Synergies of solar energy use in the desalination of seawater: A case study in northern

Chile
, , ,
Jorge F. Servert , Eduardo Cerrajero , and Edward L. Fuentealba

Citation: AIP Conference Proceedings 1734, 140002 (2016); doi: 10.1063/1.4949232

View online: http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4949232
View Table of Contents: http://aip.scitation.org/toc/apc/1734/1
Published by the American Institute of Physics
 Synergies of Solar Energy Use in the Desalination of
Seawater: a Case Study in Northern Chile
Jorge F. Servert1, a), Eduardo Cerrajero2, b) and Edward L. Fuentealba3, c)
1
Industrial Engineering Ph.D., CEO Solar Technology Advisors STA. Pza. Manolete 2, 11C, 28020–Madrid (Spain)
2
Chem. Engineer, Senior researcher Solar Technology Advisors STA. Pza. Manolete 2, 11C, 28020–Madrid (Spain)
3
Electric Engineering Ph. D., Director of Energy Development Center CDEA at University of Antofagasta (Chile)
a)
Corresponding author: jservert@sta-solar.com
b)
eduardo.cerrajero@sta-solar.com
c)
efuentealba@uantof.cl

Abstract. The mining industry is a great consumer of water for hydrometallurgical processes. Despite the efforts in
minimizing the use of fresh water through reuse, recycling and process intensification, water demand for mining is
expected to rise a 40% from 2013 to 2020. For seawater to be an alternative to groundwater, it must be pumped up to the
mine (thousands of meters uphill) and desalinated. These processes require intensive energy and investment in
desalination and piping/pumping facilities. A conventional solution for this process would be desalination by reverse
osmosis at sea level, powered by electricity from the grid, and further pumping of the desalinated water uphill. This paper
compares the feasibility of two solar technologies versus the “conventional” option. LCOW (Levelized Cost of Water)
was used as a comparative indicator among the studied solutions, with values for a lifetime of 10, 15, 20 and 25 years,
calculated using a real discount rate equal to 12%. The LCOW is lower in all cases for the RO + grid solution. The cost
of desalination, ignoring the contribution of pumping, is similar for the three technologies from twenty years of
operation. The use of solar energy to desalinate sea water for consumption in the mines of the Atacama region is
technically feasible. However, due to the extra costs from pumping whole seawater, and not just the desalinated water,
solar solutions are less competitive than the conventional process.

INTRODUCTION
Actual water supply for the northern Chilean mining industry comes mainly from groundwater and, to a minor
extent, from surface water [1], with a trend to increase the supply from seawater desalination [2, 3]. This trend is
caused by the limited reposition rate of groundwater and the expected rise in water demand for mining [4].
Desalination aims at increasing the availability of potable or industrial water by treating seawater and obtaining
fresh water and a concentrated brine. Reverse osmosis accounts for nearly 60% of the desalination capacity installed
worldwide [5], and it is the usual choice, due to its low energy consumption and installation cost, whenever the cost
of electricity and the cost of thermal energy are linked. Thermal processes such as Multi-Effect Distillation (MED)
can be competitive if the price of thermal energy is significantly lower than electricity, e.g. when a thermal energy
source not useful for electricity production is available at a low cost.
Energy, either as electricity or as fuel, is more expensive in Chile than in its competing countries as it relies
mostly on imported sources [6]. Finding an alternative energy basis, sustainable and at a stable price, can become
vital to ensure the viability of the mining industry in the future. Northern Chile has a high potential for solar energy
development, thanks to a good solar resource (Fig. 1), a high energy demand [7] and a developed local industry.
Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) using either parabolic trough or central tower technology has advantages versus
other solar options, in terms of dispatchability and high capacity factor, especially when it is combined with thermal
energy storage (TES). The low availability of water in Northern Chile could hamper CSP deployment, as it could
entail the use of air cooling and its subsequent decrease in efficiency and higher investment cost.

