DESALINATION

Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Thermo-economic investigation of multi effect evaporation

(MEE) and hybrid multi effect evaporation—
multi stage flash (MEE-MSF) systems
A. S. Nafeya*, H. E. S. Fathb, A. A. Mabrouka
aEngineering Science Dept., Faculty of Petroleum & Mining Engineering,

Suez Canal University, Suez, Egypt; E mail: asnafey31@yahoo.com, abdul_naser70@yahoo.com

bMechanical Eng., Faculty of Eng., Alexandria University, Alex., Egypt; E-mail: h_elbanna_f@hotmail.com.

Received 10 January 2005; accepted 26 September 2005

Abstract
In this work, a number of comparisons for Multi Effect Evaporation (MEE) and hybrid Multi Effect Evaporation—
Multi Stage Flash (MEE-MSF) systems are performed using the exergy and thermoeconomic analysis. The comparison
is performed based on the same platform and working under the same operating conditions. The numerical results reveal
that the Forward Feed Multi Effect Evaporation (MEE-FF) performance ratio is 42% higher than that of the parallel/cross
multi effect evaporation (MEE-P/C) system. The exergetic efficiency of the forward feed system is 17% higher than that
of the parallel/cross feed system. As a result, the unit product cost of the MEE-FF configuration is 40% less than that of
the MEE-P/C for eight effects. Thermoeconomic analysis of the hybrid (MEE-MSF) system showed that the running
cost decreases with increasing the module number, however the capital cost increases. As a result, the minimum unit prod-
uct cost is obtained at 8 modules and is settled by 1.65 $/m3. Comparison between MSF (20 stages), MEE-FF (10 effects),
and the hybrid MEE-MSF (10 modules) showed that the unit product cost of the hybrid MEE-MSF system is obtained as
1.7 $/m3 which is 31% less than that of the MSF(2.63 $/m3) system and 9% less than that of the MEE-FF (1.87 $/m3)
system. These results show that the hybrid MEE-MSF is more economical than either stand alone MSF or MEE system.

Keywords: MEE, MSF, Hybrid MSF-MEE, Exergy, Thermoeconomics.

1. Introduction RO and low temperature MEE of horizontal tube

The race for the second generation of the sea
water desalination systems has been settled with
*Corresponding author
evaporators. Both systems are characterized by
their low energy consumption as compared to the
Multi Stage Flash (MSF) system, Darwish [1].
Using thin brine film evaporation outside the hor-
izontal tubes, in MEE systems, increase the heat

