Critical Review
Energy Issues in Desalination Processes
RAPHAEL SEMIAT*
Rabin Desalination Laboratory, Grand Water Research Institute, Wolfson Faculty
of Chemical Engineering, TechnionsIsrael Institute of Technology, Technion City,
Haifa 32000, Israel
Received May 14, 2008. Revised manuscript received August 29, 2008. Accepted
September 2, 2008.
Water, energy, and environmental issues are closely related.
Newwatertechniquesconsumeenergy,andinnovativerenewable
energy techniques using biofuels and biodiesel consume an
incredible amount of water. Different desalination techniques
that consume different energy levels from different sources are
in use today. Some people, environmentalists, decision
makers, and even scientists, mainly in nonscientific publications,
consider energy consumption in desalination to be too high
and are seeking new ways of reducing it, which often involves
increasing capital investment. Efforts should be directed at
reducing not only energy consumption but also total water cost.
A competent grasp of thermodynamics and heat and mass
transfer theory, as well as a proper understanding of current
desalination processes, is essential for ensuring beneficial
improvements in desalination processes. Thermodynamics sets
the absolute minimum limit of the work energy required to
separate water from a salt solution. Unavoidable irreversibilities
augment the actual energy consumption, yet modern
desalination techniques have succeeded in considerably
narrowing the gap between actual and limiting energy levels.
The implication of this smaller gap is that only marginal
energy reductions are possible. The current energy consumption
of different desalination processes is reviewed in this paper.
A comparison with other common energy-consuming ventures
leads to some interesting conclusions.
Introduction
Modern life has reduced the percentage of people living on
agriculture. Most of the population is concentrated in large
cities, places that had served in the past as the basis for
settlements around water sources. Over the centuries, the
population grew well beyond its ability to supply its water
needs. The need for water is therefore essential in many
places, while good-quality water flows into the sea in other
places. Conveying water from place to place proved to be
uneconomical. It is well-known that more than 97% of water
on earth has accumulated in the oceans and cannot be used.
A quarter of the world population uses water melted from
snow and glaciers. Three quarters of the world consumes
surface water and aquifer water, altogether less than 0.4% of
all of water on earth.
Many techniques are available for supplying more water.
The most important is wastewater reuse, especially due to
the necessity for cleaning water to prevent pollution. Treated
wastewater is used all over the world for irrigation and
* Corresponding author phone: 972-4-8292009; fax: 972-4-
8230476; e-mail: cesemiat@tx.technion.ac.il.
10.1021/es801330u CCC: $40.75  2008 American Chemical Society
Published on Web 10/22/2008
drinking (Europe and United States) and even in very clean
industries such as semiconductor manufacturing plants
(FABs) in Singapore. Slightly polluted or brackish water is
relatively easy to treat, yet the main, unlimited water source
comes from the oceans and the seas. Over the years, several
desalination techniques have proven to be feasible and are
serving as appropriate sources. Reverse osmosis (RO) is
currently the fastest growing technique for treating different
types of water. Multistage flash distillation is still the most
common technique, especially where energy is still not an
issue. Multieffect distillation has a greater potential as an
evaporation technique, while vapor compression may be
suitable for resort areas or small sites. Other techniques have
proven to be inefficient, such as the freezing technique, solar
stills, and more. Other new technologies are trying to pop up
to challenge the existing, already well-established techniques.
However, with the continuous energy crisis we are facing,
the question of how much energy is needed to make water
is constantly emerging. Unfortunately, significant misun-
derstandings and misinterpretations still prevail, even in the
best published papers. This paper will attempt to make some
sense of this issue. Prof. Silver, one of the best known
desalination developers, said the following about 30 years
ago during a different energy crisis (1): “The production of
fresh water from seawater or other contaminated water when
seen against all the vast and varied industrial activity of the
modern world may seem a small thing. But unless it is
provided it could prove to be the nail for lack of which the
whole battle of civilization might be lost, even if we solve the
energy supply situation.”
Water, Energy, and the Environment
The future of humankind will be affected by three interrelated
major endeavorsswater, energy, and environmental protec-
tion. On one hand, energy requires water for cooling
purposes, and on the other hand, water is needed for growing
biofuels and for biodiesel. Intensified biofuel consumption
has already increased food costs, thus straining living
conditions of inhabitants in Third World countries. Prob-
lematic environmental effects associated with burning oil or
biofuel for energy generation are air pollution and global
warming. Improper water usage through uncontrolled squan-
dering and neglect of wastewater reclamation are intensifying
water pollution and water shortages. In this paper I will
concentrate on issues related to energy needs for medium
to large water desalination processes. Understanding of real
energy consumption in water desalination processes is
essential for the scientific community as well as for the
decision makers.
Minimum Energy for Separation. A thermodynamic
analysis of the energy requirement of some desalination
VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8193
processes has been described by many researchers (2-6).
Equations for W, the minimum isothermal reversible work
of separation, which is applicable to any desalination process
regardless of the separation mechanism (2), are presented:
-W ) ∆H - T∆S ) ∆F
where ∆H represents the change in enthalpy between the
final and the initial stages, ∆S represents the change in
entropy, and ∆F is the change of the free energy. Introducing
the free energy relations to the molar concentration of the
salt in water results in
∫ ∆F dn ) ∫ RT ln a ∫ p
n2
-W ) dn ) RT ln
w n1
where n represents the number of water moles in the solution,
R is the gas constant, aw is the water activity in the solution,
1 and 2 represent the initial and final stages of water
separation from the solution, respectively, and P is the water
vapor pressure assumed as an ideal gas. The final expression
for the minimal separation energy is given by
0.296T
∫ p
n2
-W ) log dn
100 - n2 100 p0
Equation 3 directly gives the theoretical minimum separation
energy in (kW h)/m3 of water product. From eq 1 it is possible
to calculate that the energy needed per cubic meter produced
from an infinite source of 3.5% salt concentration seawater
is given by
-W ) 0.296T log aw
as a value of 0.79 (kW h)/m3. However, for 50% recovery
based on eq 3, the energy demand is 1.09 (kW h)/m3.
On the basis of the chemical potential, µ, the minimum
isothermal reversible energy is given by
-W ) ∆F ) µc + µp - µf
where the letters c, p, and f are concentrate, product, and
feed, respectively. Utilizing thermodynamic relations
F) ∑xµ i i µi ) RT ln ai + µi0
leads to a different equation:
-W ) 2.18T(nc(xc log asc + (1 - xc) log awc) + 0.01725mf)
(7)
where c, s, w, and f represent concentrate, salt, water, and
feed, respectively. Introducing values of a into eq 7 yields
values similar to those of an integration of eq 3.
