+ All Categories
Home > Documents > Detailed Estimation of Desalination System Cost

Detailed Estimation of Desalination System Cost

Date post: 27-Dec-2015
Category:
Upload: dademdd
View: 246 times
Download: 13 times
Share this document with a friend
Description:
Cost estimation
Popular Tags:
12
Detailed estimation of desalination system cost using computerized cost projection tools Robert P. Huehmer CH2M HILL, Desalination Global Technology Leader, Englewood, Colorado, USA Abstract For planners of new desalination plants, evaluating the potential capital and operating costs associated with the plant is a major concern. There exists a large volume of empirical data in the published literature. This data possesses significant scatter in terms of the costs of on a regional, capacity and year of construction. Several commercially available and/or non- proprietary desalination cost models currently exist in the desalination market. The cost models most frequently quoted in the grey literature are WTCost© and cost curves contained in the USBR publication entitled “Desalting Handbook for Planners”. Other models include Global Water Intelligence Desalination SWRO Cost Estimator, Desalination Economic Evaluation Program (DEEP), AUDESSY, WRA models and the Kawamura model. In this paper, the authors conduct a comparison of the results of WTCost II, GWI SWRO Cost Estimator and CH2M HILL’s proprietary cost model to identify the similarities, weaknesses and strengths of the models. The capital cost of several recent desalination plants, over a range of capacities, are compared to the cost projects made by the models. In general, the authors conclude that the models are adequate for a Class 5 cost estimate as defined by the Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating (AACE). The author also presents insights into the future of cost estimating. 1. Introduction In developing business cases for desalination, project planners and desalination engineers are required to provide cost estimates on a regular basis.There is signific-ant variability in the costs provided, depending upon the approach utilized. Of particular concern, is the lack of standardization in the reporting of both CAPEX and OPEX associated with seawater desalination plants. In the generation of capital cost estimates, one of several approaches is typically utilized, as illustrated in Table 1. Table 1. Cost Estimating Approaches utilized in seawater desalination The “swag” – a value provided by a knowledgeable individual. Often surprisingly accurate, it is based upon experience and historical costs. Type Tool “The Swag” Call an expert Empirical Models Desalination Handbook for Planners Literature Cost Curves Cost data bases Parametric Models GWI TM WT Cost II TM CH2M HILL CPES TM Factored Cost Models Material take-offs for major items, with factors applied Material Take-Off Detailed material take-off of design drawings using Timberline TM or other software and experienced estimators 26
Transcript

Detailed estimation of desalination system cost using computerized cost

projection tools

Robert P. Huehmer

CH2M HILL, Desalination Global Technology Leader, Englewood, Colorado, USA

Abstract

For planners of new desalination plants, evaluating the potential capital and operating costs

associated with the plant is a major concern. There exists a large volume of empirical data in

the published literature. This data possesses significant scatter in terms of the costs of on a

regional, capacity and year of construction. Several commercially available and/or non-

proprietary desalination cost models currently exist in the desalination market. The cost

models most frequently quoted in the grey literature are WTCost© and cost curves contained

in the USBR publication entitled “Desalting Handbook for Planners”. Other models include

Global Water Intelligence Desalination SWRO Cost Estimator, Desalination Economic

Evaluation Program (DEEP), AUDESSY, WRA models and the Kawamura model. In this

paper, the authors conduct a comparison of the results of WTCost II, GWI SWRO Cost

Estimator and CH2M HILL’s proprietary cost model to identify the similarities, weaknesses

and strengths of the models. The capital cost of several recent desalination plants, over a

range of capacities, are compared to the cost projects made by the models. In general, the

authors conclude that the models are adequate for a Class 5 cost estimate as defined by the

Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating (AACE). The author also presents

insights into the future of cost estimating.

1. Introduction

In developing business cases for desalination, project planners and desalination engineers are

required to provide cost estimates on a regular basis.There is signific-ant variability in the

costs provided, depending upon the approach utilized. Of particular concern, is the lack of

standardization in the reporting of both CAPEX and OPEX associated with seawater

desalination plants. In the generation of capital cost estimates, one of several approaches is

typically utilized, as illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1. Cost Estimating Approaches utilized in seawater desalination

The “swag” – a value provided by a knowledgeable individual. Often surprisingly accurate, it

is based upon experience and historical costs.

