the following sections. An important constructive
feature of the MSF evaporator is related to the exchanger tube arrangement: the different
merits of cross tube and long tube arrangements are also discussed in this chapter.

2.a.1 Brine recirculation scheme

The MSF distillation system with brine recirculation can be subdivided, from the
functional point of view, in the following sections (see figure 2.a.1):

Heat Input Section (Brine Heater);

Heat Recovery Section;
Heat Reject Section.

The latter two sections are usually combined in the same vessel, called evaporator, and
consist in a number of flash chambers in series; the brine (concentrated sea water) flashes
at the bottom of each stage and the vapour released condenses on the outer surface of the
exchanger tubes installed in the upper part of each stage.

The process on which this kind of plant operates is based on the recycle of brine
(concentrated sea water) in the Recovery Section, where the latent heat of condensing
vapour is recovered by increasing the temperature of the brine recirculating within the
condensers tubes; in this way it is possible to obtain a high thermal efficiency of the
process.

The heat input to the system is supplied by incoming steam (usually at low pressure) to the
Brine Heater, a tube-bundle exchanger in which the temperature of the brine flowing in
tube side is raised by thermal exchange with condensing steam. The heated brine then
passes -through suitable orifices- to the first evaporator chamber (Heat Recovery Section),
where pressure is maintained by thermodynamic equilibrium at such a value (lower than
saturation with respect to the brine temperature at Brine Heater outlet) to allow flashing of
incoming brine, which therefore partially vaporizes. The vapour so released flows through
the demisters (where any droplet of entrained seawater is separated) and, transferring its
latent heat through the stage condenser to the recirculating brine, generates a stream of
distilled water, which falls in a suitable tray below the tube bundle and flows to the next
stage (see a schematic view of a MSF stage at figure 2.a.3). This process causes a decrease
in temperature of flashing brine and a corresponding increase in temperature of

6
recirculating brine (flowing inside condenser tubes), justifying for this reason the name of
'
Heat Recovery'given to this section.

The above process is repeated (at decreasing temperatures and pressures) for all the stages
of the Heat Recovery Section, by transferring unflashed brine to the lower temperature
stages. The brine then passes to flash in the stages of the Heat Reject Section, with a
distillation scheme similar to what above described, with the only difference that in this
case the cooling medium for condensation is cool seawater rather than recirculating brine.
In this way, the heat entered into the system in the Brine Heater is rejected to ambient at
low temperature.

The salt concentration of recirculating brine is kept at a value of about 65,000-70,000 ppm
by a continuous blowdown of concentrated brine and a congruent feed of make-up
seawater, which is deaerated and treated with anti-scale chemical additives prior entering
the evaporator.

After mixing, brine in the last stage is extracted by the brine recirculation pump and
delivered to the condenser tubes of the last recovery stage, where it acts as the cooling
medium for the vapour generated by the flashing brine in the same stage. Recirculating
brine then passes through the condenser tubes of the next stages, in a counter-current
manner, raising progressively its temperature by absorbing the latent heat of condensing
vapour, as previously described. This establishes a temperature profile increasing from the
reject section, through the recovery stages, to the brine heater.

In its counter-current flow inside exchanger tubes, recirculating brine is finally transferred
from the first stage condenser to the brine heater, where its temperature has to be raised
only by comparatively few degrees to allow continuing the thermodynamic cycle here
described.

The temperature of brine leaving the brine heater (top temperature) is in the range 90°C-
120°C (mainly depending on the type of antiscale treatment used), while its temperature in
the last stage is typically 6-10°C above seawater temperature. Corresponding vapour
saturation temperature in the flash chambers varies from 1.9 bar abs to 50 – 100 mbar abs:
this means that most evaporator chambers operate under vacuum. In order to maintain the
vacuum condition, air leakage and non-condensible gases released in the evaporator from
feed seawater (essentially air and CO2 formed by carbonates breakdown) have to be
continuously purged to atmosphere. The non-condensible gases are collected from each
stage by a suitable vent system and cascaded to the next stage or purged to atmosphere by
a vacuum group (formed by a multi-stage ejectors and condensers system).

