Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

A comprehensive framework for thermoeconomic analysis of desalination T

systems
Muhammad Ahmad Jamila,b, , Muhammad Wakil Shahzadb, Syed M. Zubairc,
⁎ ⁎

a
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan
b
Mechanical & Construction Engineering Department, Northumbria University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
c
Mechanical Engineering Department, KFUPM Box # 1474 King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran 31261, Saudi Arabia

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Thermoeconomic analysis, a combined application of thermodynamic and economic analyses, has emerged as an
Thermoeconomics important tool to optimize the performance of desalination systems. Contrary to conventional economic analysis,
Desalination systems it offers flexibility to investigate and improve the performance of each component in the system, individually.
Fiscal parameters The current paper presents a comprehensive framework for conducting thermoeconomic analysis of desalination
Monetary cost
systems. In this regard, different energy calculation methods are discussed first. Then a detailed review of
Framework
theoretical developments of thermoeconomic analyses is conducted to summarize the correlations/magnitude of
important economic parameters. This is followed by a discussion on cost balance equations for important de-
salination components. Finally, a systematic thermoeconomic analysis model is developed for the mechanical
vapor compression desalination system operating under different arrangements as an example. The monetary
value of each stream calculated using appropriate fiscal parameters in the system is presented in the form of a
cost flow diagram. The study can be used to conduct the thermoeconomic analysis of other commercial desa-
lination systems.

1. Introduction study lies in its comprehensive presentation of energy calculation

Energy consumption, environmental impacts, and water production
cost are the decisive parameters frequently used to investigate the
performance of desalination systems [1,2]. For the last few years, the
research is particularly focused on minimizing the environmental im-
pacts and cost through advancement in materials [3,4], retrofitting of
conventional systems [5,6], and development of novel hybrid methods
[7,8]. The conventional desalination processes involve multi-effect
desalination (MED) with evaporation effects [9], multi-stage flash
(MSF) with flashing chambers [10], mechanical/thermal vapor com-
pression (MVC/TVC) [11], humidification-dehumidification (HDH)
[12], and reverse osmosis (RO) systems [13]. These systems have been
investigated extensively by researchers to discover improvement pos-
sibilities [14]. In this regard, the thermoeconomic analysis has emerged
as an important tool to assess and improve the thermodynamic and
economic performance of desalination systems, simultaneously
[15–17].
The objective of this study is to present a detailed background for
thermoeconomic analysis of desalination systems. The novelty of the
methods, summarizing the important capital cost correlations, fiscal
parameter ranges, and up-to-date cost balance equations for major
desalination system components. All the models introduced in this
study can be employed to conduct rigorous thermoeconomic design and
analysis of all thermal desalination systems.
The manuscript is structured systematically to make data useful for
the readers. In this regard, the first part of the study is focused on the
literature review on thermoeconomics of desalination systems, with
particular emphasis on thermal desalination systems. The next section
presents the input energy calculation methods, followed by discussion
and review of important correlations and ranges of fiscal parameters
like interest rate, electricity cost, chemical cost, thermal energy cost,
and labor cost, etc. The second last section illustrates a comprehensive
analysis procedure followed by solved examples for calculation of local
and overall water production costs presented in the form of cost flow
diagrams. In the end, a road map is suggested based on the findings of
the present study and ongoing efforts in the form of different awards for
sustainable developments in the future.

⁎
Corresponding authors at: Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering and Information Technology, Rahim Yar Khan, Pakistan, and King Fahd University of
Petroleum & Minerals, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
E-mail addresses: ahmad.jamil@kfueit.edu.pk (M.A. Jamil), smzubair@kfupm.edu.sa (S.M. Zubair).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113188
Received 14 May 2020; Received in revised form 14 June 2020; Accepted 4 July 2020
Available online 12 August 2020
0196-8904/ © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Nomenclature i inlet
m mean
A area, m2 Mem membrane
C stream cost, $/h or $/s misc miscellaneous
Cf fuel cost o outlet
Cfw freshwater cost, $/m3 St steam
Cindex cost index factor t tube
Eeq equivalent electricity consumption, kWh/m3 v vapor
ex specific exergy, kJ/kg 0 dead state
hfg latent heat of vaporization/condensation, kJ/kg
i interest/discount rate, % Superscripts
ks the salt permeability coefficient
m mass flow rate, kg/s CI capital investment
N number of effects y amortization years/economic life
rn nominal escalation rate
rP pressure ratio Abbreviations
rr recovery ratio
V volume flow rate, m3/s AB absorption
W work, kW ABHP absorption heat pump
X flow exergy, kW BFP butane freezing process
y years BR brine recycle
ys, RO the salt mass fraction in the flow out from the RO mem- CAPEX capital expenditure
brane CELF constant escalation levelization factor
y the average salinity through the membrane element CF conversion factor
Z capital cost, $ CHP combined heat and power system
Z the annual rate of fixed cost, $/y CRF capital recovery factor
DCFP direct contact freezing process
Greek symbols DP distillate pump
EAD evaporator as dehumidifier
amortization factor, 1/y EAH evaporator after humidifier
brine management cost, $/m3 EGYP Egyptian
change in quantity FC flash chamber
ε unit electricity cost, $/kWh FO-LPRO forward osmosis low-pressure reverse osmosis
efficiency, % GT gas turbine
λ stream cost, $/s HPP high pressure pump
ψ feed split ratio HP heat pump
plant availability, % LC levelized cost
£ plant life, years LCC levelized capital cost
ζ rate of fixed cost, $/s LHV the lower heating value of fuel
maintenance cost, $ LOC levelized operational cost
labor/manpower cost, $/m3 MBR-RO-AOP membrane bioreactor reverse osmosis advanced
pretreatment/chemical cost, $/m3 oxidation process
unit steam cost, $/ton MD membrane distillation
γ rate of membrane replacement, 1/y MEE/MED multi-effect evaporation/desalination
intake cost, $/h MSF multistage flash
MVC mechanical vapor compression
Subscripts M$ million dollars
NF nanofiltration
B brine O&M operation and maintenance
BH brine heater ORC organic Rankine cycle
BP brine pump PCM phase change material
che chemical PCF parallel cross feed
Comp compressor PR performance ratio,
D distillate PT Pelton turbine
Deh dehumidifier PX pressure exchanger
DH distillate heater RP recirculation pump
eff effective SD solar driven
Eq equivalent SEC specific energy consumption, kWh/m3
EV evaporator SED single effect desalination
F feed SOFC solid oxide fuel cell
FC flash chamber SS stainless steel
FP feed pump SWRO seawater reverse osmosis
gen generator TVC thermal vapor compressor/ion
Ht heat transfer UPR universal performance ratio,
Hum humidifier VDS visual design and simulation