0011-9164/06/$– See front matter © 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2005.09.044
242 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254
transfer coefficient especially with corrugated
tubes. This also decrease the resident time re-
quired for the scale formation. The recent trend is
to use horizontal tube evaporators connected
inside a large vessel with inside gates and ducts
to direct streams between effects. These arrange-
ments avoid the problem of using many connec-
tions at many effects, Darwish [1].
Many configurations of MEE process can be
arranged and schemed by changing the feed pre-
heater arrangement and types see Standiford (1963),
[4]. Most of the previous works are carried out to
reduce the energy consumption cost by enhancing
the steam economy (kg product/kg steam) (per-
formance ratio) [1, 2, 3]. However, on reducing
the steam consumption flow rate, this will increase
the required heating surface area to give the same
distilled output. Five different configurations of
MEE process were solved by Nafey [2] under the
same operating and design conditions. Nafey (1988)
showed that the configuration which preheats the
feed by vapor bleed through external heat ex-
changers has the higher performance ratio.
Some example for industrial applications of
the parallel feed MEE can be found in literature,
Temstet et al. (1965) and Temstet et al. (1996) as
present in [3]. Performance analysis was con-
ducted by El-Dessouky el al. [3] for the Parallel
and parallel/cross flow patterns of MEE process.
Results indicated that better performance is ob-
tained by parallel/cross feed MEE system. The
review mentioned above showed that different
MEE configurations were considered, and differ-
ent preheating techniques were used. Number of
comparisons was made based on the first law of
thermodynamics [2, 3]. However the economical
comparison of these configurations based on the
second law computations (Thermoeconomics) is
still required.
In the hybrid MEE-MSF process, the MSF
serve as the brine heating system for multi effect
evaporation MEE. Potable water is mainly pro-
duced by MEE component. Each effect is com-
bined with one or more flash stages. Chemical
self-sufficient sea water desalination was de-
scribed by Kuenstle and Brunner [5]. The multi
stage flash process and the vertical tube evapora-
tion process are combined to achieve the planned
operating conditions such as; 180°C of top brine
temperature, concentration factor of 5 and per-
formance ratio of 15. In this process, the VTE
evaporators units are arranged in parallel to the
MSF stages. Each module consists of two MSF
stages and one VTE evaporator unit. The results
showed that the chemical self sufficient sea water
desalination concept have a lower specific fuel
consumption than comparable conventional
plants. The results of comparative cost calculation
with conventional plants showed that chemical
self sufficient sea water desalination plant can
compete with normal dual purpose plants [5]. The
feature of this type of hybrid system may be valu-
able when the thin film horizontal tube is consid-
ered. Thermoeconomic analysis will provide a
provision insight to improve this process. In this
work, the design of hybrid Multi Effect Evapo-
ration–Multi Stage Flash (MEE-MSF) system is
performed using the exergy and thermoeconomic
analysis.
Second law analysis computations allow engi-
neers to distribute energy resources at the bound-
ary of the system of interest to each part of the
system. Thermoeconomics distribute the expenses
on the plant boundary in each unit streams based
on the exergy not energy. The exergy destruction
was estimated by Spiegler et al. [6] for specific
operating conditions of MEE unit and MSF stage.
The results showed that the exergy destruction of
the MEE effect is lower than that of the flash
chamber.
In this work, comparison between forward
feed-Multi Effect Evaporation (MEE-FF) and
parallel /cross feed MEE-P/C is executed. A new
configuration of hybrid Multi Effect Evapora-
tion—Multi Stage Flash (MEE-MSF) systems
will be investigated using the exergy and thermo-
economic analysis. Finally, comparison among
the best from the product cost point view of MEE
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254
configurations, the hybrid MEE-MSF system and
the conventional MSF configuration is performed
based on the same platform.
2. Process configurations
(i) Forward Feed–Multi Effect Evaporation
(FF-MEE) System
Fig. 1 shows the process flowsheet of the for-
ward feed multi effect evaporation (MEE-FF)
system as presented by Nafey [2]. The hot end is
at the left side however the cold end is at the right
side, at the last effect. The vapor flows from left
to right, in the direction of falling pressure, while
the sea water feed flows in opposite direction. The
brine stream leaves the first stage to the second
stage, where it sprayed on the evaporator tubes.
The system contains a number (n) of evaporators
Fig. 1. Forward feed multi effect evaporation (MEE-FF) system.
243
(effects) and a train of (n–1) condensers which
use the bleeding steam as a heating medium for
the feed stream, a train of (n–1) feed/distillate
heat exchangers and a down condenser.
(ii) Parallel/Cross Feed - Multi Effect
Evaporation (P/C-MEE) System
Fig. 2 shows parallel/cross feed multi effect
evaporation system as presented by El-Dessouky
et. al. [3]. The hot end is at the left side and the cold
end is at the right side, at the last effect. The vapor
flows from left to right, in the direction of falling
pressure, while the sea water feed flows in a per-
pendicular direction. The brine stream leaves the
first effect to the second effect, where it flashes
and mixes with the feed seawater. The system con-
tains a number (n) of evaporators (effect) and a train
of (n–1) flashing tanks, and a down condenser.
244 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

Fig. 2. Parallel/cross feed multiple evaporation (MEE-P/C) system.