Similar results have been obtained (4) by direct integration
of the third term in eq 3 by using an equation for aw based
on the osmotic constant φ:
ln aw ) -(∑ m /55.51)φ
i (8)
where mi represents the molality of the different ions.
A value of 1.345 (kW h)/t for seawater at 4.5% was
suggested (5). The values presented are indifferent with
respect to the separation technique. More information on
energy consumption in desalination processes may be found
(6).
Thermal distillation processes suffer from the disadvan-
tage of a high energy penalty associated with irreversibilities
in the process. Irreversibilties account for energy losses due
to friction, heat losses to the environment, heat losses due
to minimal driving forces, losses due to boiling point elevation
(BPE), and more. A simple thermodynamic analysis (2, 3)
based on ideal Carnot cycles leads to the following equation:
8194 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
Wirrev
)
{
1+
∆Tirrev
R } (9)
Wrev η
where Wirrev is the work (energy) required for separating a
(1)
unit of water in an actual process, Wrev is the minimum
separation energy for a reversible process, and η is the Carnot
efficiency of the process. The term ∆Tirrev expresses all
irreversibilities in a process in terms of the temperature
driving force and R is the boiling point rise (BPR). BPR (R)
is the temperature difference in a minimum energy reversible
separation process. No evaporation can take place when the
dn (2) temperature difference is equal to or smaller than the BPR
p0 value.
Assuming a 50% recovery process of an initial 3.5% NaCl
solution using relations in ref 2, we find that R ) 1 °C and
Wrev ) 1.9 (kW h)/m3. Reverse osmosis seawater desalination
today consumes about 3.7 (kW he)/m3 of product. Inserting
these values into eq 9, we find that, with a Carnot efficiency
of 100%, a thermal process aiming to achieve an energy
consumption similar to that of an RO process must operate
with temperature driving forces less than 1 °C (∆Tirrev
(3) expresses all irreversibilities, not only the temperature driving
force). If we take a Carnot efficiency of 75%, the temperature
driving force should be less than 0.75 °C. Thermal desalination
usually works under a much lower Carnot efficiency. All
distillation studies consider systems having significantly
higher temperature driving forces.
Actual Energy Demand for Different Desalination
(4) Systems
Evaporation Techniques. The simplest desalination tech-
nique, single-stage evaporation of seawater, consumes a
tremendous amount of energy, around 650 (kW ht)/m3 of
product, depending slightly on the evaporation temperature.
The main evaporation techniques, MSF and MED, have
(5) overcome this obstacle by reusing energy consumption
through multiple stages. About 50% of the world desalination
production is based on the MSF technique in the Persian
Gulf. The number of times the heat of evaporation is reused
is represented by the “gained output ratio”, GOR, defined as
(6) the ratio of the number of tons of water produced per ton
of steam as energy invested.
MSF manufacturers provide a GOR design in the range
of 8-12, depending on the steam feed temperature. MED
manufacturers claim a GOR of 10-16 in working units and
up to 30 in designed prototypes. Thermal energy based on
fuel consumption in typical “single-purpose” plants is in the
range of 55-80 (kW h)/m3 of product for MSF and 40-65
(kW h)/m3 of product for MED. The work equivalent of these
energy consumptions, based on an efficiency of about 45%
in a modern power station, is 24-37 (kW he)/m3 for MSF and
18-30 (kW he)/m3 for MED. Pumping energy must be added
to this, claimed to be around 1.2-4.5 (kW he)/m3 for both
techniques. Table 1 illustrates the confusion in the literature
regarding real energy consumption in desalination processes.
Estimations are taken from different sources where the real
equivalent energy is not always clear.
Energy consumption of thermal desalination processes
may be reduced considerably in “double-purpose” plants by
using heat released by the turbine condensing steam to
provide the primary thermal energy required for an MSF or
MED desalination process. High efficiency of electrical energy
production requires a low steam condensation temperature
close to the ambient temperature. Back-pressure of the
turbine is therefore increased to provide an adequate heating
steam temperature in the range of 70-120 °C. The cost
penalty is reduced electricity production per ton of steam,
as explained below. The actual work energy consumption of
thermal processes in double-purpose plants is around 4-7
TABLE 1. Different Energy Requirements for Industrial Desalination Techniquesa
heat requirements electricity requirements combined energy
ref technique (thermal) [(kW h)/m3] (pumping) [(kW he)/m3] demand [(kW he)/m3]
RO 4-6 4-6
7 MSF 40-120 (thermal) 2.5-5 21-58
MED 30-120 (thermal) 2-2.5 15-58
8 MSF 25-114 (thermal) 4.8 not clear
5 MSF variations 34-102 2-2.2 17-47
9, 10 MED 4-5 (electricity) 1.5 5-6.5
MED 6-12
11 MSF 10-16
RO 3.8
12 RO 3-4
a
Estimations for thermal units depend on the GOR achieved in the plant and on the steam temperature. The far-right
column represents equivalent energies in terms of electrical energy for comparison.

TABLE 2. Energy Consumption for Distillation Techniques Based on Exiting Steam and Heat Losses at Different Temperaturesa
energy consumption including pumping [(kW he)/m3]
electrical power
temperature working potential in the boiling point
range of exiting steam (°C) power station (kW he) elevation range(13) (°C) GOR ) 10 GOR ) 16
70-35, MED 17.0 0.98-0.34 4
100-35, MED 30.7 1.18-0.34 5.6 5
120-35, MSF 38.9 1.31-0.34 8.4 6.9
MED energy losses 13
MSF energy losses 17
a
BPE values of seawater are included. Energy values are calculated from steam tables.

(kW he)/m3 of product for steam supply and 1.2-2.5 (kW
he)/m3 of product for pumping energy.
On a summer day, the seawater cooling system at the end
of a multistage evaporation plant may allow the steam to
work down to 35 °C. Back-pressure turbine steam at 70 °C
can produce up to 17 kW he in the turbine, assuming high
efficiency, since most of the energy of this steam was already
used or dissipated. The MED process working at this range
can produce 16 stages according to claims, with a GOR value
of 12, due to heat losses. This means almost 2.2 °C/stage, or
an average of 1.5 °C as the net average temperature difference
driving force per stage, based on an average of 0.7 °C BPE
(Table 2). The total energy consumption of this MED process
could theoretically decrease to an equivalent of 1.5 kW he for
the evaporation process, or 4 kW he/m3, including the energy
for pumping water through the system, control, lighting, etc.
