Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35

Precise way to select a desalination technology

Khalid Z. Al-Subaie
P.O. Box 8305, Al-Jubail 31951, Saudi Arabia
Tel. +966 (3) 341-9644; Fax +966 (3) 340-0719; email: subaiekz@marafiq.com.sa

Received 2 March 2006; accepted 4 April 2006

Abstract
The limited natural water resources in the world pressures the scientist and engineers to develop alternative
sources which are brackish/seawater desalination. Seawater desalination process selection is a critical decision
based on geographical location, energy costs and availability as well as operator skills. A decision maker requires
much updated information related to desalination technologies to put huge investment in the right place. The
present paper will describe the popular desalination processes being used nowadays in the world and their latest
developments, advantages and challenges to compete each other to produce reliable and cheapest potable water.
This paper will indicate ideas to improve a technology. MARAFIQ with its existing facilities and future projects
will significantly contribute in this field. The paper also will explore the desalination processes in MARAFIQ and
800,000 m3/d future promising IWPP.
Keywords: Desalination technology selection; MARAFIQ; IWPP; MSF thermal efficiency improvement

1. Introduction ing demand for water, especially for domestic pur-

Future water supply is a major concern in de-
veloped and developing countries of the world.
Conventional water resources are limited and can-
not sustain the growing demand where population
growth is increasing dramatically. Consequently
since 1970 other non conventional methods have
been adopted on a large scale to satisfy this grow-
poses. This fact of limited natural drinking water
resources in the world put pressure on scientists
and engineers to develop an alternative to conven-
tional resources until desalination technology be-
came a reliable alternative solution for all arid
countries.
Desalination process technology selection is
a critical decision where a decision maker requires

Presented at EuroMed 2006 conference on Desalination Strategies in South Mediterranean Countries: Cooperation
between Mediterranean Countries of Europe and the Southern Rim of the Mediterranean. Sponsored by the
European Desalination Society and the University of Montpellier II, Montpellier, France, 21–25 May 2006.

0011-9164/07/$– See front matter © 2007 Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.desal.2006.04.049
30 K.Z. Al-Subaie / Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35
the most up-to-date information related to desali-
nation technologies in order to put a huge invest-
ment in the right place. Technology selection is
based on many elements such as capital cost, ener-
gy cost (fuel cost), reliability (continuity of pro-
duction with good quality), operation skill, feed
water chemistry, plant size, space requirement,
ease of operation and geographical location. These
factors must be considered carefully with accurate
information. If the information is available then
the question is raised on how to weigh them. Is
there currently any methodology for weighing the
various factors?
In this paper a methodology to do so is pro-
posed, but before that I will talk about desalination
updated information with its merits.
2. Current technologies and their merits and
demerits
By looking at the total desalination plants in-
stalled in the world we simply realize that three
major desalination technologies are used:
• Multi stage flash process (MSF) — 43.5% of
world production,
• Reverse osmosis — 43.5% of world produc-
tion, and
• Multi effect distillation, which has increased
dramatically in the world.
In respect of seawater as feed then MSF leads
at 66.3%, and SWRO 22.4% [1].
Below these technologies, in particular their
merits, will be discussed.
2.1. Reverse osmosis (RO)
RO is essentially a pressure-driven membrane
diffusion process for separating dissolved solutes.
RO is largely used for desalinating sea water as
well as brackish water.
Over the last twenty years desalination using
membrane technology has been established as a
flexible low-cost solution to the production of pot-
able water from brackish groundwater or seawater
where high energy cost and good feed water
quality are available. Seawater reverse osmosis
(SWRO) is typically the lowest capital and oper-
ating cost solution for most applications world-
wide, given its relatively low overall energy con-
sumption and ease of manufacture and construc-
tion. SWRO is very dependent in feed water qua-
lity as well as good designing of pretreatment sys-
tems.
With the growing trend for hybrid desalination
plants, i.e., a combination of thermal and mem-
brane technology, to provide the optimum plant
configuration in terms of running cost and flexi-
bility, SWRO will continue to establish itself as a
suitable technology in even the most difficult loca-
tions subject to a good pretreatment plant.
2.2 Multi-stage flash (MSF)
In the MSF process, seawater is heated in a
vessel called a ”brine heater”. This is then trans-
ferred to a series of vessels named, “stages”, where
the pressure is regulated so that the water imme-
diately boils. In effect, the water ‘flashes’ into steam.
The steam generated in this process is then con-
verted to fresh water by being condensed on tubes
of heat exchangers that run through each stage.
MSF operating at limited top brine temperature
range up to 115°C with gain output ratio up to 8–
10 kg distillate/kg of steam. It is predominantly
used in the Middle East. The capacity of MSF
units has increased significantly over the years and
designs are now available for single units with the
capacity to produce up to 20 MIGD (91,000 m3/d).
MSF produces very low TDS production —
> 50 mg/l — which is in the interest of industries,
and it does not depend on feed quality at all.
Typically a number of units are constructed
alongside a combined cycle power plant and uti-
lize low-grade steam (semi waste heat) from the
power plant to produce the desalinated water. An
MSF plant performance is selected to ensure the
overall optimization of the plant power and steam
cycles.
 K.Z. Al-Subaie / Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35 31