Type Tool

“The Swag” Call an expert

Empirical Models

Desalination Handbook for Planners

Literature Cost Curves

Cost data bases

Parametric Models

GWITM

WT Cost IITM

CH2M HILL CPESTM

Factored Cost Models Material take-offs for major items, with factors applied

Material Take-Off Detailed material take-off of design drawings using Timberline

TM or

other software and experienced estimators

26

Empirical Cost Models – Empirical cost models are based on statistical analysis and curve-

fitting of historical data, typically with capacity utilized as the key variable.

Parametric Cost Models – A parametric model utilizes a number of variables to provide, using

typically a multivariate empirical or hybrid empirical/factored approached, to provide greater

specificity for various applications than a parametric cost model.

Factored Cost Models – A factored cost model typically utilizes capital cost estimates for the

major equipment, and then adds factors to account for the remainder of the capital costs.Very

commonly used in water treatment and in oil and gas sectors. Requires some design

development in order to conduct, and typically requires vendor quotations.

Material Take-off – Once significant design activity has occurred, estimators can begin

counting components and provide schedules of materials, along with typical costs or

quotations for each line item on the schedules. While most accurate, the design must be well

developed. Most commonly used in early stage development are empirical and parametric

models. The Association for the Advancement of Cost Engineering (AACE) provides

recommendations on the level of accuracy that may be assigned to an estimate at any given

stage of a project. Figure 1 provides details of estimate uncertainty, as well as the typical level

of design detail provided.

1.1 Estimating Desalination Cost

There are three types of costs associated with desalination typically mentioned in the

literature. These include the capital cost (CAPEX), operating cost (OPEX) and the Total

Water Cost (TWC). Each are described below:

1.1.1 Capital Cost

Often referred to as Capital Expenditure or CAPEX, it describes the capital expenditures

required to complete the project. Capital costs for a desalination plant typically are associated

with the construction of the over-all infrastructure, and include the following cost

components:

• Intake construction (may include wells, open intakes, sub-surface intakes)

• Brine disposal (may include outfall, injection wells, blending, evaporation ponds)

• Raw water conveyance

• Pretreatment

• Desalination (including pumping, membrane racks, energy recovery etc.)

• Post-treatment

• Pretreatment residuals management

• Water storage and conveyance

• Procurement of land

• Obtaining right-of-ways

• Permitting

• Engineering

• Escalation

• Contractor overhead and profit

• Taxes

27

Fig. 1. Construction Cost Estimate Accuracy Ranges (adapted from [1]).

1.1.2 Operating Cost

Operating costs, which are recurring costs, typically on an annual- or annual allotment-basis

include, but are not limited to, the following cost components

• Operating and Maintenance (O&M) Labor

• Energy Consumption

• Chemicals for pre-treatment, scale inhibitors, cleaning etc.

• Maintenance parts

• Insurance

• Membrane replacement (typically annualized)

• Cartridge filter replacement

• Laboratory analysis and monitoring

• Regulatory compliance

1.1.3 Total Water Cost

Total Water Cost (TWC) is frequently quoted in desalination industry literature as a common

comparison between projects. TWC has been defined as the annual operating cost + the

annualized capital cost (or debt service).

28

2. Desalination cost modelling

2.1 Seawater desalination

Numerous researchers have published capital cost figures for seawater desalination

plants with associated empirical cost models. These figures are typic-ally used to develop

empirical cost estimates typically utilized during the planning stage of a project. One of the

most commonly cited cost models was developed as part of United States Bureau of

Reclamation funding and is reported on by Watson et al. [2]. The model, published in the

“Desalting Handbook for Planners” provides cost curves for nanofiltration, brackish reverse

osmosis and seawater reverse osmosis desalination systems, based on historical data.

Additionally, the model contains empirical curves for thermal processes. A number of

alternative empirical cost models have been reported in the literature [3], [4], [5] and [6].

These models generally use either a polynomial equation, log-log or semi-log model for the

regression analysis.