7
2.a.2 Once through scheme
The main difference between the once through and the brine recirculation scheme is that in
the former, as suggested by the name itself, there is no recirculation of any portion of
flashed brine. Also in this case, the seawater entering the last stage condenser is heated by
passing in counter-current to the stages at higher temperature where recovery of the latent
heat occurs but, differently than in brine recirculation, it is transferred through all the stage
condensers up to the brine heater that in this case should be properly called ‘seawater
heater’. There is therefore in this case no distinction between Heat Recovery Section and
Heat Reject Section. After being heated by thermal exchange with condensing steam,
seawater is discharged to the evaporator flash chambers, where distillate is produced
similarly to what previously described. In the last chamber, all the brine is discharged as
blowdown. A simplified diagram of the once through arrangement is shown in figure 2.a.2.

The main advantages of the once through scheme in comparison to brine recirculation are
the reduced scale formation due to low brine concentration, a simpler operation and some
cost reduction. The disadvantages are related to the large quantity of raw seawater entered
in the evaporator, that implies a greater release of non-condensible gases with associated
corrosion potential, and also an increase in size and consumption of the vacuum system.
The once through system presents also reduced operation flexibility, as in this case it is not
possible to control independently the top temperature, the bottom temperature and the
distillate production. Probably due to the above constraints, the once through selection is
generally limited to small plants, while most of installed MSF units are of the brine
recirculation type.

8
2.a.3 Cross-tube Vs. long-tube arrangement
A major construction difference of flash evaporators that merits special consideration is the
orientation of condenser tubes with respect to the direction of the flashing brine flow. The
‘cross tube’ construction, as the name implies, has the tubes oriented in a direction
perpendicular to the brine flow, whereas the ‘long tube’ evaporator construction has the
condenser tubes installed parallel with the flow of flashing brine. For geometrical reasons,
the long tube evaporators are usually fabricated through several casings in series, each
having tube length in the range 20 - 28 m, tube diameter in the order of ¾” and including
up to ten stages for each casing.

As probably obvious, each of the two types of construction, seen from the points of view of
the designer, fabricator, end-user and operator, has its merits and disadvantages. As a
matter of fact, the majority of the MSF plants nowadays installed are of the cross tube type,
but this is probably due more to the preference (and greater experience) of most European
and Japanese manufacturers towards this type of construction rather than to its intrinsic
technical advantages with respect to the long tube.

A comparison between the two types of construction leads to the following observations:

a) The water boxes in the cross tube configuration are necessarily two for each stage,
while in the long tube their number is largely reduced (two water boxes for each five to
ten stages). The number of tube expansions in the latter case is consequently lower.
This implies a reduction in construction cost and lower power consumption, due to the
reduced head of brine recirculation pump, in the case of the long tube arrangement.

b) In the long tube configuration the length of the various stages and consequently the
heat exchange surface may be gradually varied according to the thermodynamic
requirements, while the constructive constraints of a cross tube evaporator do not allow
any variation of heat exchange surface from stage to stage.

c) The stages are narrower and longer for the long tube in comparison with the cross tube
configuration, with higher brine depth but longer residence time. As a result, the
flashing efficiency is not significantly different for the two cases.

d) The tube bundle is confined within each chamber for the cross tube, while in long tube
construction the tubes have to cross the inter-stage walls through suitable holes. Some
amount of vapour leakage necessarily occurs through the annular clearance between
tube and hole, which decreases somewhat the thermal efficiency of the system.

Due to its constructive characteristics, the long tube arrangement has a clear economic
advantage when installing a number of stages large in relation to the performance ratio. It
is therefore a favourable option when a high performance ratio (in the order of 12-15) is
specified: in this case, in fact, the cost for heat exchange surface becomes a key issue and
the possibility of selecting a comparatively large number of stages (40-50) is significant for
cost reduction.

A typical arrangement of a long-tube evaporator is presented in figure 2.a.4, while a cross-

tube evaporator section is shown in figure 2.a.3. Two examples of the tube arrangement
alternatives in subject are shown in the following pictures (figures 2.a.5 and 2.a.6).