2
M.A. Jamil, et al.
2. Literature review
The economic analysis of desalination systems has been widely
adopted to estimate, compare, and improve the performance of desa-
lination systems. For example, Madani [18] suggested the use of a solar
still, solar-assisted MED, and RO at small scales and MVC, MED and
MSF for medium and large scale applications based on economic ana-
lysis. Gaggioli et al. [19] applied the Second Law analysis to evaluate
the improvement opportunities in the existing systems to minimize
exergy destruction and fuel cost. Likewise, El-Mudir et al. [20] studied
the performance of a small scale TVC system, and Nafey et al. [21]
conducted the thermo-economics of different desalination systems, in-
cluding MSF, MEE, and MVC system using a custom made visual design
and simulation (VDS) software package.
Similarly, thermoeconomic performance analysis of hybrid desali-
nation units coupled with power plants [22,23] and energy recovery
devices (ERDs) have been conducted by researchers for low water costs.
For example, Darwish et al. [24] studied the cost of three different
cogeneration power desalting plants and reported the product cost as
RO 0.36–0.51 $/m3, MVC 0.7–0.97 $/m3, and MSF 2.21–3.99 $/m3.
Manesh et al. [25] performed a component-based exergy-economic
optimization of an MSF system coupled with a nuclear reactor and
proposed improvement in materials for minimum exergy destruction
and cost. Najafi et al. [26] optimized an MSF system coupled with a
solid oxide fuel cell (SOFC) driven gas turbine and they found exergetic
efficiency, capital cost, and the payback period as 46.7%, M$ 3.76/year
and 9 years, respectively under optimum conditions. Alhazmy [27]
studied the economic feasibility of a novel MSF desalination with brine-
feed mixing and cooling. They reported the breakeven unit product cost
from 0.5 to 0.9 $/m3. Wang and Lior [28] showed that the coupling of
the absorption heat pump (ABHP) improves the thermoeconomic per-
formance of conventional MED systems. Likewise, Esfahani et al. [29]
reported the product cost of the MED-ABHP hybrid system could be as
low as 0.13 $/m3. Sadri et al. [30] investigated the adsorption desali-
nation system with silica gel and found the specific water production
Fig. 1. Factors affecting input energy calculations [50].
3
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
cost 0.57 $/m3.
Zhang et al. [31] studied the heat pump driven HDH system and
reported the product cost 0.0412 $/kg. They also presented that opti-
mization of the system can reduce the water production cost to
0.03846 $/kg [28]. Similarly, Ghofrani and Moosavi et al. [32] com-
pared the exergo-economic performance of three brine recycle BR-HDH
systems with, heat-driven (BR-HDH-H), heat pump driven with eva-
porator after the humidifier (BR-HDH-HP-EAH), heat pump driven with
evaporator as dehumidifier (BR-HDH-HP-EAD). They reported the
product cost of the mentioned 3 systems as 5.1, 6.2, 10.6 $/m3, re-
spectively. Gasmi et al. [33] performed the techno-economic analysis of
a large scale SWRO plant integrated with pressure exchanger (PX) and
Pelton turbine (PT) as ERDs. They reported a profit of 120,000 (for PX)
and 181,000 (for PT) Tunisian Dinars, annually. A similar effect of
retrofitting RO plants with ERDs was presented by Penate and Ro-
driguez [34] and Jamil et al. [35]. The unit water production cost was
reported from 0.54 to 0.66 €/m3 for different retrofits. Djebedjian et al.
[36] investigated an actual MVC system at Abu Soma Bay and reported
the water production and transportation costs 6.06 and 4.753 EGYP-
pounds/m3, respectively, based on energetic framework.
In addition to conventional and hybrid systems, some studies have
also been focused on investigating the economic feasibility of renew-
able energy-based systems [37–39]. For instance, Fiorenza et al. [40]
examined the economics of solar-driven (SD) desalination plants, in-
cluding PV-RO and SD-MED, and reported high costs compared to
conventional systems. Banat and Jwaied [41] studied a solar-driven
membrane distillation (MD) system and reported the membrane and
plant life to be the most influential economic parameters. The fresh-
water cost for small and large scale units was reported as 15 $/m3 and
18 $/m3, respectively. Karagiannis and Soldatos [42] reviewed the
product cost of different desalination systems. They reported the range
of product cost for conventional methods for seawater from 0.4 to 3 €/
m3 and brackish water from 0.2 to 1.5 €/m3. They also found that the
arrangements with renewable energy sources can produce water with a
cost of reaching up to 15 €/m3. Some other recent studies in this regard
M.A. Jamil, et al.
include life cycle assessment [43], total revenue requirement analysis
[44], and exergo-environmental analysis [45].
It is important to emphasize that the water production cost in most
of the above-mentioned studies and literature is calculated directly
considering the whole plant as a single unit. The total expenses, in-
cluding equipment, pretreatment, labor, operation, and maintenance
costs invested at system boundaries, are divided by the production
capacity of the plant to evaluate the unit production cost [9,46].
Though the method gives a quick preliminary estimation of the product
cost, a component level investigation and optimization are not
achievable with this approach. Therefore, thermoeconomic analysis has
emerged as an important tool for the detailed design and analysis of
desalination systems at the component level.
The method employs thermodynamics and economic analyses si-
multaneously to assess how efficiently the input resources are utilized
throughout the system by each component [47]. This joint application
of exergetic analysis and economics can satisfactorily calculate product
cost while offering flexibility for design improvement and malfunction
diagnosis at the same time. Thus the effect of all endogenous (i.e., ir-
reversibility) and exogenous factors (i.e., fiscal parameters) can be
analyzed, individually [48,49]. Although this is an important and most
accurate tool for desalination processes evaluation, there is no complete
framework available in the literature as per author knowledge. There-
fore, the novelty of this study is to present a comprehensive framework
for thermoeconomic analysis of commercial desalination systems.
3. Input energy calculation
In thermoeconomic analysis, input energy cost is of paramount
importance because of its major share in the plant economics, which
governs the permeate cost. It depends upon the plant performance, unit
energy price, and energy input mechanism. The appropriate calcula-
tion/allocation of input energy requires its quantity, quality (thermal,
mechanical, or electrical) as well as supply source (i.e., from the grid,
steam from a boiler, extracted from a cogeneration plant or waste heat
recovery unit). Therefore, a comparison of energy consumption per unit
permeate for different desalination systems operating with different
types of energy inputs needs all facets to be considered, as shown in
Fig. 1 [50].
To address the energy calculation issues, many approaches are
presented in the literature such as exergetic analysis [51], equivalent
electricity consumption (to append auxiliary energy inputs) [52], and
universal performance ratio (for appropriate energy allocation in co-
generation water and power systems) [53,54]. The application of these
methodologies depends on specific parameters and can handle energy
calculations satisfactorily across desalination plants. The most appro-
priate approaches are briefly discussed below.
3.1. Exergy
It is a valuable tool to assess the performance from thermodynamic
viewpoint [55] and measures the maximum theoretical useful work that
can be obtained from a system as it is brought into a complete ther-
modynamic equilibrium with the dead state [56]. Darwish et al. [50]
used this approach to estimate the exergetic value of each stream in the
desalination systems. The specific exergy of a fluid stream with negli-
gible kinetic and potential energies is calculated.
ex = [(h h0) T0 (s s0)] (1)
where h and S represent the enthalpy and entropy of the stream and h0,
S0 represents the enthalpy and entropy of the stream at dead state (T0,
P0).
In some cases, the chemical potential of feed and brine also con-
tributes as chemical exergy, and, in those cases, the total specific exergy
of a stream is calculated as.
4
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
ex = [(h h 0) T0 (s s0)] + exche (2)
This ex che represents the specific chemical exergy calculated about a
reasonably selected dead state (usually intake seawater conditions). For
calculation of specific exergy of seawater streams, different models
have been developed over the years, as discussed by Fitzsimons et al.
[57]. Among these models, the seawater functions developed by Shar-
qawy et al. [58,59] are reported to be user-friendly and accurate for a
wide range of salinity and temperature. These functions were later
updated with pressure dependency by Nayar et al. [60] and are ex-
tensively used in the latest studies.
Once the specific amount is known, the total exergy X (kW) of each
stream is calculated using the respective flow rate m (kg/s) as.
X = mex (3)
Finally, the specific energy consumption (SEC) in kWh/m of the 3
system is calculated as,
X+W
SEC =
mD (4)
where W is the work input to the plant in kW and mD the mass flow rate
of the product in kg/s.
3.2. Equivalent electricity consumption
The equivalent electricity consumption (Eeq) measures the amount
of electricity that could have been produced using thermal energy,
which was bled to a desalination system [52]. It is used to rationally
compare the performance of thermal and electricity-driven desalination
systems. Also, the (Eeq) is used to reasonably append the auxiliary en-
ergy in the total energy consumption of the system i.e., the electricity
consumption of pumps in steam-driven MED and MSF systems. Like-
wise, in MVC systems, the makeup steam used can also be converted
into equivalent electricity consumption to estimate the SEC. The elec-
trical work is calculated, assuming that the steam used in the desali-
nation plant was instead expanded in a steam turbine, as discussed by
Naryan et al. [61].
WS = mS gen (h i ho) (KW ) (5)
where gen is the efficiency of the electrical generator, and it is assumed
95% [52,61]. The exit stream temperature is taken to be 35 °C, and the
isentropic efficiency of 85% is assumed for the steam turbine [52,61].
The equivalent electricity consumption is calculated as.
WS
Eeq = (kWh m3)
3.6 mD
out (6)
where WS represents the turbine work produced in kW, mD is the dis-
tillate flow rate in kg/s and 3.6 is the conversion factor from kJ/kg to
kWh/m3 taking water density 1000 kg/m3.
3.3. Universal performance ratio
Shahzad et al. [62] proposed the universal performance ratio (UPR)
method to evaluate the desalination processes on a common platform
based on primary energy consumption. The method is particularly
useful for cogeneration plants that face unfair primary fuel cost ap-
portionment to electricity and desalination. Using the UPR method the
authors investigated that in a cogeneration combined cycle power and
desalination plant, the gas turbine was undercharged by 40%, the steam
turbine was overcharged by 71% and desalination was overcharged by
350% by conventional energetic apportionment methods. They sug-
gested that the use of exergetic analysis for primary fuel percentage
apportionment to all components in the cycle according to the quality
of working fluid utilized on a large scale exterminate this issue.
In contrast to conventional performance ratio (PR) formula (given
in Eq. (7)) which is based on derived energy and does not accommodate
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

the quality (work potential) of different derived energies, a new UPR in the desalination plant.
was proposed. In the proposed UPR (given in Eq. (8)), the derived en-
ergies are multiplied with respective conversion factors (CF) to convert 4. Parameters of thermoeconomic analysis
into primary energies; those can be then added to calculate total input
to desalination process. The conversion factors are calculated based on The product cost of desalination systems depends upon a wide range
the exergy destruction across the components corresponding to primary of economic parameters as shown in Fig. 2 [63,64]. However, in ther-
fuel exergy. moeconomic analysis, the main targeted economic parameters are ca-
evaporative energy hfg pital expenditure (CAPEX), energy cost, fiscal parameters, operation,
PR = = and maintenance cost a detailed explanation of these parameters is
derived energy
{( )kWh
m3 elecrical
+ ( )
kWh
m3 thermal } (7) presented in the subsequent sections.

UPR =
evaporative energy 4.1. Capital cost
primary energy input
hfg
= The thermoeconomic analysis starts with the provision/ calculation
kWh kWh kWh
3.6 CF1
m3 elecrical
+ CF2
m3 thermal
+ CF3
m3 renewable (8) of capital cost (Z) of each component of the system. It generally reflects
the component’s purchasing cost; however, in some cases, the com-
The above discussion asserts that the exergy (available energy) gives missioning and outset operation and maintenance costs are also in-
the real picture of plant input energy. Therefore, the framework pre- cluded [65]. The most reliable option to obtain Z is through the market
sented in the later sections of this paper is based on the calculation of survey or supplier’s quotations as it fluctuates with location, the dis-
exergetic cost of each fluid stream as it enters or leaves any component tance of the delivery site, local taxes, and availability of alternatives.

Fig. 2. Summary of critical economic parameters [64].