Similar calculations may be made for different MED and
MSF conditions. Some results are shown in Table 2, where
the energy consumption is estimated. The calculations
presented here are based on the assumption that the final
vapor condensation at the last stage is operated by the
electricity plant, that the plant also agrees to review the
problems involved together with the customer, that main-
tenance problems may also interfere with regular production,
etc. Hybrid plants apparently work well in the Persian Gulf
where power and water supply usually belong to the same
management. This method also works in refineries where
access energy is available and water is required. More
information on desalination processes may be found in refs
14-17.
The above estimation appears to be too low since energy
losses to the environment may be high. Another way of
looking at this is through heat losses from the system walls.
Producing an overall heat balance in an evaporation de-
salination system, the heat supplied by an external source
is equal to the overall heat leaving the system. Assuming an
MED system with 50% recovery and efficient heat usage,
every cubic meter of product leaves the system at a
temperature higher by about 5 °C than the seawater
temperature. This is the same for the concentrate leaving
the system, resulting in system losses of 10 °C/m3, totaling
about 11.6 kW h or 5.2 kW he. These values highly depend
on the equipment invested for heat recovery. A similar value
may be considered for heat losses through the boundaries
of the system, so that total energy consumption is close to
13 kW he including pumping. In MSF with circulation,
assuming a higher initial temperature and 40% recovery, the
energy consumption may reach around 17 kW he, including
the pumping energy. Apparently, the real values lie between
those values and the values presented in Table 2.
The values estimated above may be reduced on the basis
of equipment expenses. Reducing the temperature difference
at one or more stages or in the heat recovery between the
exit steam and the feedwater involves a larger heat transfer
area and reduces energy consumption. The temperature
difference across heat transfer surfaces requires larger heat
transfer surfaces or a greater investment. An extreme case
of this is the use of solar energy. This energy source may be
considered as “energy free” since no fuel is used since it is
based solely on free sun, yet the cost of this free energy is
high due to the large area needed. An optimum exists between
the cost of energy used and the cost of the investment.
RO Technique. The specific energy for RO desalination
has decreased significantly over the past decade and is
approaching the theoretical thermodynamic minimum. This
was achieved through the development of large pumps having
an efficiency of approximating 90% using modern efficient
turbines and other energy recovery devices. The newer
devices, known as “turbochargers,” “pressure exchangers”,
or “work exchangers”snames adopted by different manufac-
turerssrepresent efficient ways of recovering the energy
content of the high-pressure concentrate leaving the mem-
brane module. Turbines convert the concentrate pressure
into the velocity of a jet that spins a wheel. This is used either
to reduce the power consumption of the motor driving the
pump or to boost the pressure of the feed to a second stage.

VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8195
TABLE 3. Energy Balance, Large-Scale Plant (51)
no. of pumps flow (m3/h)
intake 6 2200
raw water supply 6 2200
feed booster 12 1042
high-pressure aggregate
pumps 12 1042
turbine 12 521
motors 12
auxiliary + lighting
total
Additional methods are available for conveying the con-
centrate stream pressure to the seawater feed steam using
simple devices (18-50).
The above techniques enable considerable reduction in
power consumption used to pressurize the feed. For instance,
the pressurizing energy consumption in desalting 3.5%
seawater at a recovery rate of 50% using turbines for
concentrate energy recovery is as low as 2.7 (kW he)/m3 of
product. Pressure exchangers can reduce energy consump-
tion even further to 2.2 (kW he)/m3. Taking into account the
additional pumping requirements involved in conveying the
feed, concentrate, and permeate steam, the overall energy
needs are less than 3.7 (kW he)/m3 of product in seawater
desalination. In other desalting applications involving low-
salinity raw waters, such as brackish water streams or slightly
polluted resources, energy consumption can be as low as 1
(kW he)/m3 of product or less, depending on the water salinity
and energy recovery availability.
Working at a lower pressure may save energy, yet greater
investment in equipment is required. Table 3 presents the
itemized energy consumption for different tasks in a large
RO plant. It is important to note that the energy consumption
for small RO plants may increase due to the lower efficiency
of smaller pumps.
“New” Desalination Processes
Recent publications in the scientific literature refer to so-
called “new” desalination processes. The physics behind these
processes is known. The processes were also mentioned in
the old literature, as can be seen below. It is important,
however, to analyze the energy needs of these processes.
Evaporation-Based Humidification-Dehumidification
(52). This is one of the oldest desalination processes. Sailors
in ancient times used the technique to collect drinking water
during the night after the temperature dropped below the
saturation level (dew point); water could be collected
underneath the sails.
A modern approach based on this “new” technique is
illustrated in Figure 1. Hot seawater or salted water is allowed
to pass through a stream of relatively dry air. The air is heated,
and the water evaporates. The air exits this stage at a higher
temperature, depending on the feedwater, and it contains
more water. The hot wet air is then allowed to pass through
a heat exchanger fed with cooling water. The temperature
drops below the dew point so the water is condensed and
accumulates as a product.
The higher the temperature of the exiting air (the
humidification stage) the higher the air humidity. Take, for
example, saturated air at 80 °C. The air humidity can easily
be found in psychrometric charts; the value is 1.28 kg of
water/kg of dry air. Assuming the air is cooled to 35 °C, the
humidity of the air exiting the system is 0.09 kg of water/kg
of dry air. Assuming all humidity changes are collected (100%
saturation at the high temperature and no fog exiting at the
8196 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
energy (kW he)
diff head (bar) pump total specific energy [(kW he)/m3 of product)
1.0 77 462 0.07
2.5 192 1154 0.18
7.7 281 3368 0.54
69.3 2381 28567
73.0 -980 -11763
1444 17323 2.77
400 400 0.06
3.63
low temperature), the amount of water collected from 1 m3
of dry air is approximately 1.2 kg.
