Systemic Approach For Techno-Economic Evaluation of Triple Hybrid (RO, MSF and Power Generation) Scheme Including Accounting of CO Emission

Energy 30 (2005) 1283–1303
www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
Systemic approach for techno-economic evaluation of triple

hybrid (RO, MSF and power generation) scheme including
accounting of CO2 emission5
Sergei P. Agashichev , Ali M. El-Nashar
Research Center, ADWEA, P.O. Box 54111, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates
Abstract
A system of models for the techno-economic evaluation of a triple hybrid, reverse osmosis (RO), multi-
stage flush (MSF) and power generation process has been developed. There are three groups of models
underlying the system: (A) models describing power-generating technology; (B) models describing RO
desalination, and (C) models describing MSF desalination. Any group of individual models, in turn, con-
sists of a set of submodels of different hierarchy levels; they are: (1) technological submodel, (2) fuel or
energy submodel, (3) ecological submodel and (4) economic submodel. (1) The technological submodel is
focused on the calculation of technological characteristics at different operating loads of the generating
systems; (2) the fuel or energy submodel covers the calculation of fuel influx into power-generating sys-
tems at different operating loads; (3) the ecological submodel focuses on estimation of CO2 emissions at
different operating regimes; (4) the economic submodel gives values of economic indicators, such as (a)
cost of water, (b) cost of energy, and (c) accounting for CO2 emissions through imposed carbon tax
(assuming rates of environmental taxes recommended by European Union tax legislation). This paper
contains an analysis of the behavior of economic and ecological indicators for various technological
parameters and economic assumptions, such as (1) load, specific fuel consumption and efficiency of the
energy generating system, (2) specific energy consumption for desalination, (3) specific emissions of CO2,
and (4) taxes on CO2 emissions. The model presented can be applied for the analysis of schemes where
seasonal surplus of unused power is utilized by RO which are characterized by higher efficiency of fuel
consumption and decreasing specific CO2 emissions.
# 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
5
This paper is reprinted with permission from: Sustainable Development of Energy, Water and the Environment
Systems, N.H. Afgan, Z. Bogdan and N. Duic (Eds.), 2004, ISBN 90 5809 662 9, A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse,
The Netherlands (www.balkema.nl).

Corresponding author. Tel.: +971-50-661-2671; fax: +971-2-665-8374.
E-mail address: agashichev@netscape.net (S.P. Agashichev).
0360-5442/$ - see front matter # 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.energy.2004.02.002
1284 S.P. Agashichev, A.M. El-Nashar / Energy 30 (2005) 1283–1303
Nomenclature
Symbols
CGTEL ðLÞ specific CO2 emission by the GT with respect to electricity outflow, tons of
CO2/kWh(electricity)
CGTTH ðLÞ specific CO2 emission by the GT with respect to thermal outflow, tons of
CO2/kWh(thermal)
CABTH ðLÞ specific CO2 emission by the AB with respect to thermal outflow, tons of
CO2/kWh(thermal)
FGT ðLÞ fuel consumption of the CT, MJ (fuel)/s
FAB ðLÞ fuel consumption of the AB, MJ (fuel)/s
ElGT ðLÞ electricity output vs. load of the power-generating subsystem, kW(electricity)
HHRSG ðLÞ heat output vs. load of the power-generating subsystem, kW(thermal)
HAB ðLÞ heat output from the AB vs. load of the power-generating subsystem, kW
AB auxiliary boiler
GT gas turbine
HRSG heat recovery steam generator
MSF multistage flash
RO reverse osmosis
1. Introduction
In recent years, one can see the growth of scientific, engineering and commercial interest in
sustainable technologies that are characterized by low values of fuel consumption and CO2
emission. Specific fuel consumption and CO2 emissions can be considered as indicators of
technological sustainability [1–3]. Different modifications of dual purpose or cogenerative
technologies where thermal desalination is integrated with the power-generating process have
become widespread throughout the world. The UAE is expected to invest US$ 46 billion over
the next decades in cogeneration projects for desalination [1]. Recently, a new generation of
dual purpose technologies, namely triple hybrid, including power generation, multistage flush
(MSF) and reverse osmosis (RO) desalination, is becoming an attractive alternative to conven-
tional ones. In particular is, the power–desalination complex in Fujairah, with a capacity of 620
MW and 100 migd, where 62.5 migd is produced by MSF and 37.5 migd by RO. Unlike
conventional cogeneration processes, triple hybrid includes the RO process along with thermal
desalination and power generation. Some authors state that the RO can successfully coexist
with MSF rather than replace it [2–13].
2. Statement of the problem and objectives of the study
The proposed study focuses on the techno-economic evaluation and assessment of sustain-
ability for a triple hybrid system including power generation, MSF and RO desalination. It
S.P. Agashichev, A.M. El-Nashar / Energy 30 (2005) 1283–1303 1285
covers the calculation of load-dependent techno-economic indicators, such as: (1) water cost; (b)
cost of electricity; (c) cost of low-grade heat; (d) specific CO2 emissions, and (e) cost of CO2
emissions through an imposed carbon tax. Triple hybrid is an example of a system of multilayer
hierarchy with load-dependent resource consumption and emissions. As an object of modeling,
the system can be represented as an array of models and submodels of various hierarchical
levels. There are three groups of models underlying the system: (A) models describing different
power-generating technologies; (B) models describing RO desalination and (C) models describ-
ing MSF desalination. Any group of individual models, in turn, contains a set of matrix sub-
models of different hierarchical levels, which are: (1) technological submodel, (2) fuel or energy
submodel, (3) ecological submodel and (4) economic submodel.