(iii) Hybrid MEE-MSF System vapor is formed by flashing. The exit brine stream
from the first MSF stage is again divided into two
The idea of the hybrid MEE-MSF is found in
streams; the first stream is directed to the second
literatures from the 60s of the last century. In this
MEE evaporator to produce another amount of
work, the modification in the configuration is to
vapor using the formed vapor of the first effect.
be considered by using the thermoeconomics
The exit brine stream is then mixed with the second
analysis. In the hybrid MEE-MSF system one
one before entering the second MSF stage. This sit-
flash evaporator together with one boiling evap-
uation of flow streams is repeated for all modules.
orator MEE evaporator forms one module. This
The vapor of the last MEE evaporator is con-
system consists of a number of modules as shown
densed in a separate condenser using cooling sea
in Fig. 3. A brine heater and desuperheater are uti-
water. Equal feed flow rate and equal heating sur-
lized in the oriented configuration. The sea water
face area of MEE evaporators are considered in
feed is preheated in the MSF evaporators before
this process. As the sea water is directly intro-
it is introduced to the brine heater. The exit stream
duced to the last stage of the MSF, this configura-
from brine heater is divided into two streams; the
tion is denoted by once through.
first stream is fed to the first MEE evaporator
where vapor is formed by utilizing external heat-
ing steam. The exit brine stream of the first MEE
3. Exergy and thermo-economic analysis
evaporator is then mixed with the second stream
out of the brine heater. The mixed brine stream Mathematical models of mass and energy bal-
is then fed to the first stage of MSF where the ance equations are illustrated in details by Nafey
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254
Fig. 3. Hybrid MEE-MSF desalination process.
[2] and El-Dessouky et al. [3]. Here only the exergy
and thermoeconomic analysis are presented.
3.1 Mathematical modeling
The method of exergy is one of the most visible
and established techniques to analyze the plant
losses and the units cause losses. Exergy analysis
is a method that uses the mass and energy conser-
vation principles together with the second law of
thermodynamics (entropy equations) for the design
and analysis of desalination processes. The exergy
of saline water, vapor and distilled water are pre-
sented by the authors in [8]. Exergy balance analy-
sis of each unit in the considered configurations
is performed based on the following equation:
E⭈ = E⭈ + E⭈ + E⭈
F P D L (1)
The rate of fuel exergy ( E⭈ F) represents the re-
sources expended to generate the product. The
245
difference between the fuel and product is mainly
due to exergy destruction within the system ( E⭈ D)
and the exergy loss out of the process ( E⭈ L ), [9].
The exergy balance equation for most employed
components in the present configurations are il-
lustrated in details in [8]. As an illustrated example,
the exergy balance of the Forward Feed evapora-
tor and parallel/Cross feed evaporator are explained
in the following section.
3.1.1 Forward feed evaporator, Fig. 4
The evaporator may be considered as two sub-
units; preheater/condenser exchanger and tank for
vapor generation, which is operating simultaneously
as shown in Fig. 4. Most formed vapor is generated
by boiling and small fraction by flashing.
The exergy destruction in the forward feed
evaporator is obtained as:
E⭈ = E⭈
D – E⭈
steam, in + E⭈ – E⭈ – E⭈
condensate,out b,3 b,3 (2)
vapor
246 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

Fig. 4. Simple flow sheet of Forward Feed Evaporation.

Fig. 5. Simple flow sheet of Parallel/Cross Feed
Evaporator.
The exergetic efficiency of the evaporator unit
is written as follows:
E⭈ b,3 – E⭈ b,1 + E⭈ vapor E⭈ b,4 – E⭈ feed,1 – E⭈ b,3 + E⭈ vapor
ηII = — — ————⭈—————— (3) ηII = ——
E⭈
———————————— (8)
steam,in–E condensate,out E⭈ steam,in – E⭈ condensate,out
The forward feed evaporator cost balance is The parallel/cross feed evaporator cost balance
written as follows: is written as follows:
C⭈vapor + C⭈ b,3 – C⭈ b,1 = C⭈steam – C⭈condensate
C⭈vapor + C⭈ b,4 – C⭈ feed,1 – C⭈ b,1 = C⭈steam – C⭈condensate
+ Z⭈ CI+OM (4)
+ Z⭈ CI+OM
evaporator
evaporator (9)
As there are three outlet streams from evap-
orator, two additional auxiliary equations are Two additional auxiliary equations are re-
required. The first auxiliary equation states the quired. The first auxiliary equation states the
equality of the average cost of the inlet feed and equality of the average cost of the inlet feed and
exit brine. exit brine.
C⭈ b,1 – C⭈ b,3 C⭈ feed,1 – C⭈ b,4
— ——— —— = 0 (5)
E⭈ b,1 – E⭈ b,3
— ——— —— —— = 0 (10)
E⭈ feed,1 – E⭈ b,4
The second auxiliary equation states the equal The second auxiliary equation states the equal
average cost of the heating steam and its conden- average cost of the heating steam and its conden-
sate; i.e sate; i.e.
C⭈ vapor – C⭈ condensate C⭈ vapor – C⭈ condensate
— ——— —— ———— = 0 (6)
E⭈vapor – E⭈ condensate
—
E⭈
——— ——
– E⭈
———— = 0 (11)
vapor condensate