SolarPACES 2015
AIP Conf. Proc. 1734, 140002-1–140002-8; doi: 10.1063/1.4949232
Published by AIP Publishing. 978-0-7354-1386-3/$30.00

140002-1
 FIGURE 1. Solar resource (Global Horizontal Irradiation) worldwide. [8]

A clear synergy between CSP and desalination can be seen, with the seawater acting as a cold reservoir for the
CSP’s Rankine cycle, and the cycle’s condenser acting as a low-cost thermal energy source for the MED process, in
a cogeneration-like fashion. Similar configurations have been proposed with combined cycles [9], nuclear reactors
[10], and more recently with low-enthalpy renewable energies such as geothermal [11] and solar [12, 13], combined
with Organic Rankine Cycles [14] and in hybrid polygeneration facilities [15].

APPROACH
Three potential solutions are compared in this paper:
• Conventional “RO + grid”: reverse osmosis (RO) of seawater on the coastline, and further pumping of the
desalinated water up to the consumer’s location, both powered by electricity from the grid.
• Alternative “RO + PV”: pumping of seawater up to the consumer’s location using electricity from the grid,
followed by a reverse osmosis powered by a photovoltaic (PV) plant.
• Alternative “MED + Solar tower”: pumping of seawater up to the consumer’s location using surplus
electricity from the solar plant, followed by a multi-effect distillation (MED) that gets both electricity and
heat from a “solar tower” type, concentrated solar power (CSP) plant (Fig. 2).

The reason behind placing the solar facilities at a high altitude, close to the consumer’s location, is that the solar
resource is significantly better in terms of Direct Normal Irradiation (DNI), which is necessary for a CSP plant.

I t + M t + Et + Ct
∑
n

LCOW =
t =1
(1 + r )t
W
∑t =1 (1 + tr )t
n

(1)

Each solution’s process has been designed and simulated to estimate design parameters and yearly energy
demand and water output. The parameter used to compare the different solutions was the Levelized Cost of Water
(LCOW). Analogous to the Levelized Cost of Electricity (LCOE), it represents the fixed sales price that the
producer should receive in order to cover his expenses and obtain his desired profitability at the end of a certain
period. It is a way of economic evaluation of the systems that considers all the costs incurred during the life of the
plant (investment I, operation and maintenance M, cost of energy E and cost of capital C). It can be calculated with

140002-2
the equation (1), where t is each period of time (usually a year), n is the duration of the analysis period (20 to 25
years), r is the discount rate for the analysis and W is the amount of desalinated water produced by the plant.

01 10 04 09 08 07

06
05
02 03

12

01 Solar field 05 Heat Exchanger 09 Steam turbine

02 Receiver 06 MED 10 Hot salt storage 11

03 Cold salt storage 07 Substation 11 Sea water pump

04 Steam generator 08 Generator 12 Condenser

FIGURE 2. Schematic depiction of the solution MED + Solar tower.

BASIC MODEL RESTRICTIONS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Simplified technical models for the solutions were developed according to state-of-the-art technologies, defined
by to the following parameters:
• Desalinated water demand: 250 L/s, in line with the demand of a medium-sized mining facility [16].
• Location (hypothetical): Atacama region
o Altitude: 2,200 m above sea level
o Distance to the coast: 100 km
o DNI, annual: 3,080 kWh/m2
o GHI, annual: 2,500 kWh/m2
• Reverse Osmosis (RO): [17]
o Yield: 50% (desalinated water / total seawater)
o Energy consumption: 4.5 kWh/m3 (electric)
o Power consumption: 4 MW (electric)
• Multi-Effect Distillation (MED): [18]
o Yield: 38% (desalinated water / total seawater)
o Peak temperature: 60 ºC
o Energy consumption: 2 kWh/m3 (electric) + 60 kWh/m3 (thermal)
o Power consumption: 1.8 MW (electric) + 54 MW (thermal)
• Pumping facility (Fig. 3):
o Slope surmounted: 2,200 m
o Horizontal distance: 100 km
o Design flow rate:
 RO+grid: 250 L/s
 RO+PV: 500 L/s
 MED + Solar tower: 660 L/s
o Design velocity: 2 m/s
o Power consumption:
 RO+grid: 7.9 MW
 RO+PV: 16 MW
 MED + Solar tower: 21 MW

140002-3
 Solar plant

EB 3 Desalination
Electric line
facility
Seawater EB 2
intake
Pipeline
(coast)
EB 1
Pumping
substation

FIGURE 3. Schematic depiction of the seawater pumping process.