9
Figure 2.a.1 - Flow Diagram of a Brine Recirculation MSF unit
Figure 2.a.2. - Flow diagram of a MSF Once Through unit

11
 Vent

Vapour Demister

Condenser

Distillate to i+1 Distillate to stage i

Brine to i+1
Flashing brine Brine from stage i-1

Stage i+1 Stage i Stage i-1

Brine transfer box

Figure 2.a.3 - Schematic view of a cross-tube MSF stage

12
Figure 2.a.4 - Long-tube evaporator arrangement

13
Fig. 2.a.5 - Cross-tube MSF evaporator during transportation

Fig. 2.a.6 - Long-tube MSF evaporator

14
2.b Multi-Effect Distillation
The principle of Multi-Effect Distillation (MED) consists in the recovery of the latent heat
released by condensation of the vapour flowing in each effect for the evaporation of
seawater in the subsequent effect. The main difference between MSF and MED schemes
(both being multiple-evaporation systems providing recovery of latent heat) consists just in
the way of recovering the condensation heat in each stage (effect): in a MSF unit, this heat
is recovered by increasing the temperature of recirculating brine, while in a MED unit it
causes the evaporation of a corresponding amount of seawater.

Various configurations for the MED system have been experienced, in relation to tube
bundle arrangement (horizontal or vertical), evaporation type (submerged tube or thin film)
and tube geometry (smooth or enhanced). The following general remarks are applicable on
this matter:

Experimental tests have shown that, when the evaporative heat exchange surface is
covered with only a thin liquid film in lieu of a water pool (as in submerged tube
evaporation), the heat transfer increases appreciably. This is because the hydrostatic
water level no longer suppresses boiling in the lower portion of the heat exchange
bundle and the vapour can therefore escape from the liquid more freely.

Since the condensing film heat transfer of vertical smooth tubes is poorer than in the
horizontal type, due to the resistance of the growing condensate film thickness that
covers the tube surfaces, smooth tubes for the Vertical Tube Evaporator (VTE)
application have not given appreciable results. For the VTE cycle to yield any
economic benefit over the commercially proven horizontal configuration, it should be
necessary to utilize in it enhanced evaporator tube configurations, that so far are
confined to pilot units.

The best-proven technology for multi-effect seawater desalination is the horizontal tube,
thin film evaporation type with parallel feed flow arrangement, described in detail in the
next paragraph.

15
2.b.1 Spray film ME distillation - basic arrangement

The horizontal tube version of the MED evaporator (HTE), in which seawater is sprayed
outside the tubes containing the condensing vapour, is also known commercially as the
Spray Film evaporator. As mentioned above, this arrangement presents several advantages
with respect to the other types of multi-effect evaporators, such as high heat transfer rate
with smooth tubes, simple spray nozzles arrangement and inherently compact evaporator
geometry.

The basic arrangement of a MED desalination unit with horizontal tube evaporator and
parallel feed flow is shown in figure 2.b.2 for the case of a four-effect evaporator with two
tube passes for each bundle. Each evaporator effect is typically formed by a horizontal tube
bundle, an array of seawater spray nozzles, one distillate box for each tube pass and a
vapour transfer duct, including the demister section. A typical transversal section of a
MED evaporator is shown in figure 2.b.1.

In the first effect, seawater is sprayed externally to the tube bundle by the spray nozzles
located in the upper part of the evaporator. The water falls down from each tube row to the
lower ones forming a thin film around each tube. Steam at slightly higher temperature
flows inside tubes. The feed water is pre-heated in the upper tube rows by thermal
exchange with steam condensing inside tubes, until reaching its equilibrium temperature
(depending on evaporator geometry and operating parameters) at which evaporation takes
place, the heat necessary to phase change being also supplied by condensing steam. The
steam condensate inside tubes is collected in the distillate boxes located at tubes outlet and
then cascaded to the subsequent effect by a suitable pipe arrangement. As only a part of
the water sprayed in each effect is evaporated, seawater brine is collected at the bottom of
each effect and cascaded to the subsequent, lower-pressure effect. At the same time, the
amount of vapour produced by sprayed seawater flows through the demisters, thus
removing any carryover of seawater droplets, and then enters into the tubes of the second
effect.