3.1.2 Parallel/Cross Feed Evaporator, Fig. 5

The exergy destruction in the parallel/cross
feed evaporator is obtained as:
E⭈ D = E⭈ steam,in – E⭈ condensate,out – E⭈ feed,1 + E⭈ b,3 –
E⭈ b,4 – E⭈ vapor
The exergetic efficiency of the evaporator
unit is:
3.2. Cost of energy and process components
The cost of extracted steam to MEE process is
calculated as 4.5 $/m3 while the Specific cost of
(7) electricity is calculated as 0.098 $/kWh, see the
detailed in Appendix A.
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254 247

The capital investment and operation and main- Distilled flow rate m
Gain ratio, GR = —————————— = ——d (13)
tenance term of the right hand side of either equa- Steam flow rate ms
tion (4) or (9), Z⭈ CI+OM is calculated using the
illustrated relations in Table 1. Plant Exergetic efficiency, ηII =
The total annual investment cost of each pro- E⭈ distilled-water
—⭈————— —————————————— ——— (14)
(Esteam – E⭈ condensate) + E⭈ feed + E⭈ pumping-power
cess unit is calculated according the following
relation,[9]:

Annual investment = Present value × Unit product cost, $/m3, C⭈ w =

i × (1 + i)n C⭈ distilled + C⭈ loss ($/h) C⭈ p + C⭈ L
———— ——— = 0 (12) —— ————————— = —— ⭈—— — (15)
(1 + i)n – 1 Distilled flow rate m d

Using an interest rate, i = 5% and the amorti- Specific heat transfer area, SA =
zation year, n = 20 years; Then, the hourly cost
Heat transfer area
equals to annual investment/365×24×0.9 $/h. ———————————— ——— (15)
This cost is fed to the program as a capital cost for Distilled output flow rate
each process unit. The present work is organized as follows; com-
The developed VDS package uses the designed parison between MEE-FF and MEE-P/C systems
and operating variables of Table 3 to solve mass, at different effect number to estimate the best
pressure, energy balance equations. Then the exergy from the cost viewpoint. Investigate the hybrid
flow rate of the streams is calculated. Using the MEE-MSF process under different module num-
relation cost data of Table 1 and chemical cost of ber. Then comparison between MEE-FF, MEE-
Table 2, the process cost balance equation model is MSF and MSF systems is conducted.
solved to obtain the monetary cost flow rate of the
streams. Then the following parameters are calcu-
lated for the overall plant performance analysis:
4. Results and discussion

Table 1
Cost data of the process units

Unit Equation Reference

Evaporator, $ Z = 430 × 0.582 × UA × ΔPt –0.01 × ΔPs–0.1 El-Sayed [10]

U, kW/m2k; A, m2, ΔP, kPa
⎧ η —⎫
1000 × 32 × 0.000435 × (Mwater )0.55 ΔP 0.55⎩1——–—η
Pump, $ ⎭ El-Sayed [10]
M, kg/s; ΔP, kPa El-Sayed [10]
Heat exchanger, $ 1000 × (12.86 + A0.8) ⇒ A: m3 El-Mudir [11]
Steam cost, $/m3 of steam 4.5 Appendix A
Intake cost, $/m3 of distillate 0.072 Appendix A
Electricity, $/kWh 0.098 Appendix A
248 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

Table 2
Chemical cost and dosing rate [12]

Unit cost Dosing rate

Chemical ($/kg) (g/ton)

Pre-treatment for make up

Sulfuric acid, H2 SO4, 0.504 24.2
(Demineralization)
Caustic soda, NaOH, 0.701 14
(Demineralization)
a
Belgard EV2030, 1.9 5–14.4
(Antiscalant)
Sodium Sulfite, NA2 SO3, 0.1 5
(Dechlorination)