5
M.A. Jamil, et al.
However, the cost obtained by this method is only suitable for specified
conditions and does not offer design flexibility.
Therefore, to accommodate these variations in the equipment cost,
different correlations have been developed that can satisfactorily ap-
proximate the equipment cost [66]. These correlations are modeled as a
function of design parameters such as mass flow rate, heat transfer rate,
duty, efficiency, energy consumption, pressure, and temperature dif-
ferentials [67–69]. The correlations for the capital cost of common
desalination system equipment are presented in Table A.1 of the ap-
pendix.
4.2. Cost index factor
The cost index factor (Cindex) is used to escalate the capital cost of
equipment from the original year to the current year in correlation
development [70]. For instance, the capital cost of equipment calcu-
lated in 2019 using a correlation proposed 10–20 years back cannot
reliably predict the required expenses [71]. Therefore, it is re-
commended to escalate the capital cost to the current year using cost
indices that accommodate the inflation and variations in market sce-
narios that happened over the years [72]. For this purpose, a systematic
methodology is used to calculate the Cindex using the Chemical En-
gineering Plant Cost Index (CEPCI) of the reference year and the current
year, as given below [73].
CEPCIcurrent
Cindex =
CEPCIreference (9)
Then the current capital cost of the equipment is given as [74],
$
Z$ = Cindex × Zreference (10)
For understanding, Cindex is 1.7 for a correlation developed in 1990
as CEPCI@1990 is 390 [75], and CEPCI@2020 is 650 [76]. However, for
rigorous design and analysis purposes, the effect of Cindex is studied for
a wide range of values, as presented in the study [15].
4.3. Capital recovery factor
The capital recovery factor (CRF) defines the annuities in terms of
money transacted out of a present value after a defined period
throughout the economic life of the equipment [21]. It is used to esti-
mate the annual rate of capital investment Z ($ yr ) of equipment or a
plant using interest rate (i) and amortization years/economic life of the
plant (y) as given by Esen et al. [77]:
i × (1 + i) y
CRF =
(1 + i) y 1 (11)
Z = CRF × Z (12)
Finally, the rate of fixed cost (in $ s ) is calculated based on the
plant availability ( ) as [78],
Z in Eq. (18).
=
365 × 24 × 3600 × (13)
4.4. Cost balance equations
In thermoeconomic analysis, each component of the plant is in-
vestigated as a system with its local inputs, outputs, and fixed cost. For
this purpose, a cost balance equation relating to the rate of expenditures
(inputs) to the products (output) is applied to each component as given
below [13].
Co = Ci + (14)
where Co represents the cost of the local output stream, Ci the cost of the
input stream, and the rate of capital cost.
For the systems with inclusive operation and maintenance costs, the
6
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
above equation is written as [79].
Co = Ci + CI + O & M
(15)
It is important to mention that for the components with a single
outlet stream (i.e., pumps, compressors, blowers, etc.), the cost balance
equation can be solved by providing the inlet costs. While for the
components with multiple outlet streams (i.e., heat exchangers, eva-
porators, flash chambers and membrane modules, etc.), additional
auxiliary equations are required. For a system with “k” outlet streams,
“k − 1” number of auxiliary equations are required to solve the system
[80]. These equations are based on the equality of the average cost of
inlet and outlet streams and are of the form as given in Eq. (16) [51].
Ci C
= o
Xi Xo (16)
The cost balance equations for commonly used desalination system
components and the corresponding auxiliary equations are presented in
the following sections.
4.4.1. Pump
Pumps are used to maintain pressure and flow rate of different
water streams, including feed, permeate, and brine. In membrane-based
systems (particularly RO) pumps have a significant share in the total
plant cost because of high pumping pressures (≥6000 kPa) that require
robust size and high energy input. Contrarily, in thermal-based systems,
pumps maintain pressure merely to overcome the pressure drops in
pipes, heat exchangers and evaporators. As the pressure in these sys-
tems is slightly above atmospheric pressure (≤500 kPa), their energy
consumption and cost do not contribute significantly. Resultantly, in
most of the thermally driven desalination processes, the energy con-
sumption of pumps is either ignored or calculated under auxiliary en-
ergy inputs, as mentioned above (refer 2.2). However, for a detailed
and accurate analysis, a complete plant layout is to be considered (in-
cluding pumps). Fig. 3 demonstrates the cost flow diagram of pumps,
and the corresponding cost balance equation is given in Eq. (17).
Co = C i + WPump + Pump (17)
4.4.2. Compressor
A compressor is an integral part of mechanical vapor compression
based thermal desalination systems. It is used to increase the tem-
perature and pressure of water vapors produced during the desalination
process. These compressed vapors are used to desalinate the subsequent
feed water streams. The process offers two major benefits including
flexibility to operate on electrical energy (suitable for remote areas) and
a significant reduction in intake steam flow rate which abates the de-
mand of a robust steam generation facility. Therefore, in such systems
compressor is a major energy-consuming (~95%) device and thus have
a major share in plant economics. Fig. 4 illustrates the cost-flow dia-
gram of a vapor compressor and the corresponding cost balance is given
Co = C i + WComp + Comp (18)
Fig. 3. Process flow diagram for the pump.
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

in a condenser as a distillate, but in multi-effect systems, these are used

as steam in the subsequent effects. The cost balance equation for the
evaporator is given in Eq. (23) and the auxiliary equations are given in
Eqs. (24) and (25).
C V , o = C F , i + C St , i C B, o C D, o + EV (23)

C St , i C D, o
=0
XSt , i XD, o (24)

C F ,i C B, o
=0
XF , i XB, o (25)

4.4.6. Flash chamber

In flashing-based thermal-desalination systems, e.g., MSF, the flash
chambers are used to produce vapors. First, the intake seawater is he-
ated to the feed temperature by passing through the condenser tubes. It
is then fed to the brine pool at the bottom of the chamber, where it
Fig. 4. Process flow diagram for the compressor. vaporizes partly and the remaining leaves as brine, which serves as a
feed for subsequent effects. The flashed vapors pass through a demister
and are collected as condensate in the distillate tray after exchanging
heat with the intake seawater. The distillate stream (from previous ef-
4.4.3. Membrane module
fects) is mixed with condensate and is collected at the outlet, as shown
It is the main component of RO systems and constitutes almost 60%
in Fig. 8. The cost balance equation for the flash chamber is given as
of the total plant cost. The feedwater is pumped to the membrane
[21].
module using a high-pressure pump (HPP) where the freshwater is
extracted from the feed stream, and the remaining is rejected as brine C D, o = C F , i + C SW , i + C D, i C SW , o C B, o + FC (26)
(refer to Fig. 5). The economics of the membrane module mainly de-
The two auxiliary equations required to solve this cost balance are
pends upon its capacity, pore size, and pressure withstanding cap-
given in Eq. (27) and (28).
ability, which are controlled by the feed concentration. The cost bal-
ance equation for the membrane module is given in Eq. (19). C F ,i C B, o
=0
XF , i XB, o (27)
CD, o = CF , i CB, i + Mem (19)
It is important to emphasize that the module has one inlet (feed) and C F,i C B, o C D, o C D, i
=0
two outlet streams (brine and permeate), so an auxiliary equation is XF , i XB, i XD, o XD, i (28)
required to solve this equation, which is given below.
C F ,i C B, o 4.4.7. Humidifier and dehumidifier
=0
XF , i XB, o (20) In HDH systems, the feed water is sprayed in a humidifier where it
humidifies the air using the evaporative potential of air. The moist air
from the humidifier is directed to the dehumidifier, where it condenses
4.4.4. Preheater by exchanging heat with the intake seawater, as shown in Figs. 9 and
In thermal desalination systems, preheaters are used to heat the 10. The cost balance equations and auxiliary equations for a humidifier
intake seawater to the required feed temperature by recovering heat are given in Eqs. (29) and (30) and for a dehumidifier in Eqs. (31) and
from the brine and distillate streams. For this purpose, plate heat ex- (32) given below [83].
changers are preferred because of close temperature control and easy
maintenance [81]. The flow diagram and cost balance equation for C moist air , o = C dry air , i + C F , i C B, o + Hum (29)
preheaters (heat exchangers) are given in Fig. 6 and Eq. (21), respec-
C F , i = C B, o (30)
tively.
C c , o = C c , i + C h, i C h, o + PH (21) C D, o = C moist air , i + C SW , i C SW , o C dry air , o + Deh (31)

The auxiliary equation required to solve this balance equation is C dry air , i C moist air , o C D, o C moist air , o
=0
given as: Xdry air , i X moist air , o XD, o Xmoist air , o (32)
C h, i C h, o It is important to mention that in addition to the above-discussed
=0
Xh, i Xh, o (22) parameters, some other indicators like payback period, Levelized cost,
etc. have also been used by some researchers to illustrate the economics
4.4.5. Evaporator
In evaporation based thermal desalination systems, a major portion
of the total energy interactions and cost is concentrated in the eva-
poration section. This unit defines the plant capacity, operating para-
meters as well as capital expenses. In the desalination industry, hor-
izontal tube falling film evaporators are generally preferred because of
better thermal performance compared to other counterparts. In these
evaporators, a thin film of feedwater is sprayed over the evaporator
tubes, which vaporizes by taking heat from the steam inside the tubes,
as shown in Fig. 7. In single-effect systems, these vapors are condensed Fig. 5. Process flow diagram for membrane module.

7
M.A. Jamil, et al.
Fig. 6. Process flow diagram for heat exchanger/preheater.
Fig. 7. Process flow diagram for an evaporative-condenser [82].
of desalination systems. These indicators are not an intrinsic part of
thermoeconomic analysis and are rarely used. However, they provide
valuable information from a monetary viewpoint. A brief overview of
these economic indicators is presented in the appendix.
Besides, a detailed review of existing studies on thermoeconomic
analysis of desalination technologies is conducted to summarize the
range of important fiscal parameters as presented in the appendix.
Table A.2 shows that water production cost varies remarkably with
location, technology, and time. The prime reasons for fluctuations in
the prices are the variations in system performance and fiscal para-
meters. The technological advancements and development of better
materials have considerably reduced the energy consumption of desa-
lination systems, thus providing the potential for cutting the opera-
tional expenses. However, the associated research and development
expenses, inflation in material costs, hikes in energy prices, and strict
environmental legislations have imposed additional monetary over-
heads.
It is important to mention that the calculation of water production
8
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
Fig. 8. Process flow diagram for the MSF flash chamber.
Fig. 9. Process flow diagram of the humidifier.
cost (presented above) is a multifaceted procedure and necessitates a
systematic approach for the calculation of required parameters.
Keeping in view, a component-based comprehensive theoretical fra-
mework calculating local and overall water production cost, is pre-
sented in the subsequent section. For this purpose, a technically so-
phisticated desalination system, i.e., Mechanical Vapor Compression
Desalination System working under different operating scenarios, is
selected as an example. The system demonstrates all major thermal,
hydraulic, and thermodynamic processes involved in the conventional
desalination systems. Therefore, the developed model can be applied to
other systems with minor relevant modifications.
5. A sample thermoeconomic model
Based on the earlier presented capital cost correlations, cost balance
equations, and fiscal parameters, a comprehensive thermoeconomic
model is developed for MVC systems, as an example. Different oper-
ating arrangements are considered for a complete plant layout. Firstly,
the exergy analysis is conducted to calculate the flow exergy (kW) of all
the streams, including feed, distillate, brine, and vapors. At the second
stage, exergy destruction in each component is calculated to assess the
thermodynamic performance. Lastly, the cost balance equations are
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Table 1
Input data for thermoeconomic analysis [15,85].
Parameter Value

SEE MED-FF MED-PF MED-PCF

Seawater temperature, TSW ,°C 21 21 21 21

Evaporation temperature, TEvap ,°C 63 47 36 36
Seawater salinity, SSW , g kg 40 35 35 35
Brine salinity, SB , g kg 80 70 70 70
Plant capacity, mD , kg s 13 35 35 35
Feed split ratio between preheaters, , % 50 50 50 50
Compression ratio, rP 1.21 1.35 1.35 1.35
Interest rate, i , % 7 7 7 7
Amortization period, y , years 20 20 20 20
Cost index factor, Cindex 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
Electricity cost, , $ kWh 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09
Annual availability, % 90 90 90 90
Chemical cost, , $ h 5.9 5.9 5.9 5.9
Intake cost, , $ h 4.6 4.6 4.6 4.6
Water production cost, $/m3 1.7 0.867 0.842 0.865

C13 = C12 + WBP + BP (46)

Fig. 10. Process flow diagram of the dehumidifier.
employed to calculate the monetary cost of all the streams using ex-
ergetic cost-based auxiliary equations.
C15
Cfw (in$ m3) =
VD (47)
The thermoeconomic analysis for the SEE-MVC system is conducted
using the above-presented model. The important thermodynamic and
economic parameters used in the analysis are summarized in Table 1.
The cost-flow diagram presenting the cost rate (in $/h) at each com-
ponent’s outlet is presented in Fig. 11 [15,84].