The process of vapour condensation - seawater evaporation is then repeated in each effect,
at decreasing temperatures and pressures. The obvious difference is that, starting from the
second effect, the production is no longer originated by condensation of inlet steam, but is
made by seawater distillate. Finally, the vapour produced in the last effect is led to an
external distillate condenser, formed typically by a tube-bundle heat exchanger cooled by
fresh sea water flowing in tube side, which has the purpose of rejecting to ambient the heat
input to the system. The whole distillate stream is collected in this condenser, then
extracted with a pump and delivered to storage. The concentrated brine, cascaded through
the effects and flash-cooled in order to recover its sensible heat, is finally returned to the
sea by the brine blowdown pump.

The seawater preheated in the tubes of the distillate condenser is subsequently used as feed
water to each effect. In order to increase the thermal efficiency of the system, further feed
water pre-heating for the high-temperature effects is typically achieved by using a portion
of the feed water as cooling medium for the vacuum condensers, as shown in figure 2.b.2.
In MED plants with high performance ratio, further regenerative pre-heating by vapour
bleed from low-temperature effects may be selected, in order to increase the amount of
heat input to the high-temperature effects.

16
 Brine temperature in the first effect has to be kept within about 65°C, in order to avoid
severe alkaline scale formation, which in falling film arrangement is favoured by the
comparatively high residence time of brine around tubes and by the presence of numerous
nucleation sites (vapour bubbles). For this reason, the steam entering the evaporator shall
be in saturation condition at very low pressure (in the order of 250 - 300 mbar abs): the
simple MED arrangement is therefore attractive when coupled to a steam cycle, as its low
top temperature allows to maximize the steam expansion through the upstream turbine.

2.b.2 Performance increase by vapour recycle for MED evaporators - MVC and TVC
In a simple MED unit as described at section 2.b.1, the Gained Output Ratio (production
over steam consumption) is, by a very rough approximation, equal to the number of
effects: for instance, an evaporator with ten effects will perform ten times the
condensation-evaporation cycle, thus obtaining a production equal to ten times the quantity
of inlet steam. A more accurate analysis reveals that not the whole quantity of latent heat
released by condensation inside tubes is effective for evaporation, as part of it shall pre-
heat the feed water in the upper tube rows. In practical cases, the actual GOR reached by
MED evaporators is in the order of 15-25% lower than the number of effects.

A method commonly used for increasing the performance of a MED evaporator is

recycling a part of the vapour produced in the last (coldest) effect back to the first (hottest)
effect. In such a way, the amount of external work spent to compress the vapour is
converted to distillation performance, as the latent heat release of the recycled vapour is
shifted to higher temperature and, consequently, to higher availability level. Two devices
may be used for vapour recycle: a mechanical compressor or a thermo compressor. In the
former case (MVC, Mechanical Vapour Compression), the main energetic consumption of
the multi-effect distillation unit is represented by the electric absorption of the compressor,
while there is no steam requirement. This kind of plant has however an inherent size
limitation (in the order of 3,000 m³/day) due to maximum allowable tip velocity of the
compressor blades, while the mechanical compressor itself represents a limitation in plant
reliability. A simplified scheme related to a MVC unit with two effects is shown in figure
2.b.3.

The MED-TVC alternative, utilizing a thermo compressor for vapour recycle, is shown in
figure 2.b.4. As well known, the thermo compressor (a kind of ejector, or jet compressor)
is a device that exploits the available enthalpy of inlet steam to compress some quantity of
gas at comparatively low pressure. In the case of MED-TVC, the thermo compressor
suction is connected to the coldest evaporator effect and steam-vapour is discharged to the
first effect, thus recycling a part of produced vapour to a higher availability level. The
compression ratio at which the thermo-compressor operates in this case is usually in the
range 1.9 to 3.3, and the ratio of motive to suction pressure is always above the critical
value, thus leading to a transonic flow in the motive nozzle.

The advantage of vapour recycle in MED evaporators is related to the more efficient
utilization of the enthalpy level at which steam is usually made available even in low-
pressure headers of power stations, where pressure is 10 to 100 times higher than vapour
pressure in the evaporator. In the MED-TVC arrangement, in fact, available energy is
converted to mechanical work before being used for heat transfer, while the alternative of
simply reducing steam pressure by valve throttling would imply costly availability
destruction, with associated entropy production.