• Photovoltaic plant (PV):

o Solar multiple: 1
o Installed peak power: 4.05 MW
o Technology: crystalline module
o Tracking: 1 axis (azimuth)
o Parasitics: 4%
• Solar tower:
o Design restrictions from MED:
 Condenser heat rejection: same as MED heat consumption
 Condenser temperature: 75 ºC
o Peak cycle thermal efficiency: 33.9%
o Solar multiple: 2.25
o Installed peak power:
 Thermal: 187 MW
 Electric: 28 MW
o Thermal energy storage (TES): 15 h
o Parasitics: 12%

The business model of the plant is that of an independent promoter, with an EPC contractor for design and
construction of the plant, and financing the investment through a Project Finance structure. As the solution MED +
Solar tower resulted in a net export of electricity to the grid, the sales price for this surplus electricity was fixed to
the same value as the purchase price used in the other solutions, plus an additional fee according to Chilean
regulation (“Atributo ERNC”).

• Reverse Osmosis (RO): [17]

o Investment cost: US$ 0.9 /(L/day)
o Operation cost (energy excluded): 55 US¢/m3
• Multi-Effect Distillation (MED): [18]
o Investment cost: US$ 1.3 /(L/day)
o Operation cost (energy excluded): 15 US¢/m3
• Pumping facility: [19]
o Investment cost:
 RO+grid: US$ 420 /(m3/s)
 RO+PV: US$ 775 /(m3/s)
 MED + Solar tower: US$ 900 /(m3/s)
 Electric evacuation/supply line: US$ 70,000 /km
o Operation costs (energy excluded):
 Personnel: US$ 270,000
 Spare parts, insurance and miscellaneous: 1.1% of investment

140002-4
 • Photovoltaic plant (PV):
o Investment cost: US$ 2 /W (electric)
o Operation cost (energy excluded): US$ 200,000
• Solar tower:
o Investment cost: US$ 12.3 /W (electric)
o Operation cost (energy excluded): US$ 3,000,000
• Financial assumptions:
o Electricity sales/purchase price (US$/MWh)
 10-year scenario: 130
 15-year scenario: 135
 20-year scenario: 138
 25-year scenario: 140
o Additional sales fee (“Atributo ERNC”): US$ 23 /MWh [20]
o Inflation rate: 0%
o Discount rate: 12%
o Leverage: 75%
o Senior debt conditions:
 Interest rate: 8.5%
 Return period: 10 years (after payment holiday)
 Payment holiday: equals construction period
• Fiscal assumptions: [21]
o Municipal tax: 0.5%
o Corporate tax: 25%
o Depreciation period: 7 years (accelerated depreciation)

LEVELIZED COST OF WATER COMPARISON

Table 1 summarizes the key technical and economic aspects of the solutions under comparison, referred to the
actual estimated production of each. The capacity factor is defined as the quotient between the plant’s actual
production and the maximum theoretical production for a given lapse of time. This reflects the degree of utilization
of the facility, and a high value is beneficial as it allows diluting the fixed costs. The electricity consumption
includes the pumping, and its value is negative for the MED + Solar tower solution because the cogeneration yields
enough electricity to cover the desalination, the pumping, and to export some.
The investment cost is higher for the solar solutions than for the conventional one. The unitary operation cost in
the case “MED + Solar tower” is lower than the conventional solution, but the case “RO + PV” shows higher unitary
costs mainly due to its low annual production that increases the effect of fixed costs.
A sensitivity analysis of the business model was carried out varying several parameters (investment cost,
operation costs, available solar resource, etc.) and the expected LCOW for each solution was obtained in four
different lifetime scenarios (10, 15, 20 and 25 years). The average values obtained are shown in Fig. 4, normalized
with the value of the solution RO + grid, and with a band of ± 2σ to show the dispersion of the results and hint at the
likelihood of a solar solution to obtain a competitive value (where σ is the standard deviation of the results of the
sensitivity analysis).