The amount of dry air needed to produce 1 m3 of water
under the above conditions is 700 m3, or 1680 m3 of wet
air/m3 of water produced. The operation of such a process
is possible when hot water is passed once through the air,
or the salted water is heated against the condensing vapor
from the wet air and a final higher temperature from another
hot heat source is reached. The first option presents a hot
source of water; hot and salted spring water may be used this
way. The second option is when the salted water is heated
with another source of waste heat. The first option represents
a case where the energy demand for the water production
is the evaporation heat, namely, around 650 (kW h)/m3. This
does not include the pumping expenses of the hot water, the
air flow, and the cooling water. In fact, in terms of energy,
this is the highest energy demanding desalination process
that may consume above 800 (kW h)/m3. The second option
uses another source of energy, yet the GOR value is not high
and energy demand is still extremely high. In fact, at high
temperatures, as presented in some reports, it is possible to
use the heat source to produce electricity and then run an
RO system. The energy demand will be much lower, and the
production efficiency from the source of waste heat will be
much higher. MED operation will produce more water at a
much higher efficiency and at a lower cost.
The so-called humidification-dehumidification desali-
nation process has other problems. First, the heat transfer
coefficient of the condensing vapor from air is much lower
than for pure water, and hence, the heat transfer area needed
is enormously high, at least 100-fold, depending on the
temperature and humidity of the exiting air. All of the
pollution in the air used for the process is concentrated in
the productsusually dust in remote locations, air pollution
FIGURE 1. Schematic of the humidification-dehumidification
process.
FIGURE 2. Schematic view of a membrane distillation design based on MED technology.
in cities, and even bacteria and virusessso the water quality
produced is poor.
Membrane-Based New Techniques. Recent develop-
ments have brought significant attention to other types of
membrane processes reported mainly in research papers:
forward osmosis (53-55) and membrane distillation (56-59).
Forward osmosis (FO) or direct osmosis is defined as the
water passage from the salt solution or the polluted solution
through a membrane to a solution containing dissolved
matter of higher osmotic pressure. Loeb (60-62) tried using
direct osmosis for energy production from salt and pure
water. A possible advantage of such a process is that
separating the water from the higher osmotic pressure
solution is easier than through the RO process. Such
separations were proposed by using magnetic nanoparticles
covered with organic matter and separated by a magnetic
field (a company called Nanomagnetics published this idea
in 2004), distillation of the dissolved material like in cases of
ammonium carbonates (53, 63), or possible simpler separa-
tion such as crystallization.
Removal of the nanomagnetic particles against sheer
forces in high flow rate devices involves strong magnetic
fields and subsequently high energy consumption. Separating
ammonium carbonate from water solution consumes a
significant amount of energy, similar to that of water
evaporation. It is impossible to separate this salt by evapora-
tion without significant water evaporation, so the energy
demand will be higher than conventional high osmotic
pressure techniques (RO, NF). Care is needed to avoid osmotic
material residuals in product water according to drinking
water regulations. Thermodynamics, however, teaches us
that the minimum separation energy depends on the
concentration. The concentration of the ammonium car-
bonate is much higher than the concentration of the salt in
the feed. Therefore, the FO process needs higher theoretical
and actual energies. RO separation is closer to the minimal
thermodynamic separation energy. Therefore, the aim is to
find a process that consumes lower energy than the RO
process.
The membrane distillation technique is based on open
hydrophobic membranes that allow only the passage of water
vapor (59, 64). The product quality is expected to be better
than that of RO since only water vapor is expected to pass
through the membrane, yet like in RO membranes, leakage
occurs. Vapor condensation is allowed on colder surfaces
adjacent to the membranes or outside the membrane module
where vapors are pumped out. Another way is to condense
the vapor in direct contact with a cold water stream.
The main problem in these techniques is the need to
evaporate the water, which involves an energy demand of
around 650 (kW h)/m3. This enormous amount of energy
may be reduced when energy reuse is possible, similar to the
multieffect distillation desalination process. This may cut
energy demand to about 60 (kW h)/m3 if energy is reused
more than 10 times in the desalination plant. More energy
is needed for pumping the water and for the cooling system.
Heat transfer flux through the membrane is low; therefore,
a large transfer area is needed. Developers of this technique
claim that the high energy demand may be supplied by low-
grade, cheap energy, yet this claim also holds for the
multieffect distillation process.
The only possible advantage of the MED technique is the
possibility of lower volume and a low plant footprint.
However, the design is complicated, as shown in Figure 2,
representing a preliminary membrane distillation design with
heat recovery, similar, but not identical, to the MED process.
VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8197

FIGURE 3. Energy demand in the RO process as a function of
water recovery.
In this design, entering seawater exchanges heat with exiting
hot streams of product and concentrate. External heat must
be added to the feedwater. The water is then allowed to flow
parallel to the membranes where evaporation takes place.
Vapor leaving the membrane condenses on the heat transfer
wall and transfers the heat condensation to the water in the
next stage. In this way, the evaporation energy is reused to
heat the concentrating solution. Other designs are possible,
yet in terms of energy demand, the technique cannot compete
with RO. As previously mentioned, it is similar to MED but
suffers from low heat transfer properties and will therefore
need more energy. A report on the construction of a
membrane distillation process pilot plant similar to MSF
operation, called Memstill (65), claimed a possible GOR of
30. If this is achievable, taking into account temperature limits
and the BPR of the evaporating water, the energy consump-
tion here will be at least 15 (kW he)/m3 of product. Connecting
such a system to a power station may reduce energy
consumption, as explained earlier, involving the same and
even more problems.
Energy Reduction in RO Processes
The contention raised in the literature about a potential
energy reduction in the RO process by 50% or even 75% is
unrealistic. However, even with the current low energy
consumption in the RO process, there is still room for
improvement. Savings are possible by using better mem-
branes having a high permeability without losing rejection
capabilities. This would enable a reduction in operating
pressure and lead to energy savings. In addition, improved
pretreatment and fouling control measures would facilitate
operation under more optimal conditions.
Analyzing the components of RO desalination costs shows
that the main ones are energy cost and equipment invest-
ment. Itemizing the equipment, membranes, pressure ves-
sels, pumps, tubing, flow devices, and energy recovery units
shows that no special item is significantly more expensive
than the other. However, membranes play the most important
role in possible cost reductions. RO membranes cost about
8% of the overall investment. Membranes may still be
improved significantly. Permeation may be increased, main-
taining similar rejection properties. Increased flux through
the membranes will allow a pressure reduction, and hence
less energy, at the same recovery ratio. A reduction in pressure
may also reduce the costs of expensive metals used with
high-pressure piping in a highly corrosive environment. This
will reduce the cost of pumps and flow devices. Larger
membrane modules will reduce the plant’s footprint.