17
18

Figure 2.b.1 - Transversal section of a MED evaporator

Figure 2.b.2 - Flow Diagram of a Spray Film MED unit with parallel feed flow
Figure 2.b.3 - Flow Diagram of a MVC unit

20
Figure 2.b.4 - Flow Diagram of a Spray Film MED-TVC unit

21
3. Analysis of the basic parameters for the specification of seawater distillation units

When specifying a new desalination plant, composed by one or more units, to be installed
within a power station, the following issues should be considered:
a) Required product water characteristics;
b) Existing space constraints;
c) Inlet steam characteristics;
d) Inlet seawater characteristics:
minimum, maximum and process design temperature,
available flow rate,
chemical analysis, including TDS, TSS, alkalinity and potential content of
contaminants;
maximum discharge temperature;
e) Thermal efficiency requested to the distiller;
f) Desalination process selection;
g) Availability requested to the desalination plant;
h) Material selection.

A detailed analysis of the above topics is presented in the following subsections.

a) Product water characteristics

Typical values for TDS of the distillate produced from seawater are in the range 1 to 2 ppm
in the most frequent evaporator arrangement with horizontal wire-mesh demisters
(guaranteed values are usually about 5 ppm in this case). Only in the case of MED
evaporators equipped with vertical, Chevron type demisters, the residual salinity may be
higher (within 10 ppm). The residual salinity in distillate is made up mostly by chlorides,
as it is originated by the carry over of seawater droplets through demisters. Oxygen content
in distillate should be below 50 ppb, while pH is usually in the range 6.2-6.8. Distillate is
generally passed through a mixed-bed unit to remove residual salinity before being used as
boiler make-up water.

b) Space constraints
Space constraints sometimes determine the selection of the desalination unit, especially
where it has to be installed in an existing station. The designer has some degrees of
freedom in selecting the footprint of the plant (e.g., it may be extended in one direction or
reduced to a square) and, in the case of MSF, a double-deck arrangement may be
considered.

22
c) Inlet steam characteristics
Steam (usually from turbine bleed) feeds the desalination plant in most cases at two
pressure levels, low pressure as main heat input and medium pressure as motive steam for
vacuum ejectors. Minimum steam pressure requirements are in the range 1.5 - 3.0 bar abs
(according to the selected top brine temperature) for MSF, 0.5 bar abs for the MED
distiller and about 4.5 bar abs for the case of MED with thermo compressor.

d) Inlet seawater characteristics

The design value of seawater temperature for process calculations has to be included in the
technical specification of the desalination plant, as the performance guarantees are related
to this temperature.

The quantity of seawater available for cooling should be carefully considered when
specifying a desalination unit. Seawater is usually supplied by the main header of the
power plant and, given the rating of the pump station, the flow rate available at the tie-in of
the desalination unit is determined by the balance of all other connected circuits. It can be
easily verified that a distiller with high thermal efficiency exhibits a comparatively low
ratio of seawater consumption over production and vice-versa, so the GOR specified for a
thermal desalination plant should be checked also on the available seawater flow rate.

The value of salt content of seawater (TDS, Total Dissolved Solids) should always be
included in the technical specification of a desalination plant. In the case of distillers, it is
the basis for determining the feed water flow rate to the evaporator, with the purpose of
keeping the brine blowdown TDS within acceptable limits (a high brine concentration
would accelerate scale formation). Typical values for seawater TDS are between 35,000
ppm and 43,000 ppm, while brine blowdown TDS should always be maintained within the
value of 70,000 ppm.