Post-treatment for distillate

Chlorine 0.482 4

Table 3
Specified variable of low temperature design calculations b

Specified variable Value Units

Sea water temperature 27 °C

Salt concentration in feed, Xf 45 g/l
Required Distillate 208 Ton/h
Vapor temperature at the
last evaporator, Tj 40 °C
Salt concentration at the
reject stream, Xj 70 g/l
Heating steam temperature 73 °C
ΔT, approach for heat exchanger 2.778 °C c

Fig. 6 shows a comparison between the for-

ward feed (MEE-FF) and the parallel cross feed
multi effect evaporator (MEE-P/C) at different

Fig. 6. a. Gain ratio variation vs. No. of effects. b. Spe-

cific area vs. no. of effects. c. Exergetic efficiency vs. no.
of effects. d. Unit product cost of desalted water vs. no. of
effects. d
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254 249

number of effects. Under the specified conditions, Table 4

it is found that there is no visible solution for a comparison between MEE-FF and MEE-P/C processes
process greater than 8 effects in the case of MEE-
P/C system. The problem of the convergence of Process type MEE-FF MEE-P/C
the system’s equations arises when the evapora- Capacity of distillate, m3/h 208 208
tors number increase. It is found that, there is no No. of effect 8 8
convergence at 10 evaporators. This problem First effect feed temperature, Tf 65 34
arises because the available surface area is greater
Last effect vapor temperature, Tj 40 37
than that required for the specified capacity of the
Heating steam temperature, °C 73 73
process. This situation implies that either the heat-
Gain ratio, GR 6.5 4.6
ing steam temperature should be increased or the
cold end specification should be lowered. Gen- Area, m2 17,889 23,493
erally, it can be inferred that the non convergence Exergy input, MW 8.5 10
is a physical flowsheet problem. Exergy destruction, MW 3.4 4.8
Fig. 6a shows that the gain ratio of the MEE- Exergy loss, MW 4.9 5
FF and MEE-P/C configurations increases as the Exergy output, MW 0.195 0.195
number of effects increase. The increase in the Exergetic efficiency, ηII 2.3 1.94
gain ratio for larger number of effects is a result Running cost, $/h 210 325
of increasing the number of vapor reuse in the Capital cost, $/h 172 212
system. This figure showed that the system gain Cost of loss stream, $/h 354 476
ratio of the MEE-FF is higher than that of MEE- Cost of destruction, $/h 84 155
P/C. This is due to the increase of steam con-
Unit product cost, $/m3 1.84 2.58
sumption in MEE-P/C because of the low feed
temperature as shown in Table 4. Low feed tem-
perature consumes more energy for sensitive heating surface is lowered in MEE-FF system.
heating before reaching the boiling point. Using Table 4 shows that, at 8th effects, the MEE-FF heat
successive heat exchangers in the MEE-FF con- transfer area is 24% less than that of the MEE-P/C.
figuration increase the feed temperature before Fig. 6c shows that the exergetic efficiency for
the inlet of the first evaporator. The numerical the two systems increases as the number of evap-
results showed that, at 8th effects, the FF-MEE orators increases. Although, the exergy out of the
gain ratio is 42% higher than that of the MEE-P/C two systems is fixed, the exergetic efficiency is
as shown in Table 4. increased. This is owing to the decrease in the
Fig. 6b shows that the specific heat transfer area exergy input. The exergy input decreases because
for the two systems increases with the increasing of the decrease of steam consumption. Fig. 6.c
the evaporator numbers. The increase in the spe- shows that the MEE-FF system is more exergetic
cific heat transfer is caused by the reduction in the than the MEE-P/C. The exergy analysis results
driving force for heat transfer, or the temperature showed that at 8 effects, the exergetic efficiency of
drop per effect. Fig. 6b shows also that the Forward the forward feed system is 17% higher than that of
Feed system has a lower specific heat transfer area the parallel/cross feed system as shown in Table 4.
than the Parallel/Cross system. This is mainly due Fig. 6d shows that the unit product cost of the
to the difference in the feed flow pattern in the desalted water decreases as the evaporator num-
two configurations. As the required desalted water bers increase. The unit product cost reduction is
capacity is fixed (design mode), while the heating caused by the decrease in the operating cost
load is lower in MEE-FF system, the satisfaction (steam consumption) despite the increase in the
250 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