2.3. Multi-effect distillation (MED) weight to each element. However, this weighing
and ranking methodology (W&RM) is valid with
MED, like MSF, takes place in a series of ves-
the following assumptions:
sels (effects) and uses the principle of reducing
1. Comparison only valid for a certain location
the ambient pressure in the various effects. This
2. Ranking number should depend on negative
permits the seawater feed to undergo multiple boil-
or positive merits of each items. For instance,
ing without supplying additional heat after the first
if the technology gets a high ranking in specific
effect. In a MED plant, the seawater enters the
power consumption, it should get a low number
first effect and is raised to the boiling point after
and vice versa. If water specific cost is low,
being preheated in tubes. The seawater is either
then it should get a high number.
sprayed or distributed onto the surface of evapora-
3. When comparing separation processes with
tor tubes in a thin film to promote rapid boiling
distillation processes, the performance ratio
and evaporation. The tubes are heated by steam
should be removed as it is not applicable for
from a boiler or other source, which is condensed
SWRO.
on the inside of the tubes. The condensate from
4. It is important that a person, who will use
the boiler steam is recycled to the boiler for reuse.
W&RM, is in the same field and understands
In MED the maximum temperature is now
the operating circumstances of each technolo-
limited to 80°C, but with good gain output ratio
gy and its reputation in a certain location. For
(GOR) of 12 kg distillate/kg of steam and with
instance, using SWRO in the Gulf area is
the introduction of a compression technology plant
doubtful up to now, therefore its reputation has
(hybrid) to the MED process the performance has
not grown enough yet.
been radically improved to GOR of 15. The com-
pression is provided by electric compressors or
thermo-compressors, which utilize motive steam. • Step 1. Selecting the required criteria
In the former case the units are typically called
The target is to select a technology which will
mechanical vapor compressors (MVC) and in the
fit your needs with the following criteria:
latter case the plants are referred to as thermo-
compression distillers (TCD.) With a significant i Minimum specific power consumption
increase in unit capacities to greater than 7 MIGD ii Minimum capital cost of process
(32,000 m3/d), this technology now compares iii Minimum electric power consumption
favorably with the MSF technology in all but not iv Minimal need for skilled labor
the largest community applications. MED like v Longest life span of technology
MSF produces very low TDS production — vi Highest availability of product
50 mg/l — which in the interest of industries and vii Highest reliability of process
also the distillation process, both MSF and MED,
does not depend on feed quality, as is the case • Step 2. After selecting the above criteria you
with the reverse osmosis technology. should gather all the accurate information with
respect to the above criteria (see Table 1).
• Step 3. Convert all the numbers in Table 1 to
3. Technology selection methodology
one reference and rank them (Table 2).
When all information is available to a decision
• Step 4. Weigh each ranking as follows:
maker, then the question is how he can evaluate it
High+ = 6, high = 5, medium = 3 and low = 1
to select the optimum technology. The methodo-
(Table 3).
logy way is the use of a weighing and ranking
methodology (W&RM) which gives a certain • Step 5. Compare the total scores from Table 3.
32 K.Z. Al-Subaie / Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35