5.1. Single effect MVC system 5.2. Multi-effect MVC systems

A single effect MVC system consists of an evaporator, a compressor, The multi-effect MVC systems use many evaporation effects (nor-
pumps, and two preheaters. The governing equations for thermo- mally 2 to 10) to desalinate feed water. The vapor produced in each
economic analysis of SEE-MVC are summarized in Eqs. (33)-(47) [15]. evaporator is used as a heat source for subsequent effects. Finally, the
vapors from the last effect are directed to a vapor compressor where
C1 = C0 + WFP + (33)
FP
they are compressed and superheated to serve as a heat source for the
C2 = C1 (34) first effect. However, in some high capacity systems, makeup steam is
also added with the compressed vapor to reduce the compressor size,
C3 = (1 ) C1 (35) energy consumption, and cost. It is worth mentioning that the multi-
effect systems can operate in different feed flow arrangements (see
C4 = C2 + C9 C14 + DH (36) Fig. 12), which have different operating conditions, energy require-
ments, and product costs for the same capacity. The thermoeconomic
C9 C
= 14 models for three commonly used flow configurations are presented
X9 X14 (37) below:

C5 = C3 + C11 C12 + BH (38) 5.2.1. Forward feed (FF)

In this arrangement, the total feed is sprayed in the first evaporator,
C11 C
= 12 and the brine of each evaporator serves as a feed for the next effects.
X11 X12 (39) Finally, the brine from the last effect is directed to the brine preheater
to preheat the intake seawater. The cost balance equation is generalized
C6 = C4 + C5 (40)
in terms of the number of evaporators which can vary as j = 2 to N. The
C16 = C7 + C17 C8 C9 + (41) governing equations in the general form are given as [82]:
EV
CV [ j] = CF [ j] + CSt [ j] CB [ j] CD [ j] + EV (48)
C7 C
= 8
X7 X8 (42) For the first effect [j = 1], the vapor and feed stream costs are
calculated as:
C9 C
= 17 CF [ 1] = CF , DH + CF , BH (49)
X9 X17 (43)
CSt [ 1] = CV [ N ] + WComp + Comp + Cmakeup steam (50)
C17 = C16 + WComp + Comp (44)
For [j = 2 to N]
C15 = C14 + WDP + Cmisc + DP (45)
CF [ j] = CB [ j 1] (51)
where, Cmisc is the miscellaneous cost such as blowdown, cooling,
condensate, chemical, post-treatment, etc. CS t [ j] = CV [ j 1] (52)

9
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Fig. 11. Single effect MVC system diagrams (a) process flow and (b) cost flow [15,84].

CS t [ j] = CV [ j 1] (60)
5.2.2. Parallel feed (PF)
It is important to emphasize that the feed flow arrangements dis-
In this configuration, the feed is equally disbursed in all the eva-
cussed above have their advantages and limitations from thermo-
porators at feed temperature. The brine from all effects is collected and
dynamic and economic viewpoints, which have been investigated in
sent to the brine preheater and the remaining operation same as that of
detail by Jamil et al. [84,85]. The cost flow diagram for 4-effects MVC
forward feed. The general form of equations for calculation of different
systems operating under the above-discussed arrangements is presented
costs are given below [85].
in Fig. 13.
CV [ j] = CF [ j] + CS [ j] CB [ j] CD [ j] + EV (53)
6. Discussion of results
CF , DH + CF , BH
CF [ j] =
N (54)
The thermoeconomic analysis conducted above presented the cost
CS t [ 1] = CV [ N ] + WComp + + Cmakeup steam rate (in $/h) and water production cost (in $/m3) for different MVC
Comp (55)
system configurations. For example, in a single effect system, the feed is
For [j = 2 to N] assigned a cost rate of 4.6 $/h at a preheater inlet because of pre-
treatment. After being heated to feed temperature (at evaporator inlet)
CS t [ j] = CV [ j 1] (56)
from the intake seawater temperature, the cost of stream surged to
795 $/h because of the capital cost of preheaters and the hot water
5.2.3. Parallel crossfeed (PCF) stream costs coming from the evaporator. The cost of vapors produced
In this arrangement, the feed is equally distributed in all the effects in the evaporator is calculated as 5216 $/h, which increased to 5274 $/
like PF; however, brine from each effect is introduced in the next effect h at the compressor outlet because of the addition of compressor fixed
at the bottom. The addition of brine in the subsequent effects results in cost as well as input energy cost. Finally, the distillate and brine stream
addition to vapor production with flashing because of the difference in costs after releasing its heat in the preheater are calculated as 94 $/h
temperature and pressure. The governing cost equations are given and 33 $/h, respectively. The water production cost for this system with
below [85]. a distillate capacity of 13 kg/s is calculated as 1.7 $/m3.
Similarly, for multi-effect systems, the pretreated intake seawater
CV [ j] = CF [ j] + CS t [ j] CB [ j] CD [ j] + EV + CB [ j 1] (57) cost is taken the same as 4.61 $/h for all the feed flow arrangements.
However, the preheaters are different in size for all three systems be-
CF , DH + CF , BH
CF [ j] = cause of different inlet and outlet temperatures; therefore, the feed
N (58)
water cost is calculated as 338 $/h, 122 $/h, 116 $/h for FF, PF and
CS t [ 1] = CV [ N ] + WComp + + Cmakeup steam PCF thus showing the largest investment in the case of FF. This is be-
Comp (59)
cause of the reason that in FF, the total feed is sprayed in the first
For [j = 2 to N] evaporator, which has significantly higher evaporation temperature

10
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Fig. 12. Multi-effect MVC system operating under (a) forward feed, (b) parallel feed, and (c) parallel crossfeed [84,85].

11
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Fig. 13. Cost flow diagram of a multi-effect MVC system [83,84].

Fig. 14. The leveling-off water production cost of existing desalination technologies and future roadmap.

requirements (i.e., 47 °C) than PF and PCF (i.e., 36 °C). The distillate
cost at the outlet of evaporator and compressor section is calculated as
316 $/h, 156 $/h, and 183 $/h, and the corresponding brine stream
costs are 117 $/h, 62 $/h, and 32 $/h. Finally, the water production
cost is calculated as the highest for FF with 0.867 $/m3, followed by
PCF with 0.865 $/m3 and PF with 0.842 $/m3. Therefore, the analysis
concluded that the single effect system has the highest water produc-
tion cost, followed by FF, PCF, and PF, respectively.
7. Closing remarks and future road map
The current study presents a comprehensive theoretical framework
for a component-based thermoeconomic analysis of commercial-scale
desalination systems. The key economic parameters that govern the
analysis and water product cost are discussed in detail. A comprehen-
sive review of existing studies is conducted to cluster the magnitude of
critical fiscal parameters. The cost balance equations are developed for

12
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Table A1
Correlations for capital cost.
Component Correlation Limitations Ref.

Pump $
ZPump = 13.92 mw P 0.55 e1.05 2 m 32100 P 6200 1.8 e 9 [94]
$
ZPump = 705.48 W 0.71 (1 + 0.2 1 ) — [95]
$
ZPump = 2100(W 10)0.26 (1 )0.5 — [71]
$
ZPump = 1785(W )0.26 (1 + 0.2 1 ) — [72]
$
ZPump = 996 V 0.8 — [13,96]
$
ZPump = 3500 (W )0.47 — [97]

Preheater (liquid–liquid plate $ = 1000 (12.86 + A 0.8 )

ZPH HT
— [20]
heat exchanger) [94]
$ = 157.81 Q T
ZPH t
0.7
Pt 0.08
Ps 0.04 40 Q 185 , 2.5 Tt 80.7 Pt 50 , 0.007 Ps 9
$
ZPH = 1839·IF ·A0.4631 (A 18.6m2) G1Titanium [98–100]
P 10 bar , T 160 °C
$ = 781·IF ·A0.7514
ZPH (A 18.6m2) G1Titanium
P 10 bar , T 160 °C
$ = 1281·IF ·A0.4887
ZPH (A 18.6m2) SS316
P 10 bar , T 160 °C
$ = 702·IF ·A0.6907
ZPH (A 18.6m2) SS316
P 10 bar , T 160 °C
$ = 1391·A0.778
ZPH Titanium [101–103]
$ = 635.14· A0.778
ZPH SS
$ = 201.67 Q T
ZPH t
1
Pt 0.15
Ps 0.15 — [104,105]

Evaporator $ = 250 Q T 1 P
ZEV m t
0.01
Ps 0.1 150 Q 800 , 2 Tm 220.06 Pt 0.350.03 Ps 0.06 [94]

Mechanical Vapor $
ZMVC = 7364 mv rP e 0.7 10 mv 455 , 1.1 rp 2 [94]
Compressor 2.3 e 11.5
$
ZMVC = 704.68 Wcomp + 66.11 — [106,107]

High-pressure pump $ ) = 3.3892 + 0.05361×

log10 (ZHPP WHPP (kW) [13]
log10 (WHPP ) + 0.1538[log10 (WHPP )]2
$
ZHPP = 52(Pw V ) V 200 m3/h [97,108]
$
ZHPP = 81(Pw V ) 200 V 450
$
ZHPP = 393000 + 10710 × Pw V = 450 m3/h
Pw (bar), V (m3/h)

Pelton turbine $ ) = 2.2476 + 1.4956

log10 (ZPT WPT (kW) [13]
× log10 (WPT ) - 0.1618[log10 (WPT )]2

Membrane module (RO) 60% of RO plant cost — [40]

[13,109–111]
$
Zmem = 10 rr ( VRO
Vel ) N
m el ys, RO
ks (y ys, RO )
A
ks = 2 . 03 × 10 5 (m3 m2s kPa)

y =
(mt mbypass ) ys, t + mb ys, b Vel = 1.5(m3 h)
mt mbypass + mb rr = 0.55

Thermal vapor compressor $

ZTVC = 15962 mv (Ti Pi )0.05 Po 0.75 — [47]
(TVC) $ — [112]
ZTVC = 31.05 (6340.13 VF 106)0.6097 × 106

Humidification $
ZHum = 746.75 mF0.79 (Twb, air , o Tair , o )0.57 — [71,83,113,114]
Dehumidification (HDH) 0.9924
(TF , i TB, o ) × (0.022Twb + 0.39)2.44705
$ = 2143 A 0.514
ZDeh — [71,83,114]
Deh

Water heater $ = 130 (A

ZHt Ht 0.093)
0.78 — [72,83]

Condenser $
ZCond = 8000 (ACond 100)0.6 A (m2) [72,83]
$
ZCond = 150 (ACond )0.8 [97]

$ 280.74 Q [47]
ZCond = + 746 m+
2.2 TLMTD
70.5 Q × ( 0.6936 ln( T ) + 2.1898)

MED/MSF complete plant $

ZMED = 3054(mD )0.9751 Including supply of equipment, engineering, commissioning, erection, [115,116]
MSF
fixed cost instrumentation, and control has been derived as a function of daily
production up to 10,000 (m3/day)

(continued on next page)

13
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Table A1 (continued)

Component Correlation Limitations Ref.