Figure 3 illustrates an analysis based on the energy
consumption of an RO process and pumping cost as a
function of the recovery ratio. The analysis was made on the
basis of current RO performance with 50% recovery. The line
of the RO process was calculated by increasing energy with
recovery on the basis of pressure changes. The pumping and
pretreatment line was calculated on the basis of increased
8198 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
energy demand with increased feedwater to supply the
original production. It is possible to see how the energy
demand of the RO process increases with the recovery ratio,
while the energy required in the “pumping” line decreases
with recovery. The two lines are summed into a third line
that represents the overall energy required as a function of
recovery. This line clearly has a shallow minimum, around
50% recovery. It is obvious, therefore, that, even with major
changes, the energy consumption of an RO process cannot
be reduced significantly. By improving the RO membranes,
it will be possible, yet extremely difficult, to reduce the actual
RO energy consumption by 10-30%, which may result in an
overall change on the order of 15%. RO will continue to lead
in the near future, in the desalination industry, as the lower
energy consumption technique.
Energy-Related Issues
The energy cost of an optimized desalination plant is
approximately 30-44% of the total cost of water produced.
Current optimal conditions may move toward higher invest-
ments due to the increased cost of oil. As an extreme example,
fossil energy may be replaced theoretically by solar collectors
of different types. The problem is that since solar energy is
available only 25% of the time, the investment fraction
increases by a factor of 4, before taking into account the
equipment needed for electricity production. The cost of
water produced by solar collectors will be much higher
compared to that of water produced with the use of a regular
energy source. Solar desalination has been investigated over
the past 50 years, yet no commercial small- or large-scale
plant is currently in operation. More information on renew-
able energy and desalination may be found in refs 68-75.
The optimization is made during the plant design, yet the
energy cost may vary significantly during a project’s lifetime.
For example, during the writing of this paper, the cost of
natural oil was increasing at a significant rate in comparison
to its cost at the design stage of the Ashkelon desalination
plant. It is difficult to change the optimal design of a plant
once it has been built. However, it is possible to minimize
losses by designing for more flexible changes in terms of
variable energy consumption and equipment costs.
A 100 million m3 RO-based seawater desalination plant
requires an electrical energy supply of less than 50 MW. A
desalination-dedicated power station can work at a much
higher efficiency than a regular power station since it operates
constantly without the known sine wave, representing
day-night and summer-winter changes in consumption.
Better efficiency is expected for gas turbines since the high
temperature of the gases may also be used. Therefore, the
real energy required is lower than for other common uses.
Critics among environmentalists are often heard expressing
concern about energy consumption for water desalination.
Some critics, mainly in nonscientific debates, express
concern about the environmental impact of energy con-
sumption involved in water desalination. Water is an essential
human need, and energy usage for desalination should take
priority over wasteful modern day energy usages such as
excessive air-conditioning and high-energy-consuming cars.
Table 4 analyzes the energy derived from various fuel
sources (natural gas, gas oil, heavy fuel, and coal) in
desalination versus other usages. A large-scale power station
generates electricity from coal or heavy fuel at an efficiency
of around 45%. If operated effectively, gas turbines may reach
an efficiency as high as 80%. The magnitude of the energy
consumption in desalination can be more easily appreciated
by referring to the volume of desalted water produced by RO
from 1 kg of fuel or the mass of fuel required to produce 1
ton of water. The table shows that 1-2 tons of desalted water
can be produced with 1 kg of fuel, making water the cheapest
TABLE 4. RO Energy Consumption Compared with Other Alternatives
caloric value, kcal/kg of fuel
caloric value, (kW he)/kg of fuel
electricity production (45% eff), large power station, (kW he)/kg
of fuel
electricity production (80% eff), high-efficiency gas turbine,
(kW he)/kg fuel
capacity, seawater desalination (50% recovery), m3/kg of fuel
80% efficiency
fuel consumption, kg of fuel /m3 of product water
80% efficiency
How many km can I drive in the city with 1 m3 of desalinated
water fuel consumption?
How many hours can I air-condition a single room (2.5 kW
he)?
a
Depends on the car type, conditions, etc.
commodity manufactured. The fuel consumed to produce
1 m3 of seawater can drive a typical car in a city journey a
distance of only 2-10 km. The same amount of energy may
be used to operate a small room air-conditioner for 1.4 h.
Clearly, the energy cost for desalination is rather small
compared to that in other common energy usages.
Environmental concern about the CO2 “greenhouse” effect
associated with the use of fossil fuel has led to the goal of
supplying desalination energy from renewable energy sources.
Renewable energy sources may soon be compatible and
economical for general electricity production. At that stage,
they will also be suitable for desalination purposes.
No doubt, greater efforts should be devoted toward
exploiting renewable energy sources. However, the real test
of any new energy source is its acceptance for electricity
production or other common energy uses. Savings on CO2
emissions must be made in terms of other energy forms, and
not regarding the very sensitive issue of desalination for
freshwater production. The use of nuclear energy, which is
currently still more expensive than fossil energy, is dangerous
in areas where political instability prevails. It is also prob-
lematic where the technology is not accessible, and it is
necessary to rely on imported, trained, and sophisticated
labor.
A possible method of efficient energy use in a sufficiently
large desalination plant involves the design of different types
of hybrid plants consisting of a membrane unit combined
with a vapor compression unit that uses electrical energy
and a multieffect evaporation plant that uses heat energy
(66, 67). Such an operation is common in the chemical
industry. Energy costs could be minimized by coupling a
desalination plant with a dedicated power plant generating
electricity and waste heat at optimal economic conditions.
The advantage of the day-night and summer-winter
electricity production cycle is that desalinated water is
produced during the night, involving lower power consump-
tion. The main disadvantage is that the desalination equip-
ment is not used for a large percentage of the time. This is
a mistake, since, as in any modern plant, production costs
are greater if the equipment is not in full use. An efficient
desalination plant should therefore be operated 24 h a day,
365 days a year, with exceptions for maintenance only. During
this time, a full energy supply is required at the lowest cost.
In some cases, it will be possible to combine solar-operated
RO during the day with a low tariff grid operated RO during
the night, if the energy costs during the day are comparable
with that of fossil energy.
Equivalent Energy Usage for an RO Desalination Plant.
It is interesting to compare energy consumption for desali-
nation with other common energy consumptions in a
natural gas gas oil heavy fuel coal
9000 10750 10000 7700
10.5 12.5 11.6 9
4.7 5.6 5.2 4
8.4
1.3 1.6 1.5 1.2
2.4
0.7 0.6 0.7 0.9
0.4
2-10a 2-9a
1.4
household environment. A small family typically consumes
water at a rate of about 18 m3/month and uses about 1200
kW he of electricity or other equivalent energy sources per
month. If the water is obtained from a seawater desalination
plant, the energy consumed for water production (excluding
water transportation) is 140 (kW h)/month (fuel value).