cost of the surface area. Fig. 6d shows that the
desalted water cost is almost the same for 6 and
8 effects. This means that a minimum cost is
reached, and any further increase in the effect
number will increase the water cost. In fact this
economic view which fortunately agrees with
physical convergence problem as mentioned above.
Fig. 6d shows also that the unit product cost in the
MEE-FF configuration is lower than that of the
MEE-P/C. The input invested cost in the MEE-
FF system is small due to the lower heating surface
and steam consumption. The thermoeconomic anal-
ysis showed that that the unit product cost of MEE-
FF configuration 40% less than that of the MEE-P/C
for eight evaporators as shown in Table 4. The con-
clusion of the above discussion is that the forward
feed FF-MEE configuration is preferable.
In Hybrid MEE-MSF system, equal feed flow
rate to each evaporator is maintained as well as
equal heat transfer area of each evaporator is con-
sidered. Table 5 shows the effect of number of
modules (one flash stage + one boiling evapora-
tor). Energy analysis showed that the gain ratio
increased with the increase of the number of mod-
ules. This is due to the multiple reuse of generated
steam through the evaporators cause a reduction
in the external steam consumption. The calculated
heat transfer surface increases with the increase
of the module numbers. This is owing to the re-
duction of the external heating steam as well as
the reduction in the temperature drop per stage/
evaporator. The pumping power decreases as the
evaporator number increases. This reduction is
owing to the reduction in the cooling water flow
rate as well as the reduction in the flow rate of the
internal streams. The exergy analysis showed that
the exergy input to the system decreased with
increase of the module numbers as shown in
Table 5. This is owing to the decrease in the steam
energy consumption and the lower in the electri-
cal power consumption. The exergy destruction
decreases with the increase of the module num-
ber. This is due to the lower irreversibility of heat
transfer as the temperature difference around any
evaporator is lowered. The exergy associated to
the blow down streams is decreased as the mod-
ule numbers increases. This indicated that the
temperature of the exit streams is low. Table 5
shows that the exergy efficiency of the system
increases as the module number increases.

Table 5
Effect of module number variation on MEE-MSF configuration

Module number 2 4 6 8 10

Tf 70 70 70 70 70
GR 1.9 3.6 5.25 6.7 8
Area, m2 6032 7,493 10,825 15,020 20,717
Exergy input, MW 74 38 22 19 15.7
Electric power, MW 0.8 0.42 0.25 0.24 0.2
Exergy destruction, MW 19 10 6.8 5.5 4.5
Exergy loss, MW 55 27 15 13.7 11
Exergy output, MW 0.24 0.22 0.22 0.2 0.2
η II 0.34 0.59 1.12 1.27 1.31
Running cost, $/h 628 375 260 211 178
Capital cost, $/h 50 79 103 133 174
Unit product cost, $/m3 3.25 2.19 1.74 1.65 1.70
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254 251

The running cost decreases with the increase
of the module number, however the capital cost
increases. As a results of this inverse effect, the
minimum unit product cost is obtained at 8 mod-
ules and settled by 1.65 $/m3.
Comparison between MSF, MEE, and the
hybrid MEE-MSF are shown in Table 6. Results
of MSF desalination plant is shown in Fig. 7. the
sea water temperature, salinity are the same in the
three systems. However, the heating steam con-
ditions values vary according to the system char-
acteristic as shown in Table 6. Although the three
systems have almost the same gain ratio (GR), the
cost of heating steam is higher in the MSF
process. This is because the steam quality in MSF
is higher as it is bleed at high conditions (7 bar
and 205°C) compared to the low quality steam in
both MEE-FF and MEE-MSF process (0.6 bar and
saturated). The running cost is higher in the MSF
due to the cost of heating steam. The capital cost
is higher in MEE system and the hybrid system
comes in the second. This is owing to the higher
heating surface area in MEE system as shown in
Table 6. The net results of the capital and running
sum is lower in the hybrid MEE-MSF process. As
a result the unit cost of the desalted water is lower
in the hybrid MEE-MSF system and is amounted
by 1.7 $/m3.
The unit product cost of the MEE system is ob-
tained by 1.87 $/m3 which is 29% less than the MSF
system (2.63 $/m3). The unit product cost of the
hybrid MEE-MSF system is obtained by 1.7 $/m3
which is 31% less than that of the MSF system
and 9% less than that of the MEE system. These

Table 6
Design calculation results of MSF, MEE, and MEE-MSF processes.