e) Thermal efficiency
The thermal efficiency of a distiller is commonly expressed by the Gained Output Ratio,
defined as the ratio between the mass flow rate of distillate production and inlet steam.
Typical values of GOR for commercial seawater distillation units are between 6 and 9,
though in some plants the GOR has reached the value of 16.
The definition of the “optimum” value for the thermal efficiency of a distillation unit
(either multi-stage flash or multi effect) is strictly connected to the problem of minimizing
the cost of produced water. Specifying high efficiency implies selecting a high number of
stages or effects and a large heat exchange surface, i.e. a comparatively expensive plant,
which on the other hand will require low operating costs. The curves in figure 3.1 show the
dependence of the cost of produced water on the design efficiency (defined in this case
through the performance ratio) of the distillation plant, for various values of steam cost.
The cost of water is calculated taking into account both investment and operating cost,
assuming a plant life of 20 years and an interest rate of 8% per year. The exercise is made
considering one MSF unit rated at 25,000 m³/day. It should be noted that, being the actual
cost of water in a real case strongly dependent on the specific technical and financial
constraints of the project, this analysis has merely the purpose of highlighting the relative
importance of the main parameters determining water cost, and is therefore not aimed for
providing cost figures having a general applicability.

23
These curves clearly show the role of the steam cost in determining both the economic
viability of a seawater distillation project and the optimum plant efficiency. The locus of
minimum water cost encompasses a wide range of performance ratio (from 6 to above 13)
in relation to steam cost. At low steam charges, the sensitivity of product water cost
towards plant efficiency becomes modest (the curves tend to be flat), while the importance
of the financial terms of the project prevails.
The value of 10 $/ton may be representative of the cost of steam produced in a European
country by a dedicated boiler. The corresponding water cost is above commercial
acceptability, and this solution is in fact not in use. On the opposite side, the figure of one
dollar per ton is in the order of the cost of low-pressure steam produced in a recovery
boiler and expanded through a backpressure turbine, as in the case of water and power
cogeneration. In the intermediate situation of a distillation unit installed in a power station,
the steam is fed typically by a turbine bleed. The cost of steam in this case should be
determined considering the loss of revenue consequent to the decrease in electric output
during the economic life of the plant.

Figure 3.1 - Cost of water versus Performance Ratio

3.0

2.5 Steam at 10 $/t

8 $/t
2.0
Cost of water ($/cu.m)

6 $/t

1.5
4 $/t
3 $/t
1.0

1 $/t

0.5

0.0
5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Performance Ratio

24
f) Desalination process selection
The selection among MSF, MED, MED-TVC and MVC seawater distillation processes
should be based on the considerations listed below (see also table 3.1, summarizing the
main characteristics of the different technologies).

available steam pressure: comparatively high pressures favour the selection of a MED-
TVC distiller, because the thermo compressor allows the utilization of high pressure
levels, while its effectiveness decreases at low motive steam pressure;

electric consumption: MED distiller have a specific electric consumption in the order
of 1 ÷ 2 kWh/m³ product, while for MSF units typical values are in the range 1 ÷ 4
kWh/m³ (the lowest value being typical of a unit featuring a turbine-driven brine
recirculation pump);

possible space constraints (an MSF unit has usually a lower land requirement than
other process selections);

plant availability considerations, as discussed at item (g) below;

cost considerations, as discussed in the following section.

Table 3.1 - Comparison among main seawater distillation technologies

MED-
Unit MSF MED TVC MVC
Electric consumption kWh/m³ 1÷4 1÷2 1÷2 8 ÷ 14
Thermal consumption kJ/kg 190 ÷ 400 300 ÷ 400 190 ÷ 400 none
Seawater consumption m³/m³ 5 ÷ 11 8 ÷ 11 5 ÷ 11 2.5 ÷ 4.5
Product purity ppm 1 ÷ 10 1 ÷ 10 1 ÷ 10 1 ÷ 10
Maximum production per unit1 m³/day 75,000 12,000 22,000 3,000

NOTE: the specific consumption values listed above are referred to the distillate
production.

1
According to author'
s knowledge on installed or contracted plants.

25
g) Availability requested to the desalination plant
The main reasons for the outage of a seawater distillation plant are in principles the
following:
equipment and piping corrosion;
scale deposit formation.