3. Ecotaxation and emission trading program are aspects of sustainable policy
Elaboration of an environmentally sound technological policy is an unavoidable trend of

modern development. It focuses on the elaboration of complex measures aimed at accelerated
proliferation of environmentally sound processes on the technological market. Recent docu-
ments and guidelines, namely the Kyoto Protocol, the treaties of Maastricht and Amsterdam,
and the Rio and Oslo accords [14–21], put forward the foundation of an environmentally sound
technological policy. Development of an emission trading program and implementation of an
ecotaxation system are the key aspects of forthcoming technological policy. The conferences on
sustainable development held in Oslo recommended shifting the tax burden from labor to use of
resource and damage of environment [22]. Carbon dioxide is one of the most proliferated green-
house gases that contribute to global warming. The level of recommended CO2 tax is one of the
key economic assumptions in our study, but it is still a disputable issue. Published data on the
level of carbon tax are still randomized owing to lack of coherent transnational policy. Accord-
ing to the latest available data [23], ‘‘level US$ 25–US$ 85 per tonne of carbon is, the level
many experts think may be needed if industrialized countries are serious about the emission
targets agreed on in 1997 at Kyoto’’. This range of carbon tax will be used in the current study.
Lack of methodology for environmental accounting has hampered the estimation and techno-
economic evaluation of various processes. This issue is becoming especially crucial in multi-
criteria and complex analysis of multilayer and multistage processes like the triple hybrid. It is
the systemic methodology that can be successfully applied for the analysis of behavior of com-
prehensive systems like the triple hybrid. Sustainability being complex, characteristics can be
quantified by groups of multiparameter indicators; in particular, in Ref. [24], the following
groups of sustainability indicators are proposed: (1) indicators for the estimation of water qual-
ity; (2) estimation of resource; (3) estimation of environment; (4) indicators for the estimation of
efficiency, and (5) a group of indicators for the estimation of social aspects. They can be used
for complex evaluation of sustainability. The proposed study is focused on the estimation of key
indicators for dual purpose cogenerative plants, such as: specific fuel consumption, cost of
water, cost of energy and CO2 emissions.
4. Triple hybrid system (power generator, RO and MSF) as an object of modeling
The triple hybrid process, including power generation, MSF and RO desalination, is
an example of a new generation of cogenerative technology. It is an attractive alternative
to conventional technologies. This process can be subdivided into three technological
subsystems; namely: (A) a subsystem for power generation; (B) one for RO desalination
and (C) one for MSF desalination. A simplified flow diagram of a triple hybrid is shown in
Fig. 1.
Hybridization of thermally and electrically driven processes can provide the following advan-
tages: (1) ability to diversify the range of the power-to-water ratio—it is essential for regions
where the demand pattern is characterized by a low level of its value (e.g. Abu Dhabi) and (2)
possibility to use seasonal surplus of idle power. It should be noted that the existing MSF–RO–
power plants are characterized by simple integration without hybridization of operating
regimes, in particular, by blending the distillate and using a common intake system, while many
essential technological aspects are beyond the scope of consideration (in published studies).
Incorporation of RO into existing cogeneration plants can provide essential economic, environ-
mental and operational advantages over conventional dual and single purpose isolated plants
[3–7]. A systemic approach can be used for the analysis of multilayer systems like the triple
hybrid, where input and output characteristics are dependent upon load and efficiency of the
adjacent subsystem; in particular, the MSF output is influenced by the characteristics of the
HRSG, and, in turn, the load of the GT. This approach was developed and widely implemented
Fig. 1. Triple hybrid desalination plant (shown values correspond to a 100 MW power plant operating at 60% load).
in chemical technology [25]. According to the methodology of systemic approach, any object
can be considered as an array of subsystems of different hierarchical levels. In this regard,
the triple hybrid (RO, MSF and power generation) technology can be subdivided into
three groups of models underlying the system. They are: (A) models describing power-
generating technologies; (B) model describing RO desalination and (C) models describing
MSF desalination. Any group of individual models, in turn, contains a set of matrix submodels
of different hierarchical levels specifying different groups of parameters, namely: (1) technological,
(2) fuel (or energy), (3) ecological and (4) economic parameters of the considered
technology.
(1) The technological submodel is focused on calculation of technological characteristics at dif-

ferent operating loads of the generating systems.
(2) The fuel or energy submodel covers the calculation of fuel influx into the power-generating
systems at different operating loads.
(3) The task of the ecological submodel is the estimation of CO2 emissions at different operat-
ing regimes.
(4) The economic submodel gives values of economic indicators, such as: (a) cost of water, (b)
cost of energy, and (c) accounting of CO2 emissions through imposed carbon tax (assuming
rates of environmental taxes recommended by EU tax legislation).
A generalized structure of the model based on the systemic approach is shown in Fig. 2. GT,
unfired HRSG and AB is considered an example of a power-generating subsystem.
The model allows analysis of the behavior of economic and ecological indicators for various
economic assumptions and technological parameters, such as: (1) load, specific fuel consump-
tion and efficiency of energy generating system, (2) specific energy consumption for desalination,
(3) specific emissions of CO2, and (4) taxes on CO2 emissions.
Fig. 2. Systemic methodology (generalized structure of model).