Process type MSF MEE-FF MEE-MSF

Distillate Capacity, m3/day* 5000 5000 5000

Heating steam, Tsteam, °C 113 73 73
TBT, °C* 110 66 67
Tj, °C 40 40 36
Product TDS, g/l 0 0 0
Sea water temperature, °C, * 27 27 27
Feed TDS, g/l, * 45 45 45
Reject TDS, g/l 70 70 70
No. of Stages & Evaporator 20 10 10 +10
Flash evaporator area, m2 9494 — 2072
Evaporator Area, m2 — 19,830 18177
Heat exchanger area, m2 829 3,613 468
Total area, m2 10,323 23445 20,717
GR 8 8 8.12
SPC, kWh/m3 2.84 0.8 0.96
Cost of steam, $/h 348 137 141
Capital cost, $/h 121 218 174
Running cost, $/h 425 173 178
Unit product cost, $/m3 2.66 1.87 1.70
252 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

Fig. 7. Design calculation results of MSF desalination plant of 5000 m3/day.

results show that the hybrid MEE-MSF is more
economical than either stand alone MSF or MEE
system.
5. Conclusions
In this work, comparisons for Multi Effect Evap-
oration (MEE) and hybrid Multi Effect Evapora-
tion—Multi Stage Flash (MEE-MSF) systems have
been performed using the exergy and thermo-
economic analysis. The comparison performed
based on the same platform and working under the
same operating conditions. The numerical results
reveal that the (MEE-FF) performance ratio is
42% higher than that of (MEE-P/C) system. The
exergetic efficiency of the forward feed system is
17% higher than that of the parallel/cross feed
system. As a result, the unit product cost of For-
ward Feed Multi Effect Evaporation (MEE-FF)
configuration is 40% less than that of the Parallel
Cross Multi Effect Evaporation (MEE-P/C) for
eight effects. Thermoeconomic analysis of the
hybrid (MEE-MSF) system showed the running
cost decreases with increase of the module number,
however the capital cost increases. As a result, the
minimum unit product cost is obtained at 8 modules
and is settled by 1.65 $/m3. Comparison between
MSF (20 stages), MEE-FF (10 effects), and the
hybrid MEE-MSF (10 modules) showed that the
 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254 253

unit product cost of the hybrid MEE-MSF system [6] K. S. Spiegler and Y. M. El-Sayed, The energetic of
is obtained as 1.7 $/m3 which is 31% less than that desalination processes. Desalination, 134 (2001)
109–128.
of the MSF system and 9% less than that of the
[7] A. S. Nafey, H. S. Fath, A. A. Mabrouk and M. A.
MEE-FF system. These results show that the hybrid El-Zeky, A new visual computer package for simu-
MEE-MSF is more economical than either stand lation of thermal desalination processes: develop-
alone MSF or MEE system. ment and verification. Accepted for publication in
Desalination Journal.
Nomenclature [8] A. S. Nafey, H. S. Fath, A. A. Mabrouk and M. A.
C⭈ — cost flow rate, $/h
El-Zeky, Exergy and thermo-economics evaluation
of MSF using a new visual package. Accepted for
c — cost per unit exergy, $/GJ publication in Desalination Journal.
E⭈ — Exergy flow rate, MW [9] A. Bejan, G. Tsatsaronis and M. Moran, Thermal
m⭈ — mass flow rate, kg/s Design and Optimization. Wiley (1996).
Z⭈ — Rate of the capital cost [10] Y. M. El-Sayed, Designing desalination systems for
higher productivity. Desalination, 134, (2001)
129–158.
Superscripts [11] W. El-Mudir, M. El-Bousiffi and S. Al-Hengari, Per-
CI — Capital investment formance evaluation of a small size TVC desalina-
OM— Operation and Maintenance tion plant. Desalination 165 (2004) 269–279.
[12] H. M.Ettouney, H. T. El-Dessouky, R. Faibish and
Subscripts P. Gowin, Evaluating the economics of desalination.
CEP Magazine, 2002.
b — Brine water [13] M. A. Darwish, F. A. Youcef and N. M. Al-Najem.
D — Destruction Energy consumption and costs with a multi-stage
d — Distillate flashing (MSF) desalting system. Desalination, 109
F — Fuel (1997) 285–302.
L — Loss
P — Product