Table 1
Desalination technology specifications

Technology Specific power Capital cost Life span Reliability Availability Water GOR
consumption specific
(kWh/m3) ($/MIGD) (y) (%) cost (kg dist./kg steam)
MSF–DP 3.7 4–7 35 High 96 Mod 8
MED–VC 2.0 4.5 25 Medium 90 Low 15
SWRO 5.0 4.0 20 Medium 90 Low NA

Table 2
Ranking elements

Technology Specific power Capital cost Life span Reliability Availability Water Gain output
consumption specific cost ratio
MSF–DP High High High High+ High+ Medium Medium
MED–VC High Medium High Medium Medium Low High
SWRO Low Low Medium High High Low N/A

Table 3
Weighing elements

Technology Specific power Capital cost Life span Reliability Availability Water GOR
consumption specific cost
MSF–DP 1 1 5 6 6 3 3
MED–VC 1 3 5 3 5 5 5
SWRO 5 5 3 5 5 5 N/A

1) Comparing a separation process (RO) with
thermal distillation (MSF) shows that SWRO
scores 28 from a possible total of 36 where MSF–
DP scores only 22.
2) Comparing MSF with MED–VC shows MED–
VC scores 30/42 while MSF DP scores only
25/42.
4. Improving thermal process technology
The thermal distillation technology improve-
ment was limited to certain areas. For instance,
MED improvements took place in heat transfer
configuration and the top brine temperature
limited to 70–80°C. In MSF no actual improve-
ment in the technology has been achieved apart
from capacity increasing and material selection;
however, the author believes there is room for im-
provement. An area for improvement of the MSF
technology follows below.
The most leading desalination process at pre-
sent is multistage flash evaporation (MSF). This
method of seawater desalination went through
many important changes since its inception in the
mid fifties. The major changes have been in the
choice of shape and size of the evaporator unit,
the choice of materials of construction and the
methodology of scale prevention. With the change
 K.Z. Al-Subaie / Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35
in shape and size of evaporators, the multistage
flash evaporator configuration has also changed,
i.e., long-tube evaporators and cross-tube evapo-
rators for vapor condensing and heat recovery is
an example of the change. The advantages and
disadvantages of the tube layout have been
studied. If we compare MED with MSF, we find
that some major improvements in heat exchanger
configuration have led to improving the GOR. The
target here is to improve the MSF processes in
respect to increasing GOR and increasing recovery
ratio with new creative ideas utilizing existing heat
loss. Basically we can do that if we have enough
experience in the field and knowledge of how eva-
poration occurs. Evaporation in a flashing stage
occurs by the three methods stated below:
• Spraying evaporation when the flashing brine
passes through a stage orifice
• Surface evaporation brine river
• Nucleation boiling when enough superheat is
available
Not all methods happen in all the stages (see
Table 4); however, if we manage to enhance the
above ways, then we will improve the distillation
method, i.e., reduce thermodynamic losses.
1. Spraying out a part of blowdown water on the
heat rejection evaporator stage is expected to
enhance spraying evaporation in the low-temp-
erature stages. Vapors released by spraying out
a percentage of brine blowdown will be con-
densed in the heat exchanger tubes, which will
ultimately help reduce the heat input required
in the brine heater. Sprayed water will also
become part of the distillate and productivity
will relatively increase.
Table 4
Location of evaporation types in each stage
MSF section Spray evaporation Free surface evaporation
High temperature stage X X
Interim temperature stage X X
Low temperature stage X X
33
2. Enhance turbulence in the low-temperature
stage by using waste steam from all ejectors
and steam trap drains as indicated in Fig. 2.
Turbulence is very important in low-tempera-
ture stages where less superheat is available,
i.e., less nucleation and less surface evapora-
tion.
3. It is understood that flashing will be in the first
few feet across the stage length, therefore the
author believes the pressure energy in the
remaining length of the stage can be utilized
in the intermediate stages to enhance producti-
vity and ultimately reduce the energy required
in the heat input section, i.e., GOR improve-
ment.
5. MARAFIQ Power and Water Utility
Company in Saudi Arabia
MARAFIQ is the Power and Water Utility
Company for the two industrial cities of Jubail
and Yanbu. MARAFIQ was formed by Royal
Decree No. M/29 as a Private Joint Stock Utility
Company serving Jubail and Yanbu Industrial
Cities.
MARAFIQ is owned by Saudi Arabian Oil
Company (Saudi Aramco), Saudi Basic, Industries
Corporation (SABIC), The Royal Commission for
Jubail and Yanbu (RC), The Public Investment
Fund (PIF) and seven Saudi private companies.
MARAFIQ owns and is responsible for the
operation and maintenance, management, con-
struction, developments and expansion of the
utility systems of:
• Seawater cooling to industries
Bubble nucleation
X
X above 80°C
34 K.Z. Al-Subaie / Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35