A corrosion-free operation of seawater distillation units can be achieved (and is actually

achieved in most plants supplied during the last twenty years, after that utilization of
austenitic stainless steel in lieu of carbon steel for evaporator shell and titanium for
exchanger tubes wetted by raw seawater has become a common practice) provided that
some basic issues in design, construction, operation and maintenance are properly
addressed. Reference is made to item (j) below for a review of recommended material
selection.
Plant outages consequent to scale formation are unavoidable in the case of organic
polymers injection, due to the necessity of periodic acid cleanings. The time interval
between acid cleanings is typically in the order of ten to twelve months for commercial
MED plants, while it can exceed two years in the case of MSF unit with ball cleaning
system of exchanger tubes. No acid cleaning is normally necessary in the case of MSF
units with acid dosing in feed water, with consequent plant availability increase. Numerical
values for the availability of a thermal desalination unit, depending on the degree of
equipment redundancy and on the above-mentioned issues, are typically in the range 0.90
to 0.98.

h) Material selection
A list of recommended materials for the main components of MSF and MED plants, based
on author' s experience and on available literature, is presented in table 3.2. In most cases,
the listed materials are nowadays normally specified in international tenders and may be
considered as a proven selection for seawater distillers.

26
 Table 3.2 - Recommended material selection for desalination plants

MSF evaporator
Item Basic selection Alternative selection
Shell plates (stages above 80°C) 316L stainless steel
Shell plates (stages below 80°C) 316L stainless steel
Interstage walls and brine weirs 316L stainless steel
Demisters 316 stainless steel
Exchanger tubes - Recovery section 90/10 Copper Nickel
Exchanger tubes - Reject section Titanium 70/30 Copper Nickel
Tube plates - Water boxes 90/10 Copper Nickel
Shell external reinforces Carbon Steel 304L stainless steel
Brine Heater
Item Basic selection Alternative selection
Shell Carbon steel
Exchanger tubes 90/10 Copper Nickel 70/30 Copper Nickel
Tube plates 90/10 Copper Nickel 70/30 Copper Nickel
Water boxes 90/10 Copper Nickel
MED evaporator
Item Basic selection Alternative selection
Shell 316L stainless steel
Exchanger tubes (top rows) Titanium
Exchanger tubes (other rows) Al Brass Titanium
Tube plates 316L stainless steel
Demisters 316L stainless steel
Thermo compressor
Steam nozzle, head and diffuser 316L stainless steel
Condensers
Item Basic selection Alternative selection
Shell 254 SMO2 Alloy 904L
Exchanger tubes Titanium
Tube plates 90/10 Copper Nickel 254 SMO
Water boxes 90/10 Copper Nickel 254 SMO
Pumps
Item Case Impeller
Brine recirculation 316L stainless steel or 316L stainless steel
Ni-D3B Cast Iron
Brine blowdown Ditto Ditto
Distillate extraction 316L stainless steel 316L stainless steel
Piping
Item Basic selection Alternative selection
Raw seawater FRP (RTR)
Brine (below 80°C) 316L stainless steel FRP
Brine (above 80°C) 90/10 Copper Nickel
Distillate 316L stainless steel FRP

2
316L for the Distillate Condenser

27
 4. Comparative cost analysis of different selections

4.a Investment cost

Although seawater distillation is a mature technology and its industrial application is about
fifty years old, the installation cost of distillation plants (in particular MSF units) is still
experiencing a continuing decrease in installation costs. Among the main reasons for such
cost reduction, we mention the following:
Purchasers’ specifications are more and more tailored on the real operational needs of the
desalination plant, in terms of reliability, maintainability and durability, avoiding useless
and costly over-specifications;
Unit sizes for both MSF and MED have been more than doubled over the last decade, with
an obvious scale-up saving;
The chemical products used for scale control have been greatly improved in recent years,
thus allowing to reduce the design fouling factor for seawater distillers, with a consequent
reduction in the heat exchange surface;
More cost-effective design solutions have been introduced by manufacturers (e.g.,
reduction of tube thickness, increased exploitation of non-traditional materials such as
GRP or Duplex stainless steel);
A major incentive for the suppliers of desalination plants to reduce costs is given by the
increased global competition.

The reduction in installation cost and the increased reliability of distillation plants are the
main reasons for the constant decrease, as experienced over the last decades, of the cost of
water produced by distillation plants, as shown by the curve in figure 4.13.