TABLE 1. Key technical and economic aspects of the compared solutions.

Parameter RO + grid RO + PV MED + Solar tower

Capacity factor 91% 33% 70%
Solar investment cost, US$/(m3/year) - 3 30
Desalination investment cost, US$/(m3/year) 4.5 13 5
Pumping investment cost, US$/(m3/year) 16 80 40
Operation and maintenance costs, US$/(m3/year) 2.4 3.7 1.6
Required land, m2/(m3/year) - <0.1 0.4
Desalinated water production, 10^6 m3/year 7 3 6
Electricity consumption, kWh/m3 9 18 -2

140002-5
 5,0
4,5
LCOW / LCOW conventional 4,0
3,5
3,0
2,5
2,0
1,5
1,0
0,5
0,0

+2σ −2σ avg

FIGURE 4. Estimated cost of water for each solution and lifetime scenario. Values normalized with the solution RO + grid.

The estimated LCOW can be broken down to isolate the contribution of the desalination itself, of the pumping of
distillate, and of the additional cost of pumping whole seawater which would be the apparent cost of pumping the
reject brine (Fig. 5). It is clearly shown that the cost of desalination per se can become competitive using solar
technologies, especially in a long lifetime scenario, but the necessity of pumping hampers the competitiveness of the
solution RO + PV (as the low capacity factor makes the required investment a heavy burden); the solution MED +
Solar tower has a high capacity factor, and it might overcome the burden of pumping the distillate through
economies of scale (Fig. 6) and/or sheer cost reduction as the technology evolves, but the pumping of reject still
keeps this solution away from competitiveness.

16
14
LCOW / LCOW cnoventional

12
10
8
6
4
2
0
10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years
desalinization pumping of distillate pumping of reject

FIGURE 5. LCOW breakdown for: MED + Solar tower (solid), RO + PV (horizontal), RO + grid (vertical). Values normalized
with the solution RO + grid @15 years.

140002-6
 3.0

LCOW/LCOW base 2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0
10 years 15 years 20 years 25 years
500 l/s 250 l/s

FIGURE 6. LCOW comparison when plant size is doubled (from 250 to 500 L/s) for: MED + Solar tower (solid), RO + PV
(horizontal), RO + grid (vertical). Values normalized with the solution RO + grid for 250 L/s.

CONCLUSIONS
The use of solar energy to desalinate sea water for consumption in the mines of the Atacama region is technically
feasible. The use of technologies with a high capacity factor such as CSP Solar tower with TES allows diluting the
investment cost.
However, due to the extra costs from pumping whole seawater, and not just the desalinated water, solar solutions
remain less competitive than the conventional process. To make the process economically viable, the rejected brine
obtained in the desalination should be put in value to compensate its pumping cost. If this is achieved, further
economies of scale, increased capacity factor and the expected cost reduction (as Solar Tower is still in early stages
of its learning curve) would improve the business results and the proposed configuration might become competitive
for a long lifetime scenario.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This paper was based on the works carried out under the Inter-American Development Bank technical assistance
ATN/OC-13087-CH. This paper has not undergone the review accorded to official IADB procedures. The findings,
interpretations, and conclusions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the IADB or those of the Executive Directors. IADB does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this
work.

REFERENCES
1. Superintendencia de Servicios Sanitarios, “Informe de Gestión del Sector Sanitario,” 2012. [Online].
Available: http://www.siss.gob.cl/577/articles-9976_recurso_1.pdf.
2. M. González, “Desalación para suministro de agua potable en el norte de Chile: Caso de Aguas de
Antofagasta S.A.,” in II Seminario Internacional de Desalación en Antofagasta, Antofagasta, 2010.
3. C. Alonso, «Negocios,» Diario La Tercera, 2012. [En línea]. Available:
http://diario.latercera.com/2012/02/12/01/contenido/negocios/27-100290-9-mineras-multiplican-proyectos-de-
desalinizacion-para-enfrentar-la-escasez.shtml.