Fig. 1. General MSF layout diagram showing all creative ideas proposed.

Fig. 2. Diagram showing idea #1 of using some of wast-

age steam to enhance turbulence and nucleation: 1, tube Fig. 3. Diagram showing idea #2 of using some of blow-
bundle; 2, demister; 3, modified line with steam bubbles; down water to enhance recovery and productivity.
4, steam bubble nozzle.

• Seawater desalination which is MSF and reverse osmosis (RO) with

• Potable and process water distribution
• Sanitary and industrial wastewater treatment
• Electric power generation and transmission
and distribution
5.1. The existing and future desalination plants
in MARFAIQ
A) In respect to desalination plants MARAFIQ
uses the most popular technology in desalination,
different quality brackish water and sea feed water.
Table 5 shows capacity and technology being
used.
B) Independent water and power project of
MARAFIQ
MARAFIQ plans to have an independent water
and power plant (IWPP) having a capacity of
2,500 MW and 800,000 m3/d to be commissioned
by the end of 2009.
 K.Z. Al-Subaie / Desalination 206 (2007) 29–35 35

Table 5
Types of desalination technologies used by MARAFIQ Company

Location Technology Capacity (m3/d) Year of commissioning

Jubail MSF single purpose 57,400 1980
Jubail BWRO 37,620
Yanbu MSF double purpose heat in 95,000 (9 units) 1984–1987 for 1–6 and 7–9
supply from HRSG 1997–1999
Yanbu SWRO with ER (Toyobo) 60,000 March 2006

IWPP configuration • Technology selection should be done by ex-

perts in the field, and the weighing and ranking
The power plant will be based on combined
method recommended here is logically applic-
cycle gas turbine technology. It will consist of
able and can serve the decision maker well.
several power blocks each with a minimum of two
• MSF processes have to be looked at more by
gas turbine generators, two heat recovery steam
changing a little bit as recommended in this
generators (HRSG) and one steam turbine gene-
paper to improve their efficiency.
rator. Water production of the plant may be 100%
MARFAIQ is the first private utility company in
by thermal process or by a hybrid process. It is
Saudi Arabia going to contribute greatly in this
obvious nowadays that combined cycle gas tur-
field along with the international desalination
bines, which can achieve 80% operating effici-
society.
ency, are the most economical methods, as stated
by Dr. Corrado Sommariva.

6. Recommendations and conclusions References

• Desalination technology in all respects will be- [1] 2002 IDA Worldwide Desalination Plants Inventory,
come a reliable resource of drinking water. Report No. 17, Wangnick Consulting GmbH, 2002.