Wittholz et al. [4] analyzed desalination cost data collected from a wide variety of sources

including surveys, reports, and published journals spanning a period of 35 years. Cost data

was normalized to 2006 using cost indices. Using 90 sets of BWRO data and 112 sets of

SWRO data, linear regression using least squares was completed to fit data to power law. The

resulted empirical correlation is shown in Equation 1.

ln ( Capital cost) = m x ln (Capacity) + constant Equation 1

Other researchers have used similar regression analyses to evaluate costs of reverse osmosis

desalination plants. Zhou and Tol [3] used regression analysis to construct a total water cost

(TWC) model from 2,514 data points.The model derived was in general form:

F(Unit Cost) = G(Capacity, Year, Type) Equation 2

Both log-log and semi-log forms were analyzed. For a log-log model, the regression analysis

accomplished a fit with a R2 of 0.72. The final model form developed was:

ln(cost) = alpha x ln(capacity) + constant + dummies Equation 3

Kawamura [5] has developed a series of cost correlations for estimating capital cost of various

water treatment processes, including desalination. The cost figures utilize simple correlations

based upon historical data. A capital and construction cost curves are provided for SWRO;

O&M cost curves. The source of the data is not detailed by the author, but is understood to

represent his personal experience. Dore [6] used an auto-aggressive integrated moving

average model (ARIMA) to forecast the change in desalination unit costs over time. The

model was applied to historical desalination unit cost data. It was concluded that the 2004

total water cost for desalinated water is between $0.25/m3 and $0.71/m3. A comparison of

these models is presented in Table 2.

Typical comparison of several of these models, along with the GWI SWRO Cost Estimator

are shown in Figure 2 for seawater applications.

29

Table 2. Empirical Capital Cost Models for Reverse Osmosis.

Zhou and Tol [3]

(Seawater)

Watson et al [2]

(SWRO)

Wittholz et al.

[4] (SWRO)

Dore [6] Kawamura

[5]

Type Log-log Power Log-log ARIMA Power

Year 2005 2003 2008 2005 2009

Equation ln(cost) = m x

ln(capacity) +

constant + dummies Cost = M(capacity)

B

ln(cost) = m x

ln(capacity) +

constant

(1 – B)Yi = -

0.31149899 + vi

– 0.80700050 vi-1

Cost =

M(capacity)B

Units m

3/d m

3/d m

3/d m

3/d MGD

N 1514 Not reported 112

R2

n.a. 0.907 n.a.

M Not reported 0.81

Constant Not reported 4.07

B n.a. -

Fig. 2. Capital Cost Curves for Seawater Reverse Osmosis Plants.

2.3 Total Water Cost Estimates

Many of the desalination projects located around the world are delivered as Build-Own-

Operate with a set cost for water delivered. In many instances, the capital cost and operating

cost breakdowns are not reported for these facilities. Cost data is commonly published,

particularly for seawater desalination, in terms of the Total Water Cost (TWC) which includes

that annualized capital cost and the annual operating cost. The TWC is typically reported in

terms of cost per unit volume (for instance $/m3) of finished water produced. As a result of

local factors, such as cost of labor, materials and energy, proponents may elect to increase or

decrease capital cost expenditures, and offset that change with adjustments to annual

operating cost. It is less common to publish total water cost data on brackish water,

nanofiltration or tertiary reuse desalination systems. This is largely a factor of the differences

in delivery methods utilized. Seawater desalination systems are much more likely to be

delivered using an at risk approach.

30

A recent analysis, conducted using data published in Water Desalination Report, was

conducted.

Table 3. Total Water Cost (TWC) for seawater desalination facilities [8].