Figure 4.1 - MSF product unit cost over time

3
Review of the Current State of Desalination, Water Policy Working Paper 2005-008, January 2005.

28
4.b Water production cost

In order to provide an outlook on the various components forming the production cost in
the case of seawater distillation, a water costing exercise related to three significant cases
is developed in this section. It is assumed in our exercise that the reference distillers are
coupled to a condensation power cycle and are fed by a steam turbine extraction.

When assessing the operating cost of a desalination plant, a major issue is related to the
selection of the most consistent method for allocating the cost of both thermal and
electrical energy. From the point of view of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, a
suitable way to express the energetic efficiency of a desalination unit is to refer to the
‘available energy’ consumption. In this way, it is possible to consider in a consistent
manner both the heat input and the work input to the system in evaluating its efficiency,
and also to compare different type of desalination plants. For the limited purpose of the
present analysis, the energetic efficiency of a desalination unit fed by exhaust steam will be
rated in a less general and heuristic manner, simply considering the net deficit in electric
output of the coupled power cycle due to the production of water. The “harmonized
electric consumption” corresponds in this case to the power production loss consequent to
steam extraction plus the absorption of auxiliaries. Though not rigorous, this method
allows an easy and global evaluation of various alternatives for distillation plants installed
in power stations.

Table 4.1 shows the results of a comparison among a ‘reference’ cross-tube MSF
desalination plant (case A), a higher efficiency, long-tube MSF unit with BRP driven by a
steam turbine (Case B) and a MED-TVC distiller (Case C).

Table 4.2 and figure 4.2 show the calculation of the total cost of produced water for the
above cases. The main financial and economic parameters assumed for this comparison are
the following:

Plant economic life: 20 years

Yearly interest rate: 6%
Cost of electric energy: 0.041 Euro/kWh

29
 Table 4.1 - Performance comparison of different seawater distillers

Case A B C
Technology MSF Cross tube MSF Long tube MED-TVC
Production per unit m3/h 1.000 1.000 1.000
Total no. of units 4 4 4
Plant availability 95,0% 97,0% 96,0%
Feed treatment Anti scale / BCS Acid Anti scale
Number of stages/effects 20 48 6
Top Temperature °C 110 112 65
MP steam pressure at B.L. bar abs 6,0 6,0 6,0
MP steam temperature at B.L °C 261 261 261
MP steam enthalpy kJ/kg 2.980 2.980 2.980
MP steam consumption per unit kg/h 1.900 1.600 103.000
LP steam pressure at B.L. bar abs 2,0 2,0 2,0
LP steam temperature at B.L. °C 161 161 161
LP steam enthalpy kJ/kg 2.792 2.792 2.792
LP steam consumption per unit kg/h 122.000 68.000 0
Gained Output Ratio 8,1 14,4 9,7
Electric absorption of BRP per unit kW 1.620 1.620 0
Other electric absorption per unit kW 1.246 848 1.100
Total electric absorption per unit kW 2.866 2.468 1.100
Antiscale dosing rate on make-up
ppm 3,0 0,5 2,5
seawater

30
 Table 4.2 - Cost analysis of produced water in reference cases

Note: All data are related to a single unit

Case A B C
MSF MSF
Technology MED-TVC
Cross tube Long tube
Million
Estimated overall installation cost 21,6 22,8 20,1
Euro
Number of
hours 8.322 8.497 8.410
operating hours per year
Maintenance cost per year Euro 200.000 150.000 180.000
Specific investment cost per year Euro/m³ 0,23 0,23 0,21
MP specific cost per year Euro/m³ 0,01 0,01 0,41
LP specific cost per year Euro/m³ 0,31 0,17 0,00
Electric specific cost per year Euro/m³ 0,12 0,10 0,05
Chemicals specific cost per year Euro/m³ 0,03 0,03 0,02
Personnel specific cost per year Euro/m³ 0,02 0,02 0,02
Maintenance specific cost per year Euro/m³ 0,02 0,02 0,02
Total water cost Euro/m³ 0,73 0,58 0,72

31
 Figure 4.2
Distribution of total water cost for different distillation plants

0,80
Investment Chemicals
Personnel Maintenance
0,70
LP steam MP steam
Electric
0,60
Cost of produced water (Euro / m3)

0,50

0,40

0,30

0,20

0,10

0,00
M SF Cross tube M SF Long tube M ED-TVC

32