Moderate driving of a family car amounting to about 1500
km/month consumes 160 L of gas oil/month. Therefore, the
energy consumed (expressed in thermal units) for water
production is 140 (kW ht)/month, for driving the car it is
1500 (kW ht)/month, and for electricity it is 1200/0.45 ) 2667
(kW ht)/month. These figures show that energy for desalinated
water is 9.3% of the transportation energy, 5.2% of the
electricity energy, and 3.2% of the total family energy
consumption. Clearly, use of desalinated water is affordable
for typical households.
Proper Water Usage
Desalinated water is considered expensive compared to
traditional water sources. The problem starts when these
sources are not available. Water savings are possible in
households, yet significant efforts are required. This is also
true for energy consumption. Some more interesting points
are as follows: (1) The cost of water is negligible in regular
households compared to other utilities payments. (2) The
cost of water is tolerable for most industries. This was
achieved in many places by enforcing strict regulations on
effluents disposal. (3) The cost of water is significant in
agriculture. Better usage of water in agriculture may be
accomplished by (i) using greenhouses and retreating and
recirculating water and (ii) using drip irrigation, which saves
30-90% of water consumption compared to other irrigation
techniques, thus reducing the problem of cost.
This paper was written to increase awareness of the
research community about the real information regarding
energy consumption in salted water desalination. Too much
confusion in the literature on this issue exists today, and
even the best researchers are making common mistakes in
this respect. The main conclusions that may be drawn based
on the analysis made here are as follows: (1) Energy
consumption for desalination is not very high, especially
compared to that utilized in other common household
utilities. (2) The current energy consumption for desalination
is close to the minimum energy set by thermodynamics; it
is impossible to go below this limiting value. (3) Currently,
the lowest energy consumption is achieved by reverse osmosis
desalination integrated with energy recovery devices. (4)
Distillation techniques consume more energy. Combined
with electrical power, the energy consumption is higher than
VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8199
in the RO process but is not extremely high. (5) Burning fuels (10) Ophir, A.; Lokiec, F. Advanced MED process for most economical
or the use of so-called “low energy sources” consume much seawater desalination. Desalination 2005, 182, 187–198.
more energy than techniques currently available. (6) The (11) Glueckstern, P.; Priel, M. Comparative cost of UF vs. conventional
pretreatment for SWRO systems. In Pretreatment & Post-
so-called “new technologies” for water desalination should treatment Technologies in Desalination, Proceedings of the 5th
be examined, and a real comparison with technologies in Annual IDS Conference, Haifa, Israel; Semiat, R., Hasson, D.,
use should be made. (7) Examining the real energy con- Eds.; Israel Desalination Society Technion: Itafia, Israel 2002.
sumption of desalination processes, it is important to (12) Wilf, M. Fundamentals of RO-NF technology. In International
emphasize that other parameters are involved. The best way Conference on Desalination Costing, Limassol, Cyprus, Decem-
ber 2004; Semiat et al., Eds.; Middle East Desalination Research
is to optimize the designed plant at a given site regarding
Center: Muscat, Oman, 2004; http://www.medrc.org/index.
equipment cost, manpower availability, and other important cfm?area)news&page)library.
parameters. The best way is to optimize the designed plant (13) Fabuss, B. M. Properties of seawater. In Principles of Desali-
at a given site regarding equipment cost, manpower avail- nation, 2nd ed.; Spiegler, K. S., Laird, A. D. K., Eds.; Academic
ability, and other important parameters. Press Inc.: New York, 1980; Part B, Appendix 2.
(14) Satone, H. Comparison between MSF distillation and reverse
osmosis. Technical Proceedingss9th Annual Conference and
Nomenclature International Trade Fair of the National Water Supply Improve-
aw water activity in the solution ment Association; National Water Supply Improvement As-
BPR boiling point rise sociation: Stuart, FL, 1981; Vol. 1, Paper 13, 23 pp.
GOR gained output ratio (15) Tewari, P. K.; Misra, B. M. Innovative trends in desalination.
F free energy Chem. Ind. Dig. 2003, 16 (2), 57–58.
(16) Pankratz, T. M. Advances in desalination technology. Desali-
H enthalpy nation 2005, 1 (4), 450–455.
m molality (17) Wang, Y.; Lior, N. Performance analysis of combined humidified
MED multieffect distillation gas turbine power generation and multi-effect thermal vapor
MSF multistage flash evaporation compression desalination systemssPart 1: The desalination unit
n molar concentration and its combination with a steam-injected gas turbine power
P vapor pressure system. Desalination 2006, 196 (1-3), 84–104.
(18) Woodcock, D. J.; White, I. M. The application of Pelton type
P0 vapor pressure of pure water impulse turbines for energy recovery on sea water reverse
R gas constant osmosis systems. Desalination 1981, 39 (1-3), 447–58.
RO reverse osmosis (19) Guy, D. B.; Singh, R. Some alternate methods of energy recovery
S entropy from reverse osmosis plants USA. WSIA J. 1982, 9 (2), 37–51.
T temperature (20) Goubeau, P.; Leroy, P. A specific energy recovery pumping
W work (energy) system for reverse osmosis desalination. Desalination 1983, 44,
199–206.
x concentration
(21) Eid, J. C.; Andeen, G. B.; Mattson, M. E. Energy recovery for
small reverse-osmosis systems. WSIA J. 1984, 11 (1), 25–34.
Subscripts (22) Mimura, Y.; Taniguchi, S.; Tatsumura Mashima, E. How to obtain
c concentrate highest plant efficiency for RO desalination plant. Desalination
f feed 1985, 54, 219–25.
e electric (23) Darwish, M. A.; Abdel-Jawad, M.; Hauge, L. J. A new dual-
i component i function device for optimal energy recovery and pumping for
all capacities of RO [reverse osmosis] systems. Desalination 1989,
irrev irreversible
75 (1-3), 25–39.
p product (24) Lozier, J.; Oklejas, E.; Silbernagel, M. The hydraulic turbocharger:
rev reversible A new type of device for the reduction of feed pump energy
s salt consumption in reverse osmosis systems. Desalination 1989,
w water 75 (1-3), 71–83.