4.1. Exergy-based characteristics in economic analysis
Recent tendencies in the theory of macroeconomic analysis are characterized by the impli-
cation of exergy-based characteristics, being exogenous to economics. In particular, Ayres, in
[26] considers exergy as a factor of production along with labor and capital. Exergy, being pro-
portional to potential future entropy production (or measure of ‘‘ distance’’ from thermodyn-
amic equilibrium), is used as an exogenous input into the economic model. In this study, the
exergy-based characteristics were used for the reallocation of CO2 emissions between fluxes of
thermal and electrical energy produced. It is based on the cost of exergy embodied in the corres-
ponding flux.
5. Power-generating submodels (GT, unfired HRSG and AB)
This group covers an array of submodels describing the behavior of the power-generating
subsystems, namely GT, HRSG and AB. They include technological, energy recourse (or fuel),
ecological and economic submodels. Any individual submodel, in turn, consists of sets of equa-
tions describing the behavior of the characteristics. In particular, the model is focused on quan-
titative estimation of the load-dependent behavior of economic indicators, such as: (1) cost of
electricity generated by the GT, (2) cost of low-grade heat produced by the HRSG, and (3) cost
of heat produced by the AB. This group is characterized by two fuel inputs, namely into the GT
and AB, and seven outputs: (1) heat from the HRSG to MSF, (2) heat from the AB to MSF,
(3) electricity from the GT to RO, (4) auxiliary electricity flux from the GT to MSF, and (5)
electricity output to the grid, along with two CO2 fluxes, namely: (6) CO2 emissions generated
by the GT, and (7) CO2 emissions generated by the AB.
5.1. Techno-economic assumptions underlying the GT and unfired HRSG
(1) The size of the power-generating system is 100 MW; (2) the specific capital cost is US$
500/kW (electricity), which gives an initial capital cost for GT and HRSG of US$ 50 million;
(3) the economic life of the capital is 10 years. Based on the assumptions, we get: (A) the annual
recovery of the capital is US$ 5 million/year; (B) the annual O&M cost are US$ 5 million/year;
(C) the load-dependent expenses for primary fuel are based on the results produced by the tech-
nological submodel. (They depend on the rate and overall fuel consumption on an annual basis
under various loads of the generating system.)
5.2. Techno-economic assumptions for the auxiliary boiler submodel
(1) The boiler is used to cover shortage of thermal energy for MSF (in order to maintain con-
stant production by the MSF). For simplification of mathematical treatment, all technological
parameters of the boiler, such as fuel consumption and heat output, are expressed against the
load of the GT, while the efficiency of the boiler is assumed to be load-independent, being
equal to 0.85. Estimation of the required rated capacity of the AB is based on shortage of
heat energy when the load of the GT drops to 20%. In the considered case, it is equal to
3:9 109 MJ ðheatÞ=year (or ~124 MW (thermal)). Thus, the thermal output of the boiler varies
from 0 to 124 MW corresponding to the variation of the GT load from 20% to 100% (when the
GT operates at 100% load, the boiler is off). (2) The initial capital cost is US$ 15 million (based
on the assumption for that the specific capital cost is US$ 130/kW (thermal). (3) The Economic
life of the capital is 10 years. Based on these assumptions, we get: (A) annual recovery of capital:
US$ 1.5 million/year; (B) O&M costs: US$ 1.12 million/year; (C) annual expenses for primary
fuel, being load-dependent, are based on the data generated by the technological submodel (they
depend on rate and overall fuel consumption on an annual basis under various loads of the
generating system). For simplification of mathematical treatment, all functional characteristics
of the AB will be expressed in terms of the GT load, L. The AB load, LAB, can be expressed
against the GT load, L, as follows: LAB ¼ ð1 LÞ=ð1 Lmin Þ, where Lmin is the minimum GT
load (in the case under study, Lmin ¼ 0:2).
5.3. Technological, fuel and ecological submodels for the GT, unfired HRSG, and AB
The technological submodels are based on correlation between electrical and thermal output
vs. GT load. The technological submodel is going to be coupled with the fuel submodel and
models of the desalination group. They can be approximated by the following equations.
ElGT ðLÞ ¼ AGT L þ BGT (1)
HHRSG ðLÞ ¼ AHRSG L þ BHRSG (2)
where ElGT ðLÞ and HHRSG ðLÞ are electrical and thermal outputs vs. load of power-generating
subsystem, kWh/s. Similar mathematical formulation was used for the auxiliary boiler (AB).
HAB ðLÞ ¼ AAB L þ BAB (3)
where HAB ðLÞ is the thermal output from the AB vs. load of power-generating subsystem,
kWh/s.
The fuel submodel is based on the correlation between fuel consumption Fi ðLÞ and load, L,
of the power-generating system (GT).

FGT ðLÞ ¼ AF=GT L2 þ BF=GT L þ CF=GT ElGT ðLÞ (4)
where FGT ðLÞ is the fuel consumption, in MJ (fuel)/s; A, B and C are coefficients describing
specific fuel consumption vs. the GT load. The term in brackets (Eq. 4) represents specific fuel
consumption at current GT load.
A similar equation can be used for the AB. In this study, the efficiency of fuel utilization is
assumed to be load-independent, being equal to 0.85; thus, the slope coefficient (A) is zero.
FAB ðLÞ ¼ AF=ABi L þ BF=AB (5)
where FAB ðLÞ is the fuel consumption in MJ (fuel)/s.
The submodel describing fuel consumption gives input data for the estimation of specific CO2
emissions, and it is going to be coupled with data of the ecological submodel. The system is
characterized by an influx of primary energy and outcoming fluxes of electricity and heat
accompanied by unused losses. Any energy flux leaving the system is accompanied by a definite
amount of CO2 emissions. The task of the ecological submodel is reallocation of CO2 emissions
among fluxes of heat and electricity produced. It contains a function for the specific CO2 emis-
sions with respect to produced heat and electricity, namely tonnes of CO2 per kWh of electricity
produced by GT; tonnes of CO2 per kWh of heat generated by HRSG; tonnes of CO2 per kWh
of heat generated by AB. These characteristics are load-dependent. Any outcoming flux can be
specified by the definite cost of allocated exergy. Implying the fact, we assume that the overall
flux of CO2 emitted by the system can be subdivided into two subfluxes proportional to its
exergy content, namely subfluxes of heat and electricity. The calculation is based on the follow-
ing premises and assumptions.
5.3.1. Assumptions for calculation of the specific CO2 emissions

Calculation of CO2 emitted by the system is based on the carbon balance within the system.
The following assumptions are used: (1) the carbon content of the fuel is 0.8 tons of carbon per
ton of primary fuel, which is equivalent to 2.88 tons of CO2 per ton of primary fuel; (2) the cal-
orific value of the fluid is 44.8 MJ/kg, which corresponds to 6:43 105 ton of CO2 per 1 MJ
of primary fuel.
5.3.2. Distribution of CO2 emissions between fluxes of heat and electricity

The estimated share of emitted CO2 allocated to definite flux of generated energy is pro-
portional to the cost of exergy allocated to that flux. The following assumptions were used: (3)
the cost of exergy embodied in losses is assumed to be zero; (4) the efficiency of the reference
cycle is assumed to be 0.24. The load dependence of CO2 emissions, EEL ðLÞ and EEL ðLÞ, can be
approximated by the following functions.
CGT EL ðLÞ ¼ AC=GTðELÞ L þ BC=GTðELÞ (6)
CGT TH ðLÞ ¼ AC=GTðTHÞ L þ BC=GTðTHÞ (7)
where CGT EL ðLÞ and CGT TH ðLÞ are specific CO2 emission by GT with respect to electricity
and heat outflow, in tons of CO2/kWh(electricity) and in tons of CO2/kWh(thermal), respect-
ively. A similar correlation was used for estimation of the specific emissions produced by the
AB.
CAB TH ðLÞ ¼ AC=ABðTHÞ L þ BC=ABðTHÞ (8)
where CAB TH ðLÞ are specific CO2 emissions with respect to heat outflow, in tons of CO2 per
kWh(heat) emitted by AB. The behavior of these functions is shown in Fig. 3. The data gen-
erated by the submodels are consolidated in Tables 1 and 2.
5.4. Economic submodel for estimation of the load-dependent cost of heat and electricity produced
by the GT, unfired HRSG and AB
The cost of electricity and heat does not remain constant and is strongly influenced by regime
parameters such as load. The submodel is focused on estimation of the load-dependent cost of
heat and electricity produced by the GT, HRSG and AB. Within this submodel, the annual
expenses are subdivided into three groups, which are: (A) the load-independent annual payment
for recovery of capital costs; (B) the load-independent O&M expenses excluding fuel or energy
payment; and (C) the load-dependent fuel expenses. One of the key aspects of the economic
Fig. 3. Specific CO2 emission with respect to electricity and thermal outflow (option: GT þ unfired HRSG þ AB).
Table 1
Dependence of techno-ecological characteristics of (GT þ unfired HRSG) on the GT load (Data on fuel consumption
are adopted from [27,28])
GT load 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Fuel input MJ(fuel)/s 126.96 179.02 231.08 283.15 335.21
Electricity output MW(electricity) 20 40 60 80 100
Heat output MW(thermal) 41.03 65.49 94.39 127.72 165.49
CO2 emission kg CO2/kWh(electricity) 0.869 0.786 0.703 0.620 0.538
CO2 emission kg CO2/kWh(thermal) 0.206 0.187 0.169 0.150 0.131
Table 2
Dependence of techno-ecological characteristics of (AB) on the GT load (Data on fuel consumption are adopted
from [27,28])
GT load 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 (AB off)
Fuel input MJ(fuel)/s 146.42 117.65 83.65 44.43 0
Heat output MW(thermal) 124.46 100.01 71.10 37.77 0
CO2 emission kgCO2/kWh(thermal) 0.272 0.272 0.272 0.2722 –
submodel is redistribution of expenses between generated fluxes of electricity and heat produced
by the GT and HRSG. Embodied exergy, being exogenous to the economic submodel, was used
as the basic characteristic for economic evaluation of load-dependent fluxes.
5.4.1. Distribution of expenses between load-dependent fluxes of heat and electricity

Any fuel consuming subsystem is characterized by influx of primary energy and outcoming
electrical and thermal fluxes accompanied by losses. Any outcoming flux, in turn, can be speci-
fied by a definite level of cost of embodied exergy. Assuming this fact to be implicit, the overall
manufacturing expenses can be subdivided into two load-dependent parts that are proportional
to exergy embodied in the corresponding subflux, namely, the subflux of heat or electricity. The
calculation is based on the following assumptions: (1) the cost of exergy losses is assumed to be
zero; (2) the efficiency of the reference cycle is assumed to be 0.24. The calculated data are
attached in Tables 3 and 4.
Table 3
Structure of (load-dependent) annual cost of heat and electricity produced by GT, HRSG
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(A) Capital recovery expenses (GT þ HRSG),
US$ 5 million (cap)/year
(B) O&M expenses (GT þ HRSG),
US$ 5 million (O&M)/year
(C) Load-dependent expenses for primary fuela (GT)
million$(fuel)/year 4.00 5.65 7.29 8.93 10.6
(E) Cost of electricity (by GT)
$/kWh(electricity) 0.0479 0.03316 0.02522 0.02028 0.016926
(F) Cost of heat (by HRSG)
$/ kWhb thermal) 0.0116 0.00801 0.006097 0.004903 0.00409
a
Cost of primary energy US$ 1/GJ.
Table 4
Structure of load-dependent annual cost of heat produced by the AB
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(A) Capital recovery expenses (AB),
US$ 1.5 million(cap)/year
(B) O&M expenses (AB),
US$ 1.12 million(O&M)/year
(C) Load-dependent expenses for primary fuel (AB)a,
million$(fuel)/year 4.62 3.71 2.67 1.4 0
(F) Cost of heat (from AB)
$/kWhb(thermal) 0.0066 0.0072 0.0084 0.0121 X
a
Cost of primary energy is US$ 1/GJ.
6. Submodels for RO and MSF desalination
These include technological, energy, ecological and economic submodels describing behavior
of the RO and MSF subsystems. The MSF submodel is characterized by the following input
variables: (1) load-dependent heat influx from the HRSG with load-dependent cost; (2) load-
dependent heat influx from the AB with load-dependent cost; and (3) constant influx of elec-
tricity from the GT with load-dependent cost. The RO subsystem is characterized by constant
electrical influx with load-dependent cost. These fluxes are illustrated in Fig. 1. The desalination
models focus on load-dependent behavior of economic indicators such as the cost of water and
CO2 tax per cubic meter of water under various levels of imposed carbon tax. These character-
istics are strongly influenced by load-dependent variables such as the cost of heat, cost of elec-
tricity and specific CO2 emissions allocated to them (Fig. 3).
6.1. Techno-economic assumptions underlying the MSF submodel
(1) The rated capacity of the MSF subsystem is 60,000 m3/day; (2) the initial capital cost is
US$ 90 million, (assuming a specific capital cost of US$ 1500/m3/day); (3) the economic life of
capital is 10 years; (4) the specific O&M cost (excluding energy expenses) is US$ 90/m3/day.
Data on energy consumption of the MSF subsystem are (1) PR ¼ 10; (2) the specific heat
energy consumption is 61 kWh(thermal)/m3(distillate); (3) the auxiliary electricity consumption
is 3 kWh(electricity)/m3(distillate). Relying on the assumptions, we get: (A) the annual capital
recovery (MSF) is US$ 9 million/year; (B) the annual O&M costs (MSF) are US$ 5.4 million/
year.
6.2. Techno-economic assumptions underlying the RO submodel
(1) The rated capacity of the RO subsystem is 60,000 m3/day; (2) the initial capital invest-
ment is 60 million (assuming the specific capital cost to be US$ 1000/m3/day; (3) the economic
life of capital is 10 years; (4) the specific O&M cost is US$ 120/m3/day; (5) the specific energy
consumption of RO desalination is 5 kWh(electricity)/m3(permeate). Based on the assumptions,
we get: (A) the annual capital recovery (RO) is US$ 6 million/year; (B) the annual O&M costs
(RO) are US$ 7.2 million/year.
6.3. Technological, energy and ecological submodels for RO & MSF desalination
The submodels are based on mass and energy balances. Using data generated by the model
for the power-generating subsystem, they describe the allocation of different forms of energy per
cubic meter of produced water. The ecological submodel gives load-dependent functions
describing specific CO2 emission per cubic meter of desalinated water produced by RO and
MSF, respectively. The submodel is based on energy balance equations using data on specific
CO2 emissions allocated to thermal and electrical output. The load dependence of specific CO2
Fig. 4. Specific CO2 emission allocated to cubic meter of water vs. load of the GT, where the RO specific energy con-
sumption is 5 kWh (electricity)/m3(permeate), the MSF-specific energy consumption is 60 kWh (thermal)/m3(distil-
late) at PR ¼ 10, and the MSF-auxiliary electrical energy consumption is 3 kWh(electricity)/m3 (distillate).
emissions can be approximated by the following linear functions.

CRO ðLÞ ¼ AC=RO L þ BC=RO (9)
CMSF ðLÞ ¼ AC=MSF L þ BC=MSF (10)
where CRO ðLÞ and CMSF ðLÞ are specific emissions in kg CO2 per m3 of water produced by RO
and MSF, respectively. Projections based on Eqs. 9 and 10 are shown in Fig. 4. Calculated val-
ues of load-dependent inputs of different forms of energy and allocated emissions are con-
solidated in Tables 5 and 6.
6.4. Economic submodels for RO and MSF
These cover estimation of annual manufacturing expenses and specific cost of water.
6.4.1. Estimation of annual manufacturing expenses

The structure of expenses contains load-independent and load-dependent constituents,
namely: (A) load-independent annual payment for recovery of the capital; (B) load-independent
O&M expenses; (C) load-dependent energy expenses, which, in turn, can be subdivided into
(C1) load-dependent cost of heat produced by the unfired HRSG, (C2) load-dependent cost of
heat produced by the AB, and (C3) load-dependent cost of electricity produced by the GT; and
Table 5
Load-dependent inputs of different forms of energy and allocated emissions for the MSF. Assumptions: (1) MSF-
specific heat energy consumption is 60.0 kWh(thermal)/m3(distillate); (2) PR ¼ 10; (3) the MSF-auxiliary electrical
energy consumption is 3 kWh(electricity)/m3(distillate). (Constant heat required for the MSF is 1:34 109
KWh(thermal)/year)
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(A) Input of heat produced by HRSG and allocated CO2 emissions
Heat from HRSG, 3:59 108 5:74 108 8:27 108 1:12 109 1:34 109
kWh(GT-thermal)/year
Annual emission allocated to heat from HRSG
kgCO2(GT-thermal)/year 8:53 107 1:03 108 1:29 108 1:60 108 1:79 108
(B) Input of heat produced by AB and allocated CO2 emissions
Heat from AB, 9:79 108 7:65 108 5:11 108 2:19 108 0
kWh(AB-thermal)/year
Annual emission allocated to heat from AB
kgCO2(AB-thermal)/year 2:67 108 2:08 108 1:39 108 5:98 107 0
(C) Input of electricity produced by GT and allocated CO2 emissions
Electricity by GT, 4:38 107 4:38 107 4:38 107 4:38 107 4:38 107
kWh(GT-electricity)/year
Annual emission allocated to electricity from GT
Annual emission, 4:30 107 3:25 107 2:83 107 2:59 107 2:43 107
kgCO2(GT-electricity)/year
Total annual emission, 3:95 108 3:44 108 2:97 108 2:45 108 2:04 108
kgCO2(GT þ AB)/year
Specific CO2 emissions, 18.03 15.68 13.54 11.20 9.29
kgCO2/m3 (MSF)
(D) load-dependent cost of CO2 emissions if the carbon tax is imposed. The annual manufactur-
ing expenses for MSF and RO are consolidated in Tables 7 and 8, respectively.
6.4.2. Structure of water cost

It includes the following constituents: (A) load-independent capital recovery cost; (B) load-
independent O&M cost (excluding payment for energy); (C) load-dependent energy cost, which,
in turn, can be subdivided into (C1) load-dependent cost of heat and electricity produced by the
GT þ unfired HRSG, and (C2) load-dependent cost of heat produced by the AB for MSF; and
(D) load-dependent cost of CO2 emission (this item is supposed to be included if the legislation
Table 6
Load-dependent inputs of energy and allocated emissions for the RO, where the RO-specific energy consumption is
5 kWh(electricity)/m3(permeate)
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Electricity from GT, 1:1 108 1:1 108 1:1 108 1:1 108 1:1 108
kWh(electricity)/year
Annual CO2 emission, 1:08 108 8:13 107 7:07 107 6:47 107 6:07 107
kgCO2/year
Specific CO2 emission, 4.91 3.71 3.23 2.96 2.77
kgCO2/m3(RO)
Table 7
Structure of annual expenses for the MSF desalination (60,000 m3/day). (Calculated projections are based on the fol-
lowing assumptions: (1) The cost of primary fuel is US$ 1/GJ; (2) carbon tax ranges from US$ 0 to US$ 60 per 1 kg
of emitted carbon
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(A) Load-independent annual expenses for capital recovery US$ 9 million (cap)/year
(B) Load-independent annual O&M expenses US$ 5.4 million (O&M)/year
(C1) Load-dependent annual expenses for heat produced by HRSG,
million$(heat-HRSG)/year 4.64 4.43 4.76 5.27 5.42
(C2) Load-dependent annual expenses for heat produced by AB,
million$(heat-AB)/year 6.49 5.52 4.31 2.66 0
(C3) Load-dependent annual expenses for electricity produced by GT
million$(electricity)/year 2.34 1.40 1.04 0.853 0.734
(D) Total annual expenses for electricity and heat (produced by HRSG þ AB þ GT),
million$ 13.475 11.357 10.119 8.787 6.161
(heat
HRSG þ heatAB þ electricity-GT)/year
Summary of annual expenses (MSF)
No carbon tax
Total annual expenses, million$ 27.875 25.757 24.519 23.187 20.561
(cap þ O&M þ Energ þ Tax)/year
Carbon tax: US$ 30 per ton of emitted carbon
Carbon tax, million$(CO2-tax)/year 3:29 100 2:86 100 2:47 100 2:05 100 1:70 100
1 1 1
Total annual expenses, 3:12 10 2:86 10 2:70 10 2:52 101 2:23 101
million$(Cap þ O&M þ Energ þ Tax)/
year
1 1 1
Total annual expenses, million$ 3:23 10 2:96 10 2:78 10 2:59 101 2:28 101
(Cap þ O&M þ Energ þ Tax)/year
1 1 1
1 1 1
is imposed). The itemized structure of load-dependent production cost (MSF and RO) is given
in Tables 9 and 10, respectively. Load-dependent CO2 tax per cubic meter of water is based on
carbon of primary fuel allocated to thermal and electrical energy consumed by MSF or RO.
The cost of water produced by the MSF varies from US$ 0.93 to US$ 1.27/m3 when the GT
load goes from 1 to 0.2 when no carbon tax is imposed. It varies from US$ 1.09 to US$ 1.57/m3
when the load goes from 1 to 0.2 with a carbon tax of US$ 60 per ton of emitted carbon. The
influence of the operating load and the cost of primary fuel (at various levels of carbon tax rate)
on the water cost produced by MSF is shown in Figs. 5 and 6, respectively. The structure of the
cost of water produced by MSF is given in Table 9.
Table 8
Structure of annual expenses for the RO desalination (60,000 m3/day). Calculated projections are based on the fol-
lowing assumptions: (1) cost of primary fuel is US$ 1/GJ; (2) carbon tax ranges from US$ 0 to US$ 60 per 1 kg of
emitted carbon
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(A) Load-independent annual expenses for capital recovery: US$ 6 million(cap)/year
(B) Load-independent annual O&M expenses: US$ 7.2 million(O&M)/year
(C ) Load-dependent annual expenses for electricity
million$(electricity)/year 5.850 3.502 2.609 2.134 1.836
Summary of annual expenses (RO)
No carbon tax
Total annual expenses, million$ 19.05062 16.70286 15.809305 15.3341 15.03665
Carbon tax, million$(CO2-tax)/year 8.96101 6.77101 5.89101 5.39101 5.06101
1 1 1
Carbon tax, million$(CO2-tax)/year 1:19 100 9.03101 7.86101 7.19101 6.74101
1 1 1
Carbon tax, million$(CO2-tax)/year 1:49 100 1:13 100 9.82101 8.99101 8.43101
1 1 1
1 1 1
The cost of water produced by RO ranges from US$ 0.68 to US$ 0.87/m3 when the load goes
from 1 to 0.2 at no imposed carbon tax. It varies from US$ 0.73 to US$ 0.95/m3 when the load
goes from 1 to 0.2 for a carbon tax of US$ 60. The influence of the operating load and the cost
of primary fuel (at various level of carbon tax rate) on the water cost produced by RO is shown
in Figs. 7 and 8, respectively. The structure of the cost of water produced by RO is given in
Table 10.
7. Conclusions and analysis of results
The proposed study confirms the statement that RO can successfully coexist with MSF. A set
of submodels for techno-economic evaluation of the triple hybrid scheme has been developed. It
provides an array of load-dependent techno-economic indicators, namely cost of low-grade
heat, cost of electricity and cost of water produced by GT, HRSG, AB, RO and MSF, within
the hybrid scheme. The conducted research was focused on consideration of the following
groups of variables and assumptions: (1) technological variables such as the load of the power-
generating system; (2) economic assumptions such as the cost of primary energy and (3) aspects
of ecological legislation, namely CO2 taxation.
Table 9
Load-dependent structure of the water cost produced by MSF (including CO2 taxes charged per cubic meter of
water). Assumptions: (1) rated capacity of power-generating system (GT þ unfired HRSG) is 100 MW, current load
varies from 100% to 30%; (2) rated capacity of MSF is 60,000 m3/day (with constant output); (3) cost of primary
energy US$ 1/GJ; (4) PR ¼ 10; (5) Auxiliary electricity consumption is 3 kWh(electricity)/m3
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
3
Capital cost, $/m 0.411 0.411 0.411 0.411 0.411
O&M cost, $/m3 0.246 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.246
Electricity by GT, $/m3 0.1069 0.064 0.048 0.039 0.033
Heat by HRSG, $/m3 0.212 0.203 0.217 0.241 0.247
Heat by AB, $/m3 0.296 0.252 0.197 0.122 0
No carbon tax imposed, cost of primary fuel: US$ 1 per GJ
Water cost, $/m3 1.2729 1.176 1.12 1.059 0.938
Carbon tax: US$ 30 per ton of emitted carbon, cost of primary fuel: US$ 1/GJ
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.150 0.131 0.113 0.093 0.0774
Water cost $/m3 1.4231 1.307 1.232 1.152 1.0163
Carbon tax US$ 40 per ton of emitted carbon, cost of primary fuel: US$ 1/GJ
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.2003 0.174 0.15 0.125 0.1033
Water cost, $/m3 1.4732 1.35 1.27 1.183 1.0421
Carbon tax US$ 50 per ton of emitted carbon, cost of primary fuel: US$ 1/GJ
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.2504 0.218 0.188 0.156 0.1291
Water cost, $/m3 1.5233 1.394 1.308 1.214 1.0679
Carbon tax US$ 60 per ton of emitted carbon, cost of primary fuel US$ 1/GJ
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.3005 0.261 0.226 0.187 0.1549
Water cost, $/m3 1.5734 1.438 1.345 1.246 1.0938
Table 10
Load-dependent structure of the water cost produced by RO (including CO2 taxes charged per cubic meter of water).
Assumptions: (1) the cost of primary energy is US$ 1/GJ; (2) specific energy consumption is 5 kWh(electricity)/m3
Load of GT 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
3
Capital cost, $/m 0.274 0.274 0.274 0.274 0.274
O&M cost, $/m3 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.329 0.3288
Electricity by GT, $/m3 0.267 0.161 0.119 0.097 0.0839
No carbon tax imposed, cost of primary fuel US$ 1/GJ
Water cost, $/m3 0.87 0.763 0.722 0.7 0.6866
Carbon tax is US$ 30 per ton of emitted carbon, cost of primary fuel US$ 1/GJ
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.041 0.031 0.027 0.025 0.0231
Water cost, $/m3 0.911 0.794 0.749 0.725 0.7097
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.055 0.041 0.036 0.033 0.0308
Water cost, $/m3 0.924 0.804 0.758 0.733 0.7174
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.068 0.052 0.045 0.041 0.0385
Water cost, $/m3 0.938 0.814 0.767 0.741 0.7251
CO2 tax, $/m3 0.082 0.062 0.054 0.049 0.0462
Water cost $/m3 0.952 0.825 0.776 0.749 0.7328
Fig. 5. The cost of water (produced by the MSF) vs. load of the power-generating system for various levels of carbon
tax. (The cost of primary fuel is US$ 1/GJ.)
7.1. The influence of GT load on characteristics
The behavior of the techno-economic indicators, such as cost of electricity, cost of low-grade
heat, cost of water, specific fuel consumption and CO2 emissions, is quite sensitive to variation
of GT load. The drop of the load corresponds to the non-linear growth of specific fuel con-
sumption, namely it goes from 3.6 to 10.7 J(primary fuel)/J(electricity) when the load drops
from 1 to 0.2. From the calculated data, the following conclusions were drawn: (A) thermal
desalination is affected by the GT load more than RO; (B) when the GT load drops from 1 to
0.2, the cost of electricity generated by GT and the cost of low-grade heat produced by HRSG
and AB goes from US$ 0.017 to US$ 0.048/kWh(electricity-GT); from US$ 0.004 to US$
0.012/kWh(heat-HRSG) and from US$ 0.012 to US$ 0.0066/kWh(heat-AB), respectively; (C)
when the GT load drops from 1 to 0.2, the cost of water produced by MSF and RO goes from
US$ 0.93 to US$ 1.27 per cubic meter (MSF) and from US$ 0.68 to US$ 0.87 per cubic meter
(RO), respectively, (see Tables 9 and 10) and (D) the drop of GT load, in turn, will make the
specific CO2 emissions increase, i.e. when the load drops from 1 to 0.2, the specific CO2 emis-
Fig. 6. The cost of water (produced by the MSF) vs. the cost of primary fuel for various values of imposed carbon
tax (at 100% of the GT load).
sion per cubic meter produced by the and RO goes from 9.29 to 18.03 kg CO2/m3(MSF) and
from 2.77 to 4.91 kg CO2/m3(RO), respectively, (see Tables 5 and 6).
7.2. The influence of cost of primary fuel on water cost
Thermal desalination, because of its relatively high energy consumption, is more vulnerable to
growth of the cost of primary fuel than RO. Increase of the cost of primary fuel from US$ 1 to
US$ 4/GJ will be accompanied by the following growth: (A) in case of RO desalination, the
cost of water goes from US$ 0.69 to US$ 0.82 per cubic meter, when no carbon tax is imposed,
and from US$ 0.73 to US$ 0.86 per cubic meter when the imposed carbon tax is US$ 60 per ton
of emitted carbon; (B) in the case of MSF desalination, the cost of water is more negatively
influenced by the growth of cost of primary fuel, namely it goes from US$ 0.94 to US$ 1.37 per
Fig. 7. The cost of water (produced by the RO) vs. load of the power-generating system for various level of carbon
tax. (The cost of primary fuel is US$ 1/GJ).
Fig. 8. The cost of water (produced by the RO) vs. the cost of primary fuel for various values of imposed carbon tax
(at 100% of the GT load).
cubic meter when no carbon tax imposed, and from US$ 1.09 to US$ 1.53 per cubic meter when
the imposed carbon tax is US$ 60 per ton of emitted carbon.
7.3. The influence of carbon tax rate on water cost
The reconfiguration of the tax system and accounting of CO2 emissions will increase the cost
of produced water in accordance with the imposed carbon tax. The level of optimum CO2 tax,
being still debatable issue probably, according to published analysis [23], can be ranged from
US$ 25 to US$ 85 per ton of emitted carbon. In the proposed study, a similar range was
assumed. When the imposed CO2 tax goes from US$ 30 to US$ 60 per ton of emitted carbon,
the cost of water produced by MSF ranges from US$ 1.02 to US$ 1.09 per cubic meter at 100%
of GT load and from US$ 1.27 to US$ 1.57 per cubic meter at 20% of the load. Similar behav-
ior can be seen in the case of the RO desalination, namely when the imposed CO2 tax goes from
US$ 30 to US$ 60 per tone of emitted carbon, the cost of water produced by the RO ranges
from US$ 0.68 to US$ 0.73 per cubic meter at 100% of GT load, and from US$ 0.87 to US$
0.95 per cubic meter at 20% of the load (see Tables 9 and 10).
Incorporating RO into the cogenerative scheme decreases the cost of water and the average
level of CO2 emissions per cubic meter, which would give double benefit when the system of
CO2 taxation is imposed. Implementation of CO2 taxation would accelerate the diffusion of
RO-based technologies on the technological market.
References
[1] Co-generation—a new generation at Middle East electricity. The Newsletter of the Middle East Desalination
Research Center August 2001;13:6.
[2] Al-Marafie MR. Prospects of hybrid RO/MSF desalting plants in Kuwait. Desalination 1989;72:395–404.
[3] El-Sayed A, Ebrahim S, Al-Saffar A, Al-Jawad M. Pilot study of MSF/RO hybrid systems. Desalination
1998;120:121–8.
[4] Wilf M, Klinko K. Optimization of seawater RO systems design. Desalination 2001;138:299–306.
[5] Uche J, Serra L, Valero A. Hybrid desalting systems for avoiding water sortage in Spain. Desalination
2001;138:329–34.
[6] