LBWD’s Desalinated SeawaterLBWD’s Desalinated SeawaterLBWD s Desalinated Seawater LBWD s Desalinated Seawater Costs EstimatesCosts Estimates
Robert C. Cheng, Tai J. Tseng, Kevin L. WattierRobert C. Cheng, Tai J. Tseng, Kevin L. WattierMarch 30, 2011March 30, 2011
2011 M b T h l C f
11
2011 Membrane Technology ConferenceLong Beach, CA
Long Beach Water DepartmentLong Beach Water Department
• California’s 6th most populous city p p y(~500,000 residents)
• 70,000 AF/yr of drinking water, y g• 8,000 AF/yr of reclaimed water• Operate largest GW treatment plant in p g p
US• 900+ miles of drinking water linesg• 750+ miles of sewer lines
22
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
LBWD Desalination Research OverviewLBWD Desalination Research OverviewSummary of Prototype Research FindingsSummary of Prototype Research FindingsCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisConclusionConclusion
33
How to integrate seawater into How to integrate seawater into system?system?system?system?
A $20 M, 10A $20 M, 10--year investment year investment Leverage various partnerships for technical input and other supportLeverage various partnerships for technical input and other supportLeverage various partnerships for technical input and other supportLeverage various partnerships for technical input and other supportFederal/State/Local Funds, 50% funding by ReclamationFederal/State/Local Funds, 50% funding by Reclamation
Post treatment / DistributionPretreatment NF2 or RO
•Under Ocean Floor Intake and Discharge
•PrototypeUV/ClO
•Mitigation of WQ impacts due to i t ti f
44
Discharge •UV/ClO2 integration of new source
Prototype Plant Flow DiagramPrototype Plant Flow Diagram
South Train North Train
MF Unit
55
Prototype PlantPrototype Plant300,000 gpd facility, 8300,000 gpd facility, 8--in vesselsin vessels
66
Prototype Research ObjectivesPrototype Research ObjectivesOperate efficient pretreatment systemOperate efficient pretreatment system
MF tMF tMF systemMF systemCompare NFCompare NF22 against ROagainst RO
Water quality (TDS, boron, bromide), energy, Water quality (TDS, boron, bromide), energy, reliabilityreliability
Optimize NFOptimize NF22 processprocessConfiguration variation Configuration variation Biofouling control method: UV vs. ClOBiofouling control method: UV vs. ClO22
Energy recovery deviceEnergy recovery devicegy ygy yProvide cost analysis for fullProvide cost analysis for full--scale plantscale plant
77
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
LBWD Desalination Research OverviewLBWD Desalination Research OverviewSummary of Prototype Research FindingsSummary of Prototype Research FindingsCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisConclusionConclusion
88
MF process reliabilityMF process reliabilityStable water quality
Turbidity < 0.2 NTUTurbidity < 0.2 NTUSilt density index (SDI) < 1
No deviations from expectationspOperational time depends on water produced, chlorine addedFlux rate = 27 gfd
NFNF22 vs. ROvs. RO
Two-pass RO required to meet all water quality objectivesquality objectives
Boron < 1 mg/LNF2 required less specific energy than RO/NFNF2 required less specific energy than RO/NF
NF2 required 20% less energy (50th percentile)
NFNF22 OperationsOperations
ReliabilityMaximize run timeNF2 as reliable as SWROProduces reliable water quality-TDS <200 mg/L, Bromide <0.5 mg/L
EfficiencyEfficiencyMinimize specific energy consumption