HDH complete unit $

ZHDH =
576.73
(B1 + B2 Fm Fp) C 0 B1 and B2 are constants, [117]
394
log C 0 = K1 + K2 log A + K3 (log A)2 Fm the material factor,
Fp the pressure factor
log Fp = C1 + C2 log P + K3 (log P )2 A represents the capacity or size K1, K2, K3 and C1, C2, C3 are constants

Boiler $
ZBoiler = A × mst + B — [104,105]
A = 0.249 PBoiler + 47.19 , B = 3.29 PBoiler + 624.6
$
ZBoiler = 3.28 × 105 (mS t 20000)0.81 — [112]

Vapor generator $
ZVapor = 10393.6 U A Pt 0.33
Ps 0.26 — [105]
gen

Solar field $
ZSolar = 150 (A)0.95 — [97]
field

where, all values are in SI units i.e. Q (kW), A(m2), Ti (K), T (°C), P (kPa), m (kg/s), W (kW), rP = Po Pi , e = 1 ,
IF: Installation factor for PHX ranging 1.5–2.0 [98]
—: not mentioned.

commonly used desalination system components. Finally, a detailed
mathematical procedure is developed for thermoeconomic analysis of
desalination systems using one of the most panoptic and sophisticated
systems, i.e., MVC. The proposed procedure can be satisfactorily used to
investigate the thermoeconomic performance of other desalination
systems as well.
In conclusion, an extensive review and assessment of literature re-
veal that despite lots of improvement efforts, the leveling-off water
production cost for existing desalination systems is hovering around
0.9 ± 0.3 $/m3 (refer Fig. 14). Most of the developing countries are
unable to pay such a high cost, where the average salary is close to
$1–2/day [86]. Hence, for a quantum decrease in water production
cost, a technological breakthrough is essential that can address the key
limitations like operational limits (~0.78 kWh/m3), material proper-
ties, brine management, monetary expenses, and energy consumption,
etc., simultaneously. For affordable water supply to all developing
countries, the estimated operational cost must be closer to
0.3 ± 0.05 $/m3 [87]. In this regard, some noticeable efforts are
underway such as Global Water Award (SUQIA UAE) [88], the Water
Challenge (Water Aid Australia) [89], Global Water Awards [90], the
IWA Global Water Award [91] and the IDA Water Awards [92] to
motivate water experts for innovative solutions to reduce the water
cost.
The overall target is to achieve low cost and sustainable water
supply zone, as shown in Fig. 14. Based on recent COVID-19 global
pandemic experience when US oil prices dropped below zero, water has
emerged as the new oil, and its importance is endorsed in every sector
of life. To cope this kind of uncertain situation in the future, water
security, and low-cost supply are the most important. So, it is very
timely to investigate out-of-box solutions for uninterrupted and low-
cost water supply to save lives.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
The authors acknowledge the support provided by the Mechanical
Engineering Department, Khwaja Fareed University of Engineering, and
Information Technology (KFUEIT), Rahim Yar Khan. In particular, Dr.
Muhammad Wakil Shahzad acknowledges the support provided by
Northumbria University, UK under reference # RDF20/EE/MCE/
SHAHZAD. Also, Syed Zubair would like to acknowledge the support
received from King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals (KFUPM)
through the project IN171048.

Appendix

A-1. Additional economic indicators

The following additional economic indicators are also used in the literature to present the economic performance of desalination systems.

Payback period

It refers to the period in which total capital investment is recovered by selling the product [79]. The equations for calculation of payback period is
given as [26].
p
EC, p = Zk (1 + i ) p + 3600 Cf N (1 + i ) p m

k m=1 (A1)
th
where, “Ec,p” represents the worth of the plant in “p ” year of operation with “Z” as capital cost, “i” as interest rate, “Cf” as fuel cost rate, “p” as the
payback period, and “N” as operational hours per year.

Levelized cost

It measures and compares the cost of different alternative systems giving the same output. It gives the real price for long term projects in net

14
M.A. Jamil, et al.
Table A2
Ranges of economic parameters used by different authors.
Reference
Ettouney et al. [46] 2002
Fiorenza et al. [40] 2003
Helal et al. [109] 2008
Ternero et al. [111] 2005
Marcovecchio et al. [110]
2005
Mudir et al. [20] 2004
Drioli et al. [118] 2006
Nafey et al. [21] 2006
Nafey et al. [9] 2006
Nafey et al. [11] 2007
Nafey et al. [97] 2010
Mabrouk et al. [78] 2007
Ophir et al. [119] 2007
Banat and Jwaied [41] 2008
Lukic et al. [106] 2010
Sayyaadi and Saffari [44]
2010
Sharaf et al. [120] 2011
Peñate and Rodr-íguez [34]
2011
Emam and Dincer [13] 2014
Hanafizadeh et al. [121] 2016
Linares et al [43] 2016
Piacentino [122] 2015
Mokhtari et al. [123] 2016
Delgado et al. [124] 2016
Ahmadi et al. [125] 2017
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
Technologies (Product cost) Economic parameters
3
MSF (1.17 $/m ) i = 5%, £ = 30y, = 90%, = 0.025 $/m3, = 0.05 to 0.1 $/m3, = 0.05 $/kWh,
MEE (1.01 $/m3) = 1.466 $/MkJ, = 5% (for brackish water with good pretreatment) to 20% (for seawater)
MVC (0.501 $/m3)
RO (0.669$/m3)
PV-RO (2 $/m3) i = 8%, £ = 25y, = 2% of PEC, = 0.1 $/m3, = 0.035 $/m3
Solar driven MEE (2 $/m3) i = 8%, £ = 25y, = 2% of PEC, = 0.1 $/m3, = 0.025 $/m3
RO (0.8 $/m3) i = 5%, £ = 30y, = 2% of PEC, = 0.1 $/m3, = 0.035 $/m3, = 0.04 $/kWh
RO (76.7 c$/m3) £ = 20y, = 2 to 4% of PEC, = 5.5 c$/m3, = 6c/kWh,
RO (0.8 – 1.018 $/m3) i = 20%, £ = 25y, = 20% /y, = 90%
TVC (3.79 $/m3) i = 1.38 $/m3, = 0.14 $/m3, = 0.16 $/m3, = 0.07 $/m3, = 55%, = 0.19 $/kWh,
3 3 3
MF-NF-RO (0.51 $/m ) i = 5%, £ = 30 y, = 0.033 $/m , = 0.03 $/m , = 0.025 $/m3, = 90%, = 10%, =
0.09 $/kWh, = 0.0032 $/lb, = 0.0015 $/m3
MSF (2.63 $/m3) i = 5%, = 0.07 $/m3, £ = 20y, = 90%, = 0.1 $/m3, = 13.4 $/ton, Cindex =1.2, = 15
$/h
MEE-FF (1.87 $/m3) i = 5%, £ = 20 y, = 3.7 $/kg of chemicals, = 90%, = 4.5 $/m3, = 0.098 $/kWh, =
MEE-MSF (1.70 $/m3) 0.072 $/m3
MEE-PCF (2.58 $/m3)
MEE-MVC (1.7 $/m3) i = 7%, = 5.9 $/h, £ = 20 y, = 90%, = 0.09 $/kWh, = 15.6 $/ton, = 4.6 $/h
MEE-MVC (2.2 $/m3) i = 7%, = 5.9 $/h, £ = 20 y, = 90%, = 0.09 $/kWh, = 15.6 $/ton, = 4.6 $/h
RO (0.898 $/m3) i = 5%, £ = 20y, = 15–25% of PEC, = 90%, = 0.06 $/kWh
RO-PWT (0.683 $/m3)
RO-PX (0.572 $/m3)
MSF (2.63 $/m3) i = 5%, = 3.7 $/kg of chemicals, £ = 10y, = 90%, = 0.098 $/kWh,
= 4.5 $/m3, = 0.072 $/m3
3
MEE-TVC (3.4 $/m ) i = 5%, = 4.14 $/h, £ = 10y, = 90%, = 0.09 $/kWh, = 15.6 $/ton, = 3.6 $/h
MEE-MVC (1.7 $/m3) i = 5%, = 5.9 $/h, £ = 10y, = 90%, = 0.09 $/kWh, = 15.6 $/ton, = 3.6 $/h
SWRO (1.34 $/m3) i = 5%, = 16.25$/h, £ = 10y, = 90%, = 0.09 $/kWh, = 23.14 $/h
MED-TVC (0.69 $/m3) i = 6%, = 1% of PEC, = 0.031 $/m3, = 0.05 $/m3, = 95%, £ = 20y, = 0.05 $/kWh
MED-MVC (0.60 $/m3) i = 6%, = 1% of PEC, = 0.031 $/m3, = 0.05 $/m3, = 95%, £ = 20y, = 0.05 $/kWh
SD-MD (15–18 $/m3) i = 5%, + = 20% of PEC, = 0, = 90%, £ = 20y, = 20%
MVC (N/A) i = 4%, = 0.1 €/m3, = 0.02 €/m3, £ = 30y, = 0.09 €/kWh, = 0.05783
3
MED-TVC (0.962 $/m ) £ = 30y, = 1% of PEC, = 0.031 $/m , 3
= 0.05 $/m ,3
= 95%, = 0.03 $/kWh, = 2 ton/
$
SD-MED-PF-TVC (1.323 $/m3) = 2% of PEC, = 0:025$/m3, = 0:025$/m3 , = 0.06 $/kWh, = 1.466 $/MkJ
SD-MED-PF-MVC (0.94 $/m3)
SWRO -ERD (0.5–0.6 €/m3) i = 6%, + = 0.140 €/m3, £ = 15y, = 0.12 €/kWh, y = 8y, = 95%
SWRO-ERD (2.451 $/m3) i = 8%, = 0.018 $/m3, cartridge = 0.01 $m3, £ = 20y, = 10%, = 8760 h,
MED (0.96 $/m3) i = 6%, £ = 20y, = 0.06 $/kWh, Cf = 2.63 $/GJ (based on LHV)
3
FO-LPRO (0.636 $/m ) i = 6%, £ = 20y, = 0.08 $/kWh, y = 8y, = 95%, = 10%, £ = 5y (RO and FO membrane)
MBR-RO-AOP (0.637 $/m3)
SWRO (0.737 $/m3)
MED (3.13 €/m3) i = 5%, £ = 20y, CRF = 0.0802, Cf = 0.27 €/Nm3 (NG), = 2.838 × 107 s, = 5 × 10−5 €/kJ
GT-MED (1.79 $/m3) = 10%, £ = 20y, = 0.08 $/kWh
GT-MED-RO (2.3–2.8 $/m3)
Solar thermal power plant (0.76 to 1.26 €/ £ = 20y, = 5.7 h/d, CPP = 1500 €/kW, Ccollector = 300 €/m2
m3)
MED (0.76 to 1.26 €/m3) CMED = 1400 €/(m3/d), = 0.04 €/m3, = 0.04 €/m3, = 5.7 h/d, £ = 20y,
RO (0.76 to 1.26 €/m3) CRO = 1200 €/(m3/d), = 0.086 €/m3, = 0.054 €/m3, £ = 20y, = 5.7 h/d, = 0.036 €/m3
GT-MED-TVC (1.96 $/m3) i = 1.3%, £ = 10y, Cf = 0.03 $/m3, = 1000 $/month/person, = 4000 h/y,
SOFC-GT-MED-TVC (2.88 $/m3)
(continued on next page)
15
M.A. Jamil, et al. Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188