Greek Letters
ηII — Exergetic efficiency
References
[1] M. A. Darwish, Technical aspects of reducing desalt-
ing water costs in distillation methods. Desalination,
72 (1989) 381–393.
[2] A. S. Nafey, Design and simulation of thermal
desalination processes. Ph. D. Thesis, Leeds Univ.,
UK (1988).
[3] H. T. El-Dessouky, H. M. Ettouney and F. Mandani,
Performance of parallel feed multiple effect evap-
oration system for seawater desalination. Applied
Thermal Engineering, 20 (2000) 1679–1706.
[4] F. C. Standiford, Evaporation is a unit operation.
Chem. Eng., 70 (1963) 185.
[5] K. Kuentle and G. Brunner, An integrated self suf-
ficient multipurpose plan for seawater desalination.
Desalination, (1981) 459–474.
Appendix A
Cost of heating steam and electricity
The reference plant of 5000 m3/d of GR = 8 is
considered to calculate the steam cost and elec-
tricity. The extracted steam is saturated at 0.3 bar
form feed water heater of a power plant of gas
fired power plant of 320 MW. The DPP boiler is
supplied with fuel energy, Qf , in order to raise the
availability (exergy) of water stream flowing
through the boiler.
Fig. A.1 shows the design conditions of the
boiler of 320 MW power and 5000 m3/d desalted
water plant of Eoun Mousa.
The exergy analysis of the boiler is calculated
based on the following equation
E⭈ = M⭈ × [(h – h ) – T × (S – S )]
s 1 0 0 i 0 (A.1)
254 A.S. Nafey et al. / Desalination 201 (2006) 241–254

The exergy of the extracted steam is calculated

as follows:
E⭈ = M
⭈ × [(h – h ) – T × (S – S )]
s ext 0 0 ext (A.3)
0

E⭈ ext,steam = 7 × [(2625 – 105) – 300 × (7.8 – 0.35)]

= 1.995 MW

The fuel charged to the boiler and is calculated as

Fig. A.1. Design conditions of boiler of 320 MW power follows:
& 5000 m3/day desalted water.
M⭈ × [(h – h ) + (h – h )]
s
Qf,boiler = —— ———2——— 1
——— 4
——1—
— (A.4)
ηb
The specific enthalpy and entropy of the steam
is calculated based on relation by the developed 302 × [(3394 – 1086) + (3560 – 2950)]
= ———————————— —————————
VDS package. 0.92
Exergy of water inlet to the boiler is calculated = 958 MW
as follows:
Based on the rational basis, the ratio between the
E⭈ 1 = 302 × [(1086 – 105) – 300 × (2.76 – 0.35)] fuel charged to the MEE process is calculated as
= 78 MW follows, [13]:
E⭈
Exergy of the superheated steam at point 2 is Qf,MEE = Qf,boiler × —⭈ext,steam
——— (A.5)
E p,boiler
calculated as follows:
E⭈ = 302 × [(3394 – 105) – 300 × (6.39 – 0.35)]
1.995
2
= Qf,boiler × ——— = 0.0043 × 958
= 446 MW 470
= 4 MW
Exergy of the cold reheat steam at point 3 is cal-
culated as follows: Cost of gas consumption = 0.0065 × 958 =
6.23 $/s.
E⭈ = 302 × [(2950 – 105) – 300 × (6.39 – 0.35)]
3
= 312 MW Cost of the fuel charged to the MEE process =
4 × 0.0065 × 1.2 × 3600 = 116 $/h,
Exergy of the reheated steam at point 4 is calcu-
lated as follows: The cost of extracted steam to MEE process =
116/26 = 4.5 $/m3.
E⭈ = 302 × [(3560 – 105) – 300 × (7.3 – 0.35)]
4
= 414 MW Cost of the fuel charged to the power =
(1 – 0.0043) × 6.5 × 1.4 = 8.7 $/s.
The exergy of the boiler product is calculated as
follows: Specific cost of electricity =
E⭈ = (E⭈ – E⭈ ) + (E⭈ – E⭈ )
p 2 1 4 3 (A.2) (8.7 × 3600)/(320,000) = 0.098 $/kWh

E⭈ P,boiler = (446 – 78) + (414 – 312) = 470 MW