Process optimizationProcess optimizationEnergy recovery deviceEnergy recovery device
PX device tested >90% efficientPX device tested >90% efficientMust incorporate into production plant
Biofouling controlBiofouling controlggClO2 may be beneficialUV results inconclusive
Varying membranes/configurationVarying membranes/configuration5 vs. 7 element test results inconclusiveUsing ultralow pressure (ULP) membranes on lead end with NF membrane on lag end increased efficiencyefficiency
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
LBWD Desalination Research OverviewLBWD Desalination Research OverviewSummary of Prototype Research FindingsSummary of Prototype Research FindingsCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisConclusionConclusion
1313
Cost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost curvesCost curves
Based on historical information Based on historical information Cost modelsCost models
Use locationUse location--specific parameters specific parameters NFNF22 cost modelcost model
Based on ADC cost model (funded by Based on ADC cost model (funded by Reclamation)Reclamation)))Modified by LBWD, used Prototype dataModified by LBWD, used Prototype data
1414
Federal Roadmap EstimatePower + Debt = 81%Power + Debt = 81%
Non-energy O&M = 19%
Electrical Membrane
Replacement LaborMaintenance
& Parts
Non-energy O&M = 19%
Power44%
5%Labor
4% 7%
C blConsumables3%
DebtDebt37%
Cost Modeling ApproachCost Modeling ApproachParameters Retained Changed
E kWh $Power E
P FluxRecovery
Chemical Chemicals DoseO&M
Chemical Unit cost Dose
Cartridge filterMembranes MF replacement
OtherMembranes
CIPSolids disposalCO2 reduction
MF replacementMembrane life
Labor2
Capital
BuildingElectricalPermitting
MF costInterest ratep g
Scaling factorContingency
project life
NFNF2 2 Cost Model ScenariosCost Model ScenariosSelected from testsSelected from tests
Highest overall system recoveryHighest overall system recoveryHighest overall system recoveryHighest overall system recoveryLowest specific energy (kWh/kgal)Lowest specific energy (kWh/kgal)Highest flux (gfd)Highest flux (gfd)Highest flux (gfd)Highest flux (gfd)
Different production rateDifferent production rate50 d50 d50 mgd50 mgd5 mgd5 mgd
1717
BaselineBaseline
Variable ValueProject Life 30 yrs
Interest 5%Membrane life 6.5 yrs
Energy cost $0.12 kWh
Cost AnalysisCost Analysis
Two pass RO NF NF2
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Pass
1Pass
2Pass
1Pass
2Pass
1Pass
2Pass
1Pass
2Pass
1Pass
2Flux (gfd) 6.91 15.89 5.41 11.47 6.65 19.55 6.29 15.35 7.05 15.17Recovery (%) 42% 82% 35% 75% 46% 75% 45% 78% 44% 80%( )Overall recovery (%) 34% 27% 38% 41% 39%Energy (kWh/kgal) 9.3 1.7 9.8 1.3 6.6 1.6 7.0 2.2 7.4 2.3Optimization parameter Capital, energy Energy Capital Capital
1919
Cost AnalysisCost AnalysisBaseline
10
Baseline50 MGD - 30 Years, $0.12/kWh, 5% interest, 6.5 yrs membrane life
Energy O&M Component Non-Energy O&M Component Capital Cost
7
8
9 Double Pass RO NF Double Pass NF NF
4.465.02
4 07 4 24 4 245
6
7
ost (
$/kg
al)
.10
1.28
09 11 09
1.57 1.
84
1.54 1.57
1.54
4.07 4.24 4.24
2
3
4Co
1.78
1.90
1.44
1.55
1.61
1 1
1.0 1.1
1.
0
1
2
2020
RONF 1 - 6.91 gfd/31%
RONF 2 - 5.41 gfd/27%
NFNF 1-6.65 gfd/38%
NFNF 2-6.29 gfd/41%
NFNF 3-7.05 gfd/39%
Cost AnalysisCost Analysis
10
Baseline5 MGD - 30 Years, $0.12/kWh, 5% interest, 6.5 yrs membrane lifeEnergy O&M Component Non-Energy O&M Component Capital Cost
$7.10 $7.66
$6 69$7.53
$6.857
8
9 Double Pass NF NFDouble Pass RO NF2.
96 3.22
2.92 3.