Table A2 (continued)

Reference Technologies (Product cost) Economic parameters

3
Catrini et al. [126] 2017 CHP-MED-TVC (1.2 to 1.60 €/m ) i = 5%, £ = 30y, CRF = 0.065, = 4760 h/y, Cf = 1446.09 €/h

Behnam et al. [127] 2018 AB + ORC + EV (29.39 $/m3) i = 11.5%, £ = 30y, = 6% of PEC, = 8000 h

Elsayed et al. [128] 2018
3
MED-TVC-BF (2.12 $/m ) i = 5%, £ = 30y, Cindex = 1.2, = 0.05 $/m3, = 1.28 $/m3, = 90%, = 0.025 $/m3, =
MED-TVC-FF (2.30 $/m3) 0.08 $/kWh
MED-TVC-PF (2.16 $/m3)
MED-TVC-PCF (2.09 $/m3)

Elsayed et al. [107] 2018 MED-MVC (1.63 $/m3) i = 5%, £ = 20y, = 2% of PEC, = 0.1 $/m3, = 0.025 $/m3, = 0.08 $/kWh

Datsgerdi and Chua [129] Low grade heat driven MED (0.9 to 1.3 $/ i = 6%, £ = 30y, = 95%, = 0.117 $/kWh, CRF = 0.073, = 0.0223 $/m3, = 1.5% of PEC,
2018 m3) = 3%,

Haghghi et al. [83] 2019 Molten carbonate fuel cell driven HDH i = 12%, £ = 20y, = 6% of PEC, = 7446 h/y
(0.06 to 0.51 $/h)

Rostamzadeh et al. [71] 2018 Absorption-compression heat pump driven i = 15%, £ = 20y, = 7000 h/y, = 6% of PEC,
HDH (2.217 to 21.89 $/l)

Gholizadeh et al. [114] 2020 Biogas driven HDH (8.62 $/m3) i = 5%, £ = 20y, = 8000 h/y, = 6% of PEC, Cf = 3.5 $/GJ

Lawal et al. [12,16,130] Heat pump driven-HDH (10.68 $/m3) i = 5%, £ = 20y, = 90%, = 0.045 $/kWh, = 0.1 $/m3, = 1.5% of PEC, Cmisc = 20% of
2018–2020

Beyrami et al. [72] 2019 SOFC-SED (N/A) i = 12%, £ = 20y, = 6% of PEC, Cfuel = 0.03 $/GJ (Methane), = 8000 h/y,

Torres et al. [131] 2019 Molten Salt based Rankine cycle-MED i = 5%, £ = 30y, = 5% of PEC, = 80%
(1.33 to 1.89 $/m3)

Chitgar et al. [132] 2019 Novel SOFC-RO (System cost 36.8 $/h.) i = 12%, £ = 20y, = 6% of PEC, = 7500 h/y, Cf = 3.5 $/MMBTU

Abbasi et al. [96] 2019 Solar driven -PCM-RO (11.32 c$/m3) i = 15%, £ = 20y, = 6% of PEC, = 7448 h/y

i = interest rate, £ = contractual period/plant life, = maintenance cost, = labor cost, = pretreatment/ chemical, = unit electricity cost, = unit steam cost,
= plant availability factor, = annual rate of membrane replacement, = amortization factor, = inflation rate, y = amortization period, Cindex = cost index
factor, = intake cost, Cf = fuel cost, = brine management.

present value in terms of Levelized Capital Cost (LCC) and Levelized Operational Cost (LOC). The term Levelized asserts that these costs are
presented in the form of a series of equivalent payments [93].
LC = LCC + LOC (A2)
where LCC is given by
y
Kt
(1 + r )t
t=0
LCC = y
Vt
(1 + r )t
t=0 (A3)
Here, “Kt” is the capital expense ($) accruing in the year “t”, “Vt ” is distillate amount (m3) in “t”, “r” is the required rate of return, and “y” is the
amortization period.
Likewise, the LOC is calculated in terms of operational cost “Ot ($)” accruing in year “t” as.
y
Ot
(1 + r )t
t=0
LOC = y
Vt
(1 + r )t
t=0 (A4)
In addition to LCC and LOC, another parameter called Constant Escalation Levelization Factor (CELF) is also calculated. It gives a reliable
estimate of the present value of a system, and is given as [13,79].
(1 £)
CELF = CRF
1 (A5)
where CRF is the capital recovery factor, “£ ” is economic life, and “ ” is constant and calculated as.
= (1 + rn) (1 + ieff ) (A6)
In the above equation “rn” is the nominal escalation rate of energy and O&M costs with time and “ieff” is the effective discount rate.

A-2. Summary of various cost elements

The capital cost of different desalination system components is calculated using the correlations that are summarized in Table A1, whereas the