Total Water Cost Capacity

Plant Year $/m3 $/kgal

m3/d mgd Process

Santa Barbara California 1991 $1.22 $4.62 25,360 6.7 SWRO

Bahamas 1996 $1.28 $4.84 9,840 2.6 SWRO

Dhekelia Cyprus 1997 $1.19 $4.50 40,000 10.6 SWRO

Larnaca Cyprus 1999 $0.76 $2.88 54,000 14.3 SWRO

Taweelah C UAE 2000 $0.72 $2.73 325,000 85.9 SWRO

Ashkelon Israel 2001 $0.52 $1.97 326,144 86.2 SWRO

Carboneras Spain 2002 $0.57 $2.16 120,000 31.7 SWRO

Point Lisas Trinidad 2002 $0.71 $2.69 119,000 31.4 SWRO

Tuas Singapore 2003 $0.48 $1.82 136,360 36 SWRO

Tampa Bay Florida 2004 $0.55 $2.08 95,000 25.1 SWRO

Arzew Algeria 2005 $0.90 $3.41 86,000 22.7 SWRO

Beni Saf Algeria 2005 $0.70 $2.65 150,000 39.6 SWRO

Cap Djinet Algeria 2005 $0.73 $2.76 100,000 26.4 SWRO

Douaouda Algeria 2005 $0.75 $2.84 120,000 31.7 SWRO

Fukuoka Japan 2005 $1.84 $6.96 50,000 13.2 SWRO

Hamma Algeria 2005 $0.82 $3.10 200,000 52.8 SWRO

Los Angeles California 2005 $0.82 $3.10 94,625 25 SWRO

Palmachim Israel 2005 $0.78 $2.95 110,000 29.1 SWRO

Skikda Algeria 2005 $0.74 $2.80 100,000 26.4 SWRO

West Basin California 2005 $0.64 $2.42 37,850 10 SWRO

Blue Hills Bahamas 2006 $1.30 $4.92 27,250 7.2 SWRO

Perth Australia 2006 $0.75 $2.84 143,700 38 SWRO

Shuqaiq Saudi Arabia 2006 $1.03 $3.90 213,475 56.4 SWRO

Tampa Bay Florida 2006 $0.84 $3.18 95,000 25.1 SWRO

Carlsbad California 2007 $0.77 $2.91 189,250 50 SWRO

Chennai India 2007 $1.10 $4.16 100,000 26.4 SWRO

Dhekelia Cyprus 2007 $0.88 $3.33 40,000 10.6 SWRO

Gold Coast Australia 2007 $1.09 $4.13 133,000 35.1 SWRO

Santa Barbara California 1991 $1.22 $4.62 25,360 6.7 SWRO

Hadera Israel 2007 $0.60 $2.27 330,000 87.2 SWRO

Malta 2007 $0.72 $2.73 20,000 5.3 SWRO

Sur Oman 2007 $1.20 $4.54 80,200 21.2 SWRO

Tianjin China 2007 $0.95 $3.60 150,000 39.6 SWRO

Ad Dur Bahrain 2008 $0.93 $3.52 218,000 57.6 SWRO

Ashkelon Israel 2008 $0.78 $2.95 326,144 86.2 SWRO

El Tarf Algeria 2008 $0.89 $3.37 50,000 13.2 SWRO

Hadera Israel 2008 $0.86 $3.26 330,000 87.2 SWRO

Jeddah Barge Saudi Arabia 2008 $2.27 $8.59 52,000 13.7 SWRO

Mactaa Algeria 2008 $0.56 $2.12 500,000 132.1 SWRO

Oued Sebt Algeria 2008 $0.68 $2.57 100,000 26.4 SWRO

Palmachim Israel 2008 $0.86 $3.26 83,270 22 SWRO

Ras Azzour Saudi Arabia 2008 $1.09 $4.13 1,000,000 264.2 Hybrid

Taunton Massachusetts 2008 $1.53 $5.79 18,925 5 SWRO

Tenes Algeria 2008 $0.59 $2.23 200,000 52.8 SWRO

Tuas Singapore 2008 $0.57 $2.16 136,360 36 SWRO

The total water cost data is plotted in Figure 3. The data clearly indicates a decrease in Unit

Total Water Cost as the capacity of the facility increases.

31

Fig. 3. Unit Total Water Cost upon published data in [8].

3. Parametric cost estimating

3.1 Commercially Available Desalination Cost Estimating Models

Several commercially available and/or non-proprietary desalination cost models currently

exist in the market place. The cost models most frequently quoted in the grey literature are

WTCost© and cost curves contained in the USBR publication entitled “Desalting Handbook

for Planners”. Other models include Global Water Intelligence Desalination SWRO Cost

Estimator, Desalination Economic Evaluation Program (DEEP), AUDESSY, WRA models

and the Kawamura model. Additionally, USEPA is currently working on new cost estimating

guidelines to replace the guidelines developed in 1979 and updated in 1992; it has not yet

been released to the public. This section focuses on capital cost comparisons between

WTCost II, GWI SWRO Cost Estimator and CH2M HILL’s proprietary cost model

WTCost II is based upon research funding provided by the United States Bureau of

Reclamation, where a desalination cost model was developed using Microsoft Excel as the

platform. The model was subsequently commercialized as WTCost II, by I. Moch &

Associates, in conjunction with W. R. Querns & Associates and Boulder Research

Enterprises. The model permits the evaluation and comparison of processes employing

reverse osmosis/nanofiltration, multi stage flash evaporation, multi-effect distillation, vapor

compression, microfiltration/ ultrafiltration, electrodialysis and ion exchange. This program,

utilizing proprietary code is, according to USBR documentation, based upon 1979 USEPA

water treatment cost estimates (1978 dollars) and the 1992 Quasim updates to the 1979 costs

as the basis. Processes not included in the 1979 or 1992 updates are estimated from the

authors’ experience and manufacturers’ estimates. The majority of the program is based on

applicable flows between 1 and 200 MGD. There has been some recent work incorporating

smaller flows of 2,500 gpd to 1 MGD.

