desalination presentation

7/30/2019 Desalination Presentation

1/14

Water Desalination

as a Possible Opportunityfor the GT- and H2-MHR

S. Locke Bogart and Ken Schultz

Energy Applications & Systems, Inc. General Atomics

2004 International Congress on Advances in Nuclear PowerPlants (ICAPP '04)

15 June 2004

EASI


2/14


3/14

Availability is Not the Entire Problem

Contamination is a major problem in many areas

Chemicals fertilizer run-off in rural areas, industrialpollutants in urban areas.

PathogensMore than 2.2 million people die each year

from diseases related to contaminated drinking water. Cost/Price disparity is a major problem in many areas of

the world

in Delhi vendors charge the poor US$4.89 per m3,while families with piped connections pay just US$0.01.

EASI


4/14

Desalination is a Partial Solution

The process can take water from any source and candeliver a product so pure that it has to be salted to makeit flavorsome.

The process is generally more expensive than naturalwater.

Desalination requires large scale production facilities, plustransport and distribution infrastructure.

Large scale desalination processes have been commercialfor half a century or more.

In areas of the world energy-rich but water-poorgenerally the Middle East.

On Islands with high demand and sufficient affluence.

EASI

Can help overcome disparities, but requires large capital


5/14

Global Desalination Opportunities

The water availability projection reveals the opportunities.

These tend to be regions with either high population density,relatively high wealth density, or both.

However, the use of nuclear energy for desalination will facegeopolitical limitations.

EASI


6/14

Commercial Desalination Technologies

Multi-Stage Flash Distillation (MSF).

The oldest technology, but still being constructed.

A thermal technology, suitable for cogeneration.

Multi-Effect Distillation (MED).

A newer technology, now being scaled to MSF plant size.

Potentially more efficient than MSF.

Reverse Osmosis (RO).

The newest technology, now being scaled to relativelylarge plants but still smaller than MSF and MED.

An electrical technology, depending on low costelectricity.

We will compare MED with RO.

EASI

MED: Waste heat from GT-MHR or H2-MHR

RO: Electricity from GT-MHR


7/14

Considerations for Selection of RO vs. MED

Electric or hydrogen cogeneration of water Thermalenergy for water production as a bottoming cycle favorshigh temperature reactors

Feed salinity: low reverse osmosis; high thermal

Cost of electricity: low reverse osmosis; high thermal

Desired product quality: high thermal; low(er) reverseosmosis,

Plant footprint: low reverse osmosis; high thermal, and

Expandability: high reverse osmosis; low to moderate

thermal.

EASI


8/14

Reverse Osmosis Features

RO Membrane Assembly

Tampa Bay Main Hall

11.7 MWe

95,000 m3/d

EASI


9/14

MED Bottoming Cycle PlantCoupled to a GT-MHR

EASI

200C180C 160C

Bottoming cycle would cost ~4.4 points

on GT-MHR efficiency


10/14

Sample Economic Comparison of RO vs. MED

Major Input Variables.

Plant capital cost.

Fixed Charge Rate (required rate of return).

Thermal or electrical energy requirements.

Cost of thermal or electrical energy.

Plant scale.

Only Output Variable.

Cost of Water.

EASI


11/14

Values of Major Input Variables

EASI


12/14

Typical Model Output

EASI


13/14

Focused Model Output for Selected Inputs

COW ($/m

3) comparisons between full scale RO and MED for a

GT-MHR or H2-MHR for two FCRs and COE = $0.029/kWh

COW ($/m3) comparisons between full scale RO and MED for aGT-MHR or H2-MHR for two FCRs and COE = $0.058/kWh

6% 15%

RO $0.40 $0.59

MED $0.41 $0.66

FCR (%)

Plant Type

6% 15%RO $0.49 $0.68

MED $0.45 $0.71

FCR %

Plant Type

EASI


14/14

Conclusions

COW for both processes are comparable for any FCR (likelywithin the error bars of the analysis). Decision will be based onother features such as expandability, feed quality, product purity

Desalination Plants are capital intensive; funding should besought through Public Sector

Reverse osmosis presents a lower COW than MED for virtually allcases of COE and FCR. This is due to the lower capital cost perunit output of the RO plant.

MED costs may be a few % optimistic (COE for GT-MHR-wbc+10%, O&M costs estimated from RO)

Only when the COE is high and the FCR is low will the MED plantresult in a lower COW. There may be regions where suchconditions may exist.

EASI

desalination presentation

Documents