140002-7
4. V. Pérez and C. Cifuentes, “Inversión en la Minería Chilena. Cartera de Proyectos 2012,” 2012. [Online].
Available: http://www.cochilco.cl/archivos/presentaciones/20120810125147_Presentación Inversiones
Mediana Minería (MEDMIN 2012).pdf.
5. A. Moawad, “Arab Water Council,” 2004. [Online]. Available:
http://www.arabwatercouncil.org/AWF/Downloads/Sessions/Topic2/P2-2-Ahmed_Future-of-Desalination-in-
Egypt.pdf.
6. Ministerio de Energía, “Balances energéticos - BNE 2012,” 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://antiguo.minenergia.cl/minwww/opencms/14_portal_informacion/06_Estadisticas/Balances_Energ.html.
7. R. Brantes and J. I. Zeballos, “Actualización de información sobre el consumo de energía asociado a la
minería del cobre del año 2011,” Comisión Chilena del Cobre, 2012.
8. © GeoModel Solar, «SolarGIS,» 2014 . [Online]. Available:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SolarGIS-Solar-map-World-map-en.png.
9. W. A. Jara Velásquez, “Estudio comparativo de plantas de desalinización para abastecimiento de agua en la
ciudad de Ica,” in 8º Congreso Iberoamericano de Ingeniería Mecánica, Cuzco, 2007.
10. J. Palacios, “Nuevo desarrollo tecnológico en el diseño, construcción, rendimiento y seguridad de reactores,”
in Perspectivas de la Generación Nucleoeléctrica en América Latina y el Caribe, 2010.
11. S. Loutatidou and H. A. Arafat, “Techno-economic analysis of MED and RO desalination powered by low-
enthalpy geothermal energy,” Desalination, vol. 365, pp. 277-292, 2015.
12. H. Sharon and K. S. Reddy, “A review of solar energy driven desalination technologies,” Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 41, pp. 1080-1118, 2015.
13. A. Fernández-García, E. Rojas, M. Pérez, R. Silva, Q. Hernández-Escobedo and F. Manzano-Agugliaro, “A
parabolic-trough collector for cleaner industrial process heat,” Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 89, pp.
272-285, 2015.
14. B. Peris, J. Navarro-Esbrí, F. Molés, M. González and A. Mota-Babiloni, “Experimental characterization of an
ORC (organic Rankine cycle) for power and CHP (combined heat and power) applications from low grade
heat sources,” Energy, vol. 82, pp. 269-276, 2015.
15. U. Sahoo, R. Kumar, P. C. Pant and R. Chaudhury, “Scope and sustainability of hybrid solar–biomass power
plant with cooling, desalination in polygeneration process in India,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy
Reviews, vol. 51, pp. 304-316, 2015.
16. A. I. Zúñiga, “Consumo de agua en la industria minera chilena: situación actual y proyecciones,” 2008.
[Online]. Available: http://www.concesiones.cl/publicacionesyestudios/seminariosytalleres/Documents/
Seminario Desalinizacion Ana Isabel Zuniga.pdf. [Accessed 2013].
17. D. Alarcón, J. Blanco, E. Zarza, S. Malato and J. León, “Comparación económica de procesos de desalación
de agua de mar: el reto de la destilación multi-efecto con energía solar,” in Congreso Ibérico sobre Gestión y
Planificación del agua, Sevilla, 2002.
18. J. C. Ibrahim Perera, Desalación de aguas, Colegio de Ingenieros de Caminos, Canales y Puertos, 1998.
19. Private communications with Chilean mining companies, 2011.
20. B. Herrera, “Energías Renovables No Convencionales (ERNC): Situación actual y futura,” Electricidad. La
revista energética de Chile, 2012. [Online]. Available:
http://www.revistaei.cl/noticias/index_neo_opinion.php?id=30356. [Accessed 2013].
21. J. F. Servert, E. Cerrajero, E. Fuentealba and M. Cortés, “Assessment of the impact of financial and fiscal
incentives for the development of utility-scale solar energy projects in northern Chile,” Energy Procedia, no.
49, pp. 1885-1895, 2014.

140002-8