16
M.A. Jamil, et al.
ranges of important fiscal parameters and the product cost are described in Table A2.
References
[1] Mezher T, Fath H, Abbas Z, Khaled A. Techno-economic assessment and environ-
mental impacts of desalination technologies. Desalination 1986;266:263–73.
[2] Ghorbani B, Shirmohammadi R, Amidpour M, Inzoli F, Rocco M. Design and
thermoeconomic analysis of a multi-effect desalination unit equipped with a
cryogenic refrigeration system. Energy Convers Manage 2019;202:112208.
[3] Chung HW, Nayar KG, Swaminathan J, Chehayeb KM, Lienhard V JH.
Thermodynamic analysis of brine management methods: zero-discharge desalina-
tion and salinity-gradient power production. Desalination 2017;404:291–303.
[4] Amy G, Ghaffour N, Li Z, Francis L, Linares RV, Missimer T, et al. Membrane-based
seawater desalination: present and future prospects. Desalination 2017;401:16–21.
[5] Penate B, Garcia-Rodriguez L. Energy optimisation of existing SWRO (seawater
reverse osmosis) plants with ERT (energy recovery turbines): technical and ther-
moeconomic assessment. Energy 2011;36:613–26.
[6] Penate B, De L-F, Barreto M. Operation of the RO Kinetic energy recovery system:
description and real experiences. Desalination 2010;252:179–85.
[7] Shahzad MW, Ng KC, Thu K, Saha BB, Chun WG. Multi effect desalination and
adsorption desalination (MEDAD): a hybrid desalination method. Appl Therm Eng
2014;72:289–97.
[8] Shahzad MW, Thu K, Kim Y, Ng KC. An experimental investigation on MEDAD
hybrid desalination cycle. Appl Energy 2015;148:273–81.
[9] Nafey AS, Fath HES, Mabrouk AA. Thermo-economic investigation of multi effect
evaporation (MEE) and hybrid multi effect evaporation-multi stage flash (MEE-
MSF) systems. Desalination 2006;201:241–54.
[10] Junjie Y, Shufeng S, Jinhua W, Jiping L. Improvement of a multi-stage flash sea-
water desalination system for cogeneration power plants. Desalination
2007;217:191–202.
[11] Nafey AS, Fath HES, Mabrouk AA. Thermoeconomic design of a multi-effect eva-
poration mechanical vapor compression (MEE – MVC) desalination process.
Desalination 2008;230:1–15.
[12] Lawal D, Antar M, Khalifa A, Zubair S, Al-sulaiman F. Humidi fi cation-dehumidi fi
cation desalination system operated by a heat pump. Energy Convers Manage
2018;161:128–40.
[13] El-Emam RS, Dincer I. Thermodynamic and thermoeconomic analyses of seawater
reverse osmosis desalination plant with energy recovery. Energy 2014;64:154–63.
[14] Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Ybyraiymkul D, Ng KC. Desalination processes’ efficiency
and future roadmap. Entropy 2019;21.
[15] Jamil MA, Zubair SM. On thermoeconomic analysis of a single-effect mechanical
vapor compression desalination system. Desalination 2017;420:292–307.
[16] Lawal DU, Zubair SM, Antar MA. Exergo-economic analysis of humidification-
dehumidification (HDH) desalination systems driven by heat pump (HP).
Desalination 2018;443:11–25.
[17] Jamil MA, Elmutasim SM, Zubair SM. Exergo-economic analysis of a hybrid hu-
midification dehumidification reverse osmosis (HDH-RO) system operating under
different retrofits. Energy Convers Manage 2018;158:286–97.
[18] Madani AA. Economics of desalination for three plant sizes. Desalination
1990;78:187–200.
[19] Gaggioli RA, El-Sayed YM, Ei-Nashar AM, Kamaluddin B. Second law efficiency
and costing analysis of a combined power and desalination plant. J Energy Resour
Technol Trans ASME 1988;110:114–8.
[20] El-Mudir W, El-Bousiffi M, Al-Hengari S. Performance evaluation of a small size
TVC desalination plant. Desalination 2004;165:269–79.
[21] Nafey AS, Fath HES, Mabrouk AA. Exergy and thermoeconomic evaluation of MSF
process using a new visual package. Desalination 2006;201:224–40.
[22] El-Nashar AM. Cost allocation in a cogeneration plant for the production of power
and desalted water - comparison of the exergy cost accounting method with the
WEA method. Desalination 1999;122:15–34.
[23] Uche J, Serra L, Valero A. Thermoeconomic optimization of a dual-purpose power
and desalination plant. Desalination 2001;136:147–58.
[24] Darwish MA, Alotaibi S, Alfahad S. On the reduction of desalting energy and its
cost in Kuwait. Desalination 2008;220:483–95.
[25] Manesh MHK, Amidpour MA, Hamedi MH. Optimization of the coupling of pres-
surized water nuclear reactors and multistage flash desalination plant by evolu-
tionary algorithms and thermoeconomic method. Int J Energy Res 2009;33:77–99.
[26] Najafi B, Shirazi A, Aminyavari M, Rinaldi F, Taylor RA. Exergetic, economic and
environmental analyses and multi-objective optimization of an SOFC-gas turbine
hybrid cycle coupled with an MSF desalination system. Desalination
2014;334:46–59.
[27] Alhazmy MM. Economic and thermal feasibility of multi stage flash desalination
plant with brine-feed mixing and cooling. Energy 2014;76:1029–35.
[28] Wang Y, Lior N. Thermoeconomic analysis of a low-temperature multi-effect
thermal desalination system coupled with an absorption heat pump. Energy
2011;36:3878–87.
[29] Janghorban Esfahani I, Lee SC, Yoo CK. Evaluation and optimization of a multi-
effect evaporation-absorption heat pump desalination based conventional and
advanced exergy and exergoeconomic analyses. Desalination 2015;359:92–107.
[30] Sadri S, Ameri M, Khoshkhoo RH. A new approach to thermo-economic modeling
of adsorption desalination system. Desalination 2018;428:69–75.
[31] Zhang Y, Zhang H, Zheng W, You S, Wang Y. Numerical investigation of a hu-
midification-dehumidification desalination system driven by heat pump. Energy
17
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
Convers Manage 2019;180:641–53.
[32] Ghofrani I, Moosavi A. Energy, exergy, exergoeconomics, and exergoenviron-
mental assessment of three brine recycle humidi fi cation-dehumidi fi cation de-
salination systems applicable for industrial wastewater treatment. Energy Convers
Manage 2020;205:112349.
[33] Gasmi A, Belgaieb J, Hajji N. Technico-economic study of an industrial reverse
osmosis desalination unit. Desalination 2010;261:175–80.
[34] Peñate B, García-Rodríguez LL. Energy optimisation of existing SWRO (seawater
reverse osmosis) plants with ERT (energy recovery turbines): technical and ther-
moeconomic assessment. Energy 2011;36:613–26.
[35] Jamil MA, Qureshi BA, Zubair SM. Exergo-economic analysis of a seawater reverse
osmosis desalination plant with various retrofit options. Desalination
2016;401:88–98.
[36] Djebedjian B, Mohamed MS, El-sarraf S, Rayan MA. Evaluation of desalination and
water transport costs (Case Study: Abu Soma Bay, Egypt). Ninth Int. Water
Technol. Conf. IWTC 2005 Sharm El-Sheikh, Egypt. 2012. p. 1–9.
[37] Esen M, Yuksel T. Experimental evaluation of using various renewable energy
sources for heating a greenhouse. Energy Build 2013;65:340–51.
[38] Eltawil MA, Zhengming Z, Yuan L. A review of renewable energy technologies
integrated with desalination systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev
2009;13:2245–62.
[39] Ng KC, Shahzad MW. Sustainable desalination using ocean thermocline energy.
Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2018;82:240–6.
[40] Fiorenza G, Sharma VK, Braccio G. Techno-economic evaluation of a solar pow-
ered water desalination plant. Energy Convers Manage 2003;44:2217–40.
[41] Banat F, Jwaied N. Economic evaluation of desalination by small-scale autono-
mous solar-powered membrane distillation units. Desalination 2008;220:566–73.
[42] Karagiannis IC, Soldatos PG. Water desalination cost literature: review and as-
sessment. Desalination 2008;223:448–56.
[43] Valladares Linares R, Li Z, Yangali-Quintanilla V, Ghaffour N, Amy G, Leiknes T,
et al. Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis - low pressure reverse osmosis
system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery. Water Res
2016;88:225–34.
[44] Sayyaadi H, Saffari A. Thermoeconomic optimization of multi effect distillation
desalination systems. Appl Energy 2010;87:1122–33.
[45] Blanco-Marigorta AM, Masi M, Manfrida G. Exergo-environmental analysis of a
reverse osmosis desalination plant in Gran Canaria. Energy 2014;76:223–32.
[46] Ettouney HM, El-Dessouky HT, Faibish RS, Gowin PJ. Evaluating the economics of
desalination. Chem Eng Process 1986;98:32–9.
[47] Hafdhi F, Khir T, Ben Yahia A, Ben BA. Exergoeconomic optimization of a double
effect desalination unit used in an industrial steam power plant. Desalination
2018;438:63–82.
[48] Keshavarzian S, Rocco MV, Gardumi F, Colombo E. Practical approaches for ap-
plying thermoeconomic analysis to energy conversion systems: benchmarking and
comparative application. Energy Convers Manage 2017;150:532–44.
[49] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. A techno-economic comparison of ground-coupled and
air-coupled heat pump system for space cooling. Build Environ 2007;42:1955–65.
[50] Darwish MA, Yousef FA, Al-Najam NM. Energy consumption and costs with a
multi-stage flashing (MSF) desalting system. Desalination 1997;109:285–302.
[51] Rosen M. a. A concise review of exergy-based cconomic methods. Int Conf Energy
Environ 2008:9.
[52] Narayan GP, Lienhard V JH. Thermal design of humidification– dehumidification
systems for affordable small-scale desalination. MIT; 2012.
[53] Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Ng KC. A standard primary energy approach for com-
paring desalination processes. npj Clean Water 2019;2:1–7.
[54] Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Gha N, Ng KC. A multi evaporator desalination system
operated with thermocline energy for future sustainability. Desalination
2018;435:268–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.013.
[55] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M, Pihtili K. Energy and exergy analysis of a ground-coupled
heat pump system with two horizontal ground heat exchangers. Build Environ
2007;42:3606–15.
[56] Tsatsaronis G. Definitions and nomenclature in exergy analysis and ex-
ergoeconomics. Energy 2007;32:249–53.
[57] Fitzsimons L, Corcoran B, Young P, Foley G. Exergy analysis of water purification
and desalination: a study of exergy model approaches. Desalination
2015;359:212–24.
[58] Sharqawy MH, Lienhard V JH, Zubair SM. Thermophysical properties of seawater:
a review of existing correlations and data. Desalin Water Treat 2010;16:354–80.
[59] Sharqawy MH, Lienhard V JH, Zubair SM. On exergy calculations of seawater with
applications in desalination systems. Int J Therm Sci 2011;50:187–96.
[60] Nayar KG, Sharqawy MH, Banchik LD, Lienhard V JH. Thermophysical properties
of seawater: a review and new correlations that include pressure dependence.
Desalination 2016;390:1–24.
[61] Narayan GP, McGovern RK, Zubair SM, Lienhard V JH. High-temperature-steam-
driven, varied-pressure, humidification-dehumidification system coupled with re-
verse osmosis for energy-efficient seawater desalination. Energy 2012;37:482–93.
[62] Wakil Shahzad M, Burhan M, Soo Son H, Jin OS, Choon NK. Desalination processes
evaluation at common platform: a universal performance ratio (UPR) method.
Appl Therm Eng 2018;134:62–7.
[63] Reddy KV, Ghaffour N. Overview of the cost of desalinated water and costing
methodologies. Desalination 2007;205:340–53.
[64] Ghaffour N, Missimer TM, Amy GL. Technical review and evaluation of the
M.A. Jamil, et al.
economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water
supply sustainability. Desalination 1986;309:197–207.
[65] EI-Sayed YM. Thermoeconomics of some options of large mechanical vapor-com-
pression units. Desalination 1999;125:251–7.
[66] El-Sayed YM. The thermoeconomics of energy conversions. Amsterdam: Elsevier;
2003.
[67] Cheddie DF. Thermo-economic optimization of an indirectly coupled solid oxide
fuel cell/gas turbine hybrid power plant. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2010;36:1702–9.
[68] Sayyaadi H. Multi-objective approach in thermoenvironomic optimization of a