Global Water Intelligence (GWI) has released a web-based cost model called the

Global Water Intelligence Desaldata.com SWRO cost estimator. This online tool is a

proprietary model utilized to estimate the capital cost of a SWRO desalination plant. The

model includes no documentation regarding the specific correlations utilized. The model uses

data from real projects, which was then normalised prior to factoring in capex options such as

intake and permitting. It does not account for product water storage and distribution costs.The

32

model uses the following user inputs seawater TDS, seawater temperature, degree of

pretreatment required, intake/outfall requirements, second pass, remineralization, permitting

effort and country.

GWI reports that it is valid over a range of flows between 250 m3/d to 250,000 m3/d. No

representation is made regarding the confidence interval for the capital cost estimate.

CH2M HILL has developed a model known as CH2M HILL Parametric Cost Estimating

System or CPES. The model consists of a mass balance tool and series of approximately 60

different unit process parametric models. The outputs of the appropriate parametric models

and then utilized in a factored approach to develop the final capital cost values.

A comparison of the functionality of the models is contained in Table 4. While all three

models are capable of providing CAPEX estimates, greater functionality is provided by

WTCost II and CPES over the GWI SWRO Cost Estimator.

On order to compare the cost estimating tools, cost estimates for a 30,000 m3/d seawater

desalination plants using beach-wells and waste injection wells were prepared. Prior to

beginning the estimate, the cost databases for WTCost II and CPES were updated for the

latest Engineering News Record indices. Table 5 summarizes the results. The values range

between $1066 to $1400 per metre cubed of capacity.

On review of the key differences in the model, GWI Cost Estimator does not provide

estimates for wells, and instead assumes open intakes and outfalls. As a result, it does not

provide accurate costs for pretreatment, and likely underestimates the cost of the injection

wells in particular. These values seem to offset each other. While the model remains a black-

box housed on the GWI servers, it is difficult to determine the specifics of the estimate.

Likewise, as no materials list is provided by WTCost II, it is difficult to delve into the specific

details of the cost estimate. Nor does the model allow us to readily adjust costs for location

factors etc. The costs associated with well development do appear to be low which may result

in the low cost estimate. CPES generates detailed piping calculations, layout and materials

lists, permitting estimating professionals the ability to check and confirm the bottom up cost

estimate as design progresses.

Based upon a recently completed project, the unit capital cost for a 30,000 m3/d plant was

approximately $36,000,000 or a unit cost of $1200/m3. All three tools provided a cost

estimate within +30%; -20% bounds, corresponding with a Class 3 estimate using AACE

guidelines. Under AACE, approximately 35 to 45% of the design development is completed

prior to a Class 3 estimate. These tools, and the inevitable progressions anticipated in the

future, are good tools in predicting costs associated with seawater desalination projects.

33

Table 4. Comparison of Computerized Cost Model Features.

Model Features GWI SWRO

Cost Estimator WTCost II CH2M HILL CPES

Type Parametric

Model

Hybrid

Parametric/

Factored

Hybrid

Parametric/

Factored

Computer Based No. Web-based Yes Yes

Applicability

Brackish Water

Seawater

Tertiary Reuse

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Adjustable Permeate Quality No No Yes

Input data from Projections No Yes Yes

Location Adjustment Factors Yes No Yes

Configurable Cost Database No Yes Yes

Variability Raw Water Quality Yes Yes Yes

Preliminary Equipment List No No Yes

Motor Schedule No No Yes

Intake/Outfall Yes Yes Yes

Different process trains No Yes Yes

Area Estimate No No Yes

Capital Cost Estimate Yes Yes Yes

Operating Cost Estimate No Yes Yes

Total Water Cost Estimate No Yes Yes

Publicly Available Yes Yes Proprietary

Table 5. Comparison of CAPEX estimates using computerized Cost Estimating Tools.

GW

I

WTCost II CH2M HILL CPES

Capacity 30,000 30,000 30,000

CAPEX ($) $41,000,000 $32,000,000 $42,000,000

Unit Cost ($/m3) $1366/m

3 $1066/m

3 $1400/m

3

Platform Web-based MS Access w/VB MS Excel w/VB

4. CH2M HILL Parametric Cost Estimating System (CPES)

CPES is a cost estimating system that interfaces reverse osmosis projection software, mass-

balance generator, cost data base and Computer Aided Design (CAD) software into a system

to provide conceptual cost estimates. Based on an EXCEL platform, users set-up the basic

plant configuration and conduct RO projections using the embedded Visual Basic code, which

includes modules for energy recovery devices. The resultant mass-balances and design criteria

are used for the basis of generating a high-level material take-off and cost estimates. A basic

schematic of the work-flow is shown in Figure 4.

Dimensions of the entire system, including pipe length, pipe diameters and other major

components are calculated. These dimensions are then exported to a CAD platform to develop

plant lay-out (Figure 5) and isometric drawings (Figure 6).

34

Fig. 4. Flow-chart for the CPES estimating system.

Fig. 5. Plant layout for a Reverse Osmosis system generated by CPES.

Fig. 6. Isometric drawing for a Reverse Osmosis system generated by CPES.

Cost estimates created by CPES have been benchmarked against bid prices for a number of

projects. The estimates, shown in Table 6, show that cost estimates generated by CPES are

well within the AACE Class 4 cost estimate uncertainty (as shown in Figure 1), with most

values corresponding to a Class 2 cost estimate – with significantly lower investment into

engineering for each project to determine the projected cost.

35

Table 6. Comparison of CAPEX estimates using CPES versus bid prices.

5. Design Driven Cost Estimating System

The development and accuracy of CPES provides insight into the total power of future cost

estimating systems. A number of companies have developed internal proprietary programs for

the rapid design development of water treatment systems. USFILTER created an early

prototype of a mass balance solution that selected standard equipment from their product line

to incorporate into their process.

While this program could not conduct balance of plant cost estimating, it did incorporate RO

projection capability and permit rapid development of costs for major process/mechanical

equipment.

Developed independently of USFilter, Glegg Water Conditioning created the Reference

Design program in the 1990s. This program included the functionality of USFilter’s program,

but also was able to automatically generate process & instrumentation drawings, process

mechanical drawings and create accurate material take-offs.

Such tools were developed within the platforms of the era. Figures 7 through 9 shows a

system developed within an AutoCAD platform. Using the tool, very rapid development of a

custom engineered process could be developed. Figure 6 shows a typical input page for an ion

exchange vessel.

With new software such as ASPEN and SmartPlant suite, implementation of Design Driven

estimating systems has become easier and easier, as material take-offs are directly exported

into cost estimating packages. Cost estimates that historically took many weeks to conduct,

with hundreds of engineering hours, can be automated to conduct similar estimates in mere

hours. To date, efforts in seawater desalination have been limited to proprietary developments

within individual organizations. The community would be well-served with a publically

available package to eliminate uncertainty of scope used in current and convention cost

estimates.

36

Fig. 7. Input page for an ion exchange vessel as part of an ultrapure water solution.

Fig. 8. P&ID automatically developed from user inputs and system modelling.

References [1] AACE 18-R-87 accessed 8/8/2011 http://www.aacei.org/

[2] Watson et al. (2003). “Desalting Handbook for Planners, 3rd Edition” U.S. Department of the Interior,

Bureau of Reclamation Technical Service Center Water Treatment Engineering and Research Group

Cooperative Assistance Agreement Number: 98-PG-81-0366, Desalination Research and Development Program

Report No. 72 http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/water/media/pdfs/report072.pdf

[3] Zhou, Y., and R. S. J. Tol (2005), Evaluating the costs of desalination and water transport, Water Resour.

Res., 41, W03003, doi:10.1029/2004WR003749

[4] Wittholz, M.K., B.K. O'Neill, et al. (2008). "Estimating the cost of desalination plants using a cost database."

Desalination 229(1-3): 10-20.

[5] Kawamura, S and McGivney, W (2008). Cost Estimating Manual for Water Treatment Facilities. Wiley.

[6] Dore, M.H.I. (2005). "Forecasting the economic costs of desalination technology." Desalination 172(3): 207-

214

[7] Nicot et al (2005) A Desalination Database for Texas Prepared for Texas Water Development Board Under

Contract No. 2004-483-021 Jean-Philippe Nicot, Steven Walden1, Lauren Greenlee2, and John Els

[8] Pankratz, Tom. Water Desalination Report (2010).

37


Recommended