(25) Silbernagel, M.; Kuepper, T.; Oklejas, E. Evaluation of a pressure
boosting pump/turbine device for reverse osmosis energy
Greek Letters recovery: Extended testing on a seawater desalination system.
R value of BPE Desalination 1992, 88 (1-3), 311–19.
φ osmotic constant (26) Oklejas, E., Jr.; Oklejas, R. A.; Culler, P.; Barendsen, W.;
η Carnot efficiency Chinzaka, K.Improvements in the economics of reverse
µ chemical potential osmosis desalination through advanced pumping and energy
recovery technology. Water Supply Puzzle: How Does Desalting
Fit In? Biennial Conference & Exposition, Monterey, CA, Aug
Literature Cited 4-8, 1996; American Desalting Association: Stuart, FL, 1996; pp
(1) Silver, R. S. For want of a nail. Desalination 1979, 31, 39–44. 174-196.
(2) Murphy, G. W.; Taber, R. C.; Hauser, H. S. The Minimum Energy (27) Geisler, P.; Hahnenstein, F. U.; Krumm, W.; Peters, Th. Pressure
Requirements for Seawater Conversion Processes; Office of Saline exchange system for energy recovery in reverse osmosis plants.
Water Report No. 9; Office of Saline Water: Washington, DC, Desalination 1998, 118 (1-3), 91a–91f.
1956. (28) Childs, W. D.; Dabiri, A. E.; Al-Hinai, H. A.; Abdullah, H. A. VARI-
(3) Dodge, B. F.; Eshaya, A. M. Thermodynamics of some desalting RO solar-powered desalting technology. Desalination 1999, 125
processes. Adv. Chem. Ser. 1960, 27, 7–20. (1-3), 155–166.
(4) Dresner, L.; Johnson, J. S. Hyperfiltration (reverse osmosis). In (29) Oklejas, E., Jr.; Pergande, W. F. Integration of advanced high-
Principles of Desalination, 2nd ed.; Spiegler, K. S., Laird, A. D. K., pressure pumps and energy recovery equipment yields reduced
Eds.; Academic Press Inc.: New York, 1980; Part B, Chapter 8, capital and operating costs of seawater RO systems. Desalination
pp 401-560. 2000, 127 (2), 181–188.
(5) El-Sayed, Y. M. Designing desalination systems for higher (30) Harris, C. Energy recovery for membrane desalination. Desali-
productivity. Desalination 2001, 134, 129–158. nation 1999, 125 (1-3), 173–180.
(6) Spiegler, K. S.; El-Sayed, Y. M. The energetics of desalination (31) Andrews, W. T.; Pergande, W. F.; McTaggart, G. S. Energy
processes. Desalination 2001, 134, 109–128. performance enhancements of a 950 m3/d seawater reverse
(7) Blank, J. E.; Tusel, G. F.; Nisan, S. The real cost of desalted water osmosis unit in Grand Cayman. Desalination 2001, 135 (1-3),
and how to reduce it further. Desalination 2007, 205, 298–311. 195–204.
(8) El-Nashar, A. M. Cogeneration for power and desalinationsState- (32) Geisler, P.; Krumm, W.; Peters, T. A. Reduction of the energy
of-the-art review. Desalination 2001, 134, 7–28. demand for seawater RO with the pressure exchange system
(9) Ophir, A.; Gendel, A. Steam driven large multi effect MVC (SD PES. Desalination 2001, 135 (1-3), 205–210.
MVC) desalination process for lower energy consumption and (33) MacHarg, J. P. The evolution of SWRO energy recovery systems.
desalination costs. Desalination 2007, 205, 224–230. Int. Desalin. Water Reuse Q. 2001, 11 (3), 49–53.

8200 9 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008
(34) MacHarg, J. P. Retro-fitting existing SWRO systems with a new
energy recovery device Energy Recovery Inc. Desalination 2003,
153 (1-3), 253–264.
(35) Wiesenfeld, B.; Woog, F. Energy recovery technology interface
between production of energy and water. Desalination 2003,
157 (1-3), 29–30.
(36) Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Xu, S. Experimental studies on dynamic
process of energy recovery device for RO desalination plants.
Desalination 2004, 160 (2), 187–193.
(37) Childs, W. D. Low energy cost seawater desalting with VARI-RO
integrated pumping & energy recovery. Water Quality En-
hancement through Membrane Technology, Biennial Conference
and Exposition and Pre-Conference Workshop on Concentrate
Treatment and Disposal, Tampa, FL, Aug 6-9, 2002; American
Water Works Association: Denver, CO, 2002; pp 392-406.
(38) Migliorini, G.; Luzzo, E. Seawater reverse osmosis plant using
the pressure exchanger for energy recovery: A calculation model.
Desalination 2004, 165 (1-3), 289–298.
(39) Stover, R. L. Development of a fourth generation energy recovery
device. A “CTO’s notebook”. Desalination 2004, 165 (1-3), 313–
321.
(40) Moch, I., Jr.; Harris, C. Life cycle economics: Comparative
evaluations of SWRO energy recovery devices. Membrane
Technology Conference & Exposition, Proceedings, Phoenix, AZ,
March 6-9, 2005; 2005; pp 1360-1370.
(41) Wang, Y.; Wang, S.; Xu, S. Investigations on characteristics and
efficiency of a positive displacement energy recovery unit.
Desalination 2005, 177 (1-3), 179–185.
(42) Schneider, B. Selection, operation and control of a work
exchanger energy recovery system based on the Singapore
project. Desalination 2005, 184 (1-3), 197–210.
(43) Paulsen, K.; Hensel, F. Introduction of a new energy recovery
systemsOptimized for the combination with renewable energy.
Desalination 2005, 184 (1-3), 211–215.
(44) Stover, R. L.; Ameglio, A.; Khan, P. A. K. The Ghalilah SWRO
plant: An overview of the solutions adopted to minimize energy
consumption. Desalination 2005, 184 (1-3), 217–221.
(45) Mohamed, E. Sh.; Papadakis, G.; Mathioulakis, E.; Belessiotis,
V. The effect of hydraulic energy recovery in a small sea water
reverse osmosis desalination system; experimental and eco-
nomical evaluation. Desalination 2005, 184 (1-3), 241–246.
(46) Mohamed, E. Sh.; Papadakis, G.; Mathioulakis, E.; Belessiotis,
V. An experimental comparative study of the technical and
economic performance of a small reverse osmosis desalination
system equipped with an hydraulic energy recovery unit.