benchmark cogeneration system. Appl Energy 2009;86:867–79.
[69] Galanti L, Massardo AF. Micro gas turbine thermodynamic and economic analysis
up to 500 kWe size. Appl Energy 2011;88:4795–802.
[70] Chitsaz A, Mehr AS, Mahmoudi SMS. Exergoeconomic analysis of a trigeneration
system driven by a solid oxide fuel cell. Energy Convers Manage 2015;106:921–31.
[71] Rostamzadeh H, Namin AS, Ghaebi H, Amidpour M. Performance assessment and
optimization of a humidification dehumidification (HDH) system driven by ab-
sorption-compression heat pump cycle. Desalination 2018;447:84–101.
[72] Beyrami J, Chitsaz A, Parham K, Arild O. Optimum performance of a single effect
desalination unit integrated with a SOFC system by multi-objective thermo-eco-
nomic optimization based on genetic algorithm. Energy 2019;186:115811.
[73] Li YR, Du MT, Wu CM, Wu SY, Liu C, Xu JL. Economical evaluation and optimi-
zation of subcritical organic Rankine cycle based on temperature matching ana-
lysis. Energy 2014;68:238–47.
[74] Fettaka S, Thibault J, Gupta Y. Design of shell-and-tube heat exchangers using
multiobjective optimization. Int J Heat Mass Transf 2013;60:343–54.
[75] Vatavuk WM. Updating the cost index. Chem Eng 2002:62–70.
[76] Jenkins S. 2019 Chemical engineering plant cost index annual average 2020.
https://www.chemengonline.com/2019-chemical-engineering-plant-cost-index-
annual-average/ (accessed April 9, 2020).
[77] Esen H, Inalli M, Esen M. Technoeconomic appraisal of a ground source heat pump
system for a heating season in eastern Turkey. Energy Convers Manage
2006;47:1281–97.
[78] Mabrouk AA, Nafey AS, Fath HES. Thermoeconomic analysis of some existing
desalination processes. Desalination 2007;205:354–73.
[79] Bejan A, Tsatsaronis G, Moran M. Thermal design and optimization. Wiley; 1996.
[80] Lazzaretto A, Tsatsaronis G. SPECO: a systematic and general methodology for
calculating efficiencies and costs in thermal systems. Energy 2006;31:1257–89.
[81] Jamil MA, Din ZU, Goraya TS, Yaqoob H, Zubair SM. Thermal-hydraulic char-
acteristics of gasketed plate heat exchangers as a preheater for thermal desalina-
tion systems. Energy Convers Manage 2020;205:112425.
[82] Jamil MA, Zubair SM. Design and analysis of a forward feed multi-effect me-
chanical vapor compression desalination system: an exergo-economic approach.
Energy 2017;140:1107–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.08.053.
[83] Haghghi MA, Shamsaiee M, Holagh SG, Chitsaz A, Rosen MA. Thermodynamic,
exergoeconomic, and environmental evaluation of a new multi-generation system
driven by a molten carbonate fuel cell for production of cooling, heating, elec-
tricity, and freshwater. Energy Convers Manage 2019;199:112040.
[84] Jamil MA. Exergoeconomic analysis of single as well as multieffect mechanical
vapor compression desalination system MS Thesis King Fahd University of
Petroleum and Minerals, KSA; 2017
[85] Jamil MA, Zubair SM. Effect of feed flow arrangement and number of evaporators
on the performance of multi-effect mechanical vapor compression desalination
systems. Desalination 2018;429:76–87.
[86] The Worl Bank, Nearly half the world lives on less than $ 5.50 a day 2018. https://
www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/10/17/nearly-half-the-world-
lives-on-less-than-550-a-day (accessed June 13, 2020).
[87] Qian C, Alrowais R, Burhan M, Ybyraiymkul D. A self-sustainable solar desalina-
tion system using direct spray technology. Energy 2020:118037https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2020.118037.
[88] UAE, Water Aid, Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum Global Water Award 2020.
https://www.suqia.ae/en/awards (accessed June 11, 2020).
[89] Water Aid Australia, The Water Challenge 2019. https://www.wateraid.org/au/
get-involved/events/the-water-challenge (accessed June 11, 2020).
[90] Global Water Awards 2020. https://globalwaterawards.com/ (accessed June 11,
2020).
[91] IWA, Global Water Awards 2020. https://iwa-network.org/global-water-award/
(accessed June 11, 2020).
[92] IDA, Water Awards 2019. https://wc.idadesal.org/awards/ (accessed June 11,
2020).
[93] Shahabi MP, Mchugh A, Ho G. Environmental and economic assessment of beach
well intake versus open intake for seawater reverse osmosis desalination.
Desalination 2015;357:259–66.
[94] El-Sayed YM. Designing desalination systems for higher productivity. Desalination
2001;134:129–58.
[95] Roosen P, Uhlenbruck S, Lucas K. Pareto optimization of a combined cycle power
system as a decision support tool for trading off investment vs. operating costs. Int
J Therm Sci 2003;42:553–60.
[96] Abbasi HR, Pourrahmani H, Yavarinasab A, Emadi MA, Hoorfar M.
Exergoeconomic optimization of a solar driven system with reverse osmosis de-
salination unit and phase change material thermal energy storages. Energy
Convers Manage 2019;199:112042.
[97] Nafey AS, Sharaf MA, Garcia-Rodriguez L. Thermo-economic analysis of a com-
bined solar organic Rankine cycle-reverse osmosis desalination process with dif-
ferent energy recovery configurations. Desalination 2010;261:138–47.
[98] Haslego C, Polley G. Compact heat exchanger-part 1: designing plate-and-frame
heat exchangers. CEP Mag 2002:32–7.
18
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
[99] Christ A, Rahimi B, Regenauer-Lieb K, Chua HT. Techno-economic analysis of
geothermal desalination using Hot Sedimentary Aquifers: a pre-feasibility study for
Western Australia. Desalination 2017;404:167–81.
[100] Rahimi B, Marvi Z, Alamolhoda AA, Abbaspour M, Chua HT. An industrial ap-
plication of low-grade sensible waste heat driven seawater desalination: a case
study. Desalination 2019;470:114055.
[101] Hajabdollahi H, Naderi M, Adimi S. A comparative study on the shell and tube and
gasket-plate heat exchangers: the economic viewpoint. Appl Therm Eng
2016;92:271–82.
[102] Taal M, Bulatov I, Kleme J, Stehl P. Cost estimation and energy price forecasts for
economic evaluation of retrofit projects. Appl Therm Eng 2003;23:1819–35.
[103] Hall SG, Ahmad S, Smith R. Capital cost targets for heat exchanger networks
comprising mixed materials of construction, pressure ratings and exchanger types.
Comput Chem Eng 1990;14:319–35.
[104] Manesh MHK, Ghalami H, Amidpour M, Hamedi MH. Optimal coupling of site
utility steam network with MED-RO desalination through total site analysis and
exergoeconomic optimization. Desalination 2013;316:42–52.
[105] Samaké O, Galanis N, Sorin M. Thermo-economic analysis of a multiple-effect
desalination system with ejector vapour compression. Energy 2018;144:1037–51.
[106] Lukic N, Diezel LL, Fröba AP, Leipertz A. Economical aspects of the improvement
of a mechanical vapour compression desalination plant by dropwise condensation.
DES 2010;264:173–8.
[107] Elsayed ML, Mesalhy O, Mohammed RH, Chow LC. Transient and thermo-eco-
nomic analysis of MED-MVC desalination system. Energy 2019;167:283–96.
[108] Malek A, Hawlader MNA, Ho JC. Design and economics of RO seawater desali-
nation. Desalination 1996;105:245–61.
[109] Helal AM, Al-Malek SA, Al-Katheeri ES. Economic feasibility of alternative designs
of a PV-RO desalination unit for remote areas in the United Arab Emirates.
Desalination 2008;221:1–16.
[110] Marcovecchio MG, Aguirre PA, Scenna NJ. Global optimal design of reverse os-
mosis networks for seawater desalination: modeling and algorithm. Desalination
2005;184:259–71.
[111] Romero-Ternero V, Garcia-Rodriguez L, Gmez-Camacho C. Thermoeconomic
analysis of a seawater reverse osmosis plant. Desalination 2005;181:43–59.
[112] Chun A, Barone MA, Lourenço AB. Optimization of three power and desalination
plants and exergy-based economic and CO2 emission cost allocation and com-
parison. Int J Energy Water Resour 2019;1:1–13.
[113] Panjeshahi MH, Ataei A. Application of an environmentally optimum cooling
water system design to water and energy conservation. Int J Environ Sci Technol
2008;5:251–62.
[114] Gholizadeh T, Vajdi M, Rostamzadeh H. Exergoeconomic optimization of a new
trigeneration system driven by biogas for power, cooling, and freshwater pro-
duction. Energy Convers Manage 2020;205:112417.
[115] Dastgerdi HR, Whittaker PB, Chua HT. New MED based desalination process for
low grade waste heat. Desalination 2016;395:57–71.
[116] Rahimi B, May J, Regenauer-Lieb K, Chua HT. Thermo-economic analysis of two
novel low grade sensible heat driven desalination processes. Desalination
2015;365:316–28.
[117] He WF, Han D, Zhu WP, Ji C. Thermo-economic analysis of a water-heated hu-
midification-dehumidification desalination system with waste heat recovery.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;160:182–90.
[118] Drioli E, Curcio E, Di Profio G, Macedonio F, Criscuoli A. Integrating membrane
contactors technology and pressure-driven membrane operations for seawater
desalination. Chem Eng Res Des 2006;84:209–20.
[119] Ophir A, Gendel A. Steam driven large multi effect MVC (SD MVC) desalination
process for lower energy consumption and desalination costs. Desalination
2007;205:224–30.
[120] Sharaf MA, Nafey AS, García-Rodríguez L. Thermo-economic analysis of solar
thermal power cycles assisted MED-VC (multi effect distillation-vapor compres-
sion) desalination processes. Energy 2011;36:2753–64.
[121] Hanafizadeh P, Siahkalroudi MM, Taklifi A, A-Behabadi MA. Thermo-economic
analysis of combined power and water production in Iran by multi effect desali-
nation method. Desalin Water Treat 2016;57:8161–73.
[122] Piacentino A. Application of advanced thermodynamics, thermoeconomics and
exergy costing to a Multiple Effect Distillation plant: in-depth analysis of cost
formation process. Desalination 2015;371:88–103.
[123] Mokhtari H, Sepahvand M, Fasihfar A. Thermoeconomic and exergy analysis in
using hybrid systems (GT + MED + RO) for desalination of brackish water in
Persian Gulf. Desalination 2016;399:1–15.
[124] Ortega-Delgado B, García-Rodríguez L, Alarcón-Padilla DC. Thermoeconomic
comparison of integrating seawater desalination processes in a concentrating solar
power plant of 5 MWe. Desalination 2016;392:102–17.
[125] Ahmadi R, Muhammad S, Ghaffari S. Exergoeconomic optimization of hybrid
system of GT, SOFC and MED implementing genetic algorithm. Desalination
2017;411:76–88.
[126] Catrini P, Cipollina A, Micale G, Piacentino A, Tamburini A. Exergy analysis and
thermoeconomic cost accounting of a Combined Heat and Power steam cycle in-
tegrated with a Multi Effect Distillation- Thermal Vapour Compression desalina-
tion plant. Energy Convers Manage 2017;149:950–65.
[127] Behnam P, Arefi A, Shafii MB. Exergetic and thermoeconomic analysis of a tri-
generation system producing electricity, hot water, and fresh water driven by low-
temperature geothermal sources. Energy Convers Manage 2018;157:266–76.
[128] Elsayed ML, Mesalhy O, Mohammed RH, Chow LC. Exergy and thermo-economic
analysis for MED-TVC desalination systems. Desalination 2018;447:29–42.
[129] Datsgerdi HR, Chua HT. Thermo-economic analysis of low-grade heat driven
multi-effect distillation based desalination processes. Desalination
M.A. Jamil, et al.
2018;448:36–48.
[130] Lawal DU, Antar MA, Khalifa A, Zubair SM, Al-Sulaiman F. Experımental in-
vestigation of heat pump driven humidification-dehumidification desalination
system for water desalination and space conditioning. Desalination 2020;475.
[131] Mata-Torres C, Zurita A, Cardemil JM, Escobar RA. Exergy cost and thermo-
economic analysis of a Rankine Cycle + Multi-Effect Distillation plant considering
19
Energy Conversion and Management 222 (2020) 113188
time-varying conditions. Energy Convers Manage 2019;192:114–32.
[132] Chitgar N, Emadi MA, Chitsaz A, Rosen MA. Investigation of a novel multi-
generation system driven by a SOFC for electricity and fresh water production.
Energy Convers Manage 2019;196:296–310.