64
2.92
$6.69 $6.85
5
6
7
($/k
gal)
2.35 2.53
2.33 2.34
2.32
2
3
4Cos
t
1.78
1.90
1.44
1.55
1.61
2
0
1
2
2121
RONF 1 - 6.91 gfd/31%
RONF 2 - 5.41 gfd/27%
NFNF 1-6.65 gfd/38%
NFNF 2-6.29 gfd/41%
NFNF 3-7.05 gfd/39%
Cost AnalysisCost AnalysisReclamationReclamation
Road MapRoad MapNFNF1 NFNF1
6 65 gfd/38%6 65 gfd/38% Road MapRoad Map6.65 gfd/38%6.65 gfd/38%
ECapitalEnergy Capital Energy
44%Capital 37%
gy37%37%
O&MO&M
2222
O&M 19%26%
Sensitivity AnalysisSensitivity Analysis
Variable changed EffectProject Life Decrease (25 yrs) CapitalProject Life Decrease (25 yrs) Capital
Interest Increase (6%) CapitalInterest Decrease (4%) Capital
Membrane Life Increase (10 yrs) Non-energy
Energy Increase ($0.15/kWh) Energy
Cost Analysis Cost Analysis –– 50 mgd50 mgdyy gg
P
RONF 16.91
fd/31%
NFNF 16.65
fd/38%Parameter gfd/31% gfd/38%Baseline $4.46 $4.07 Project life decrease (25 yrs) $4.61 $4.21 j ( y ) $ $Interest increase (6%) $4.65 $4.25 Interest decrease (4%) $4.29 $3.90 M b lif i (10 ) $4 41 $4 01Membrane life increase (10 yrs) $4.41 $4.01 Energy increase ($0.15/kWh) $4.91 $4.43
Cost Analysis Cost Analysis –– 5 mgd5 mgdyy gg
Parameter
RONF 16.91
gfd/31%
NFNF 16.65
gfd/38%Parameter gfd/31% gfd/38%Baseline $7.10 $6.69 Project life decrease (25 yrs) $7.37 $6.96 I t t i (6%) $7 44 $7 03Interest increase (6%) $7.44 $7.03 Interest decrease (4%) $6.77 $6.37 Membrane life increase (10 yrs) $7.04 $6.64Membrane life increase (10 yrs) $7.04 $6.64 Energy increase ($0.15/kWh) $7.54 $7.05
InflationInflationProduced water cost can more than Produced water cost can more than double over project lifedouble over project lifedouble over project lifedouble over project life
Historical increase of 3% for goods Historical increase of 3% for goods ((www bls govwww bls gov))((www.bls.govwww.bls.gov))Energy increased by 4%Energy increased by 4%•• Inflation projection for energy from historical dataInflation projection for energy from historical data•• Inflation projection for energy from historical dataInflation projection for energy from historical data
2626
Cost AnalysisCost AnalysisInflation rateInflation rate
Power Cost vs. Time (source: www.bls.gov)
$0 25Sep-78 Sep-86 Sep-94 Oct-02 Oct-10
$0.20
$0.25
$0.15
Cos
t ($)
4% Increase
y = 0.004x + 0.057
$0.10
Pow
er C
$
$0.05
2727
$-0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32
Time (yrs)
Cost AnalysisCost Analysis50 MGD baseline with 4% energy inflation and 3% commodity (CPI) for
RONF 1 and NFNF 1
RO NF NF2
$160
$180
$200RO NF NF2
Total Cost$3.65 Billion
$100
$120
$140
$160
llions
($)
Total Cost $3.26 Billion
$60
$80
$100
Cos
t in
mi
$-
$20
$40
2828
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Time (yrs)
Cost AnalysisCost Analysis5 MGD baseline with 4% energy inflation and 3% commodity
(CPI) for RONF 1 and NFNF 1RONF Total NF Total
$25
$30 RONF Total NF Total
Total cost$ 549 Million
$15
$20
illion
s ($
)
Total cost$ 509 Million
$10
$15
Cost
in m
$-
$5
2929
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35Time (yrs)
Cost SummaryCost Summary50 mgd50 mgd
NFNF22 $4 07 t $4 24/k l$4 07 t $4 24/k lNFNF22 = $4.07 to $4.24/kgal = $4.07 to $4.24/kgal RONF = $4.46 to $5.02/kgalRONF = $4.46 to $5.02/kgal
5 mgd5 mgdNFNF22 = $6.69 to $7.53/kgal = $6.69 to $7.53/kgal RONF = $7.10 to $7.66/kgal RONF = $7.10 to $7.66/kgal
Literature (WRF 4038 report) Literature (WRF 4038 report) ( p )( p )$2.12 to $6.96/kgal $2.12 to $6.96/kgal
3030
Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline
LBWD Desalination Research OverviewLBWD Desalination Research OverviewSummary of Prototype Research FindingsSummary of Prototype Research FindingsCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisCost AnalysisConclusionConclusion
3131
ConclusionsConclusionsADC model used for cost analysisADC model used for cost analysis
Prototype plant provided data to modify inputsPrototype plant provided data to modify inputsSize of facility has significant impactsSize of facility has significant impacts
Scaling down from 50 mgd to 5 mgd can increase Sca g do o 50 gd to 5 gd ca c easecost up to 100%
Cost of desalinated water (2010)Cost of desalinated water (2010)$1,380/AF for NF2, $1,640/AF for RO/NF (50 mgd)$2,450/AF for NF2, $2,500/AF for RO/NF (5 mgd)
Sensitivity analysisSensitivity analysisMembrane life, power, interest, project lifeM t iti t i t t dMost sensitive to interest and power
www lbwater orgwww lbwater orgwww.lbwater.orgwww.lbwater.org
3333