Desalination 2006, 194 (1-3), 239–250.
(47) Macharg, J. P. New desalination pump and energy recovery tech-
nologies. J.sAm. Water Works Assoc. 2007, 99 (6), 54-58, 60-61.
(48) Khaydarov, R. A.; Khaydarov, R. R. Solar powered direct osmosis
desalination Institute of Nuclear Physics, Ulugbek, Tashkent,
Uzbekistan. Desalination 2007, 217 (1-3), 225–232.
(49) Farooque, A. M.; Jamaluddin, A. T. M.; Al-Reweli, A. R.; Jalaluddin,
P. A. M.; Al-Marwani, S. M.; Al-Mobayed, A. A.; Qasim, A. H.
Parametric analyses of energy consumption and losses in SWCC
SWRO plants utilizing energy recovery devices. Desalination
2008, 219 (1-3), 137–159.
(50) Stover, R. L. SWRO process simulator. Desalination 2008, 221
(1-3), 126–135.
(51) Glueckstern, P. History of desalination cost estimations. In
International Conference on Desalination Costing, Limassol,
Cyprus, December 2004; Semiat et al., Eds.; Middle East
Desalination Research Center: Muscat, Oman, 2004; http://
www.medrc.org/index.cfm?area)news&page)library.
(52) Hou, S.; Zeng, D.; Ye, S.; Zhang, H. Exergy analysis of the solar
multi-effect humidification-dehumidificatio desalination pro-
cess. Desalination 2007, 203 (1-3), 403–409.
(53) McCutcheon, J. R.; Elimelech, M. Desalination by ammonia-
carbon dioxide forward osmosis: Influence of draw and feed
solution concentrations on process performance. J. Membr. Sci.
2006, 278, 114–123.
(54) McCutcheon, J. R.; McGinnis, R. L.; Elimelech, M. A novel
ammonia-carbon dioxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination
process. Desalination 2005, 174, 1–11.
(55) Cath, T. Y.; Childress, A. E.; Elimelech, M. Forward osmosis:
Principles, applications, and recent developments. J. Membr.
Sci. 2006, 281, 70–87.
(56) Hassler, G. L.; McCutchan, J. W. Osmosis through a vapor gap
supported by capillarity. Saline Water Conversion; Advances in
Chemistry Series, Vol. 27; American Chemical Society Applied
Publications: Washington, DC, 1960; pp 192-205.
(57) Alklaibi, A. M.; Lior, N. Membrane-distillation desalination:
Status and potential. Desalination 2004, 171, 111–131.
(58) Li, B.; Sirkar, K. K. Novel membrane and device for direct contact
membrane distillation-based desalination process. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 2004, 43, 5300–5309.
(59) Gilron, J.; Song, L.; Sirkar, K. K. Design for cascade of crossflow
direct contact membrane distillation. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 2007,
46, 2324–2334.
(60) Loeb, S. Energy production at the dead sea by pressure-retarded
osmosis: Challenge or chimera? Desalination 1998, 120, 247–
262.
(61) Loeb, S. Large-scale power production by pressure-retarded
osmosis using river water and seawater passing through spiral
modules. Desalination 2002, 143, 115–122.
(62) Loeb, S. One hundred and thirty benign and renewable
megawatts from Great Salt Lake? The possibilities of hydro-
electric power by pressure-retarded osmosis with spiral module
membranes. Desalination 2001, 141, 85–91.
(63) McGinnis, R. L.; Elimelech, M. Energy requirements of ammonia-
carbon dioxide forward osmosis desalination. Desalination 2007,
207, 370–382.
(64) Gilron, J.; Fei, H.; Song, L.; Sirkar, K. Integration of crossflow
DCMD modules in a cascade for energy efficient high recovery
desalination. AIChE Annual Meeting, Conference Proceedings,
San Francisco, CA, Nov 12-17, 2006; American Insitute of
Chemical Engineers: New York, 2006; pp 615a/1-615a/4.
(65) Hanemaaijer, J., van Medevoort, J., Jansen, A., van Sonsbeek,
E., Yuan, T., Hylkem, H., Biemansd, R.; Stikker, A. Memstill
membrane distillation technology is getting ahead. EDS News-
letter; August 2007; Issue 26.
(66) Awerbuch, L. Current status of seawater desalination technolo-
gies. Presented at the IDA Desalination Seminar, Cairo, Egypt,
September 1997.
(67) Awerbuch, L. Dual purpose power desalination/hybrid systems/
energy and economics. Presented at the IDA Desalination
Seminar, Cairo, Egypt, September 1997.
(68) Libert, J. J.; Maurel, A. Desalination and renewable energiessA
few recent developments. Desalination 1981, 39 (1-2-3), 363–
72.
(69) Keefer, B. G.; Hembree, R. D.; Schrack, F. C. Optimized matching
of solar photovoltaic power with reverse osmosis desalination.
Desalination 1985, 54, 89–103.
(70) Caruso, G.; Naviglio, A. A desalination plant using solar heat as
a heat supply, not affecting the environment with chemicals.
Desalination 1999, 122 (2-3), 225–234.
(71) Schwarzer, K.; Vieira, M. E.; Faber, C.; Muller, C. Solar thermal
desalination system with heat recovery. Desalination 2001, 137
(1-3), 23–29.
(72) Caruso, G.; Naviglio, A.; Principi, P.; Ruffini, E. High-energy
efficiency desalination project using a full titanium desalination
unit and a solar pond as the heat supply. Desalination 2001,
136 (1-3), 199–212.
(73) Mohamed, E. Sh.; Papadakis, G. Design, simulation and
economic analysis of a stand-alone reverse osmosis desalination
unit powered by wind turbines and photovoltaics. Desalination
2004, 164 (1), 87–97.
(74) Mueller, C.; Schwarzer, K.; Vieira da Silva, E.; Mertes, C. Modular
solar thermal desalination system with multi-stage heat re-
covery. World Renewable Energy Congress VIII: Linking the World
with Renewable Energy, 8th, Denver, CO, Aug 29 to Sept 3, 2004;
2004; pp 681-685.
(75) Manolakos, D.; Mohamed, E. Sh.; Karagiannis, I.; Papadakis, G.
Technical and economic comparison between PV-RO system
and RO-solar Rankine system. Case study: Thirasia Island.
Desalination 2008, 221 (1-3), 37–46.
ES801330U
VOL. 42, NO. 22, 2008 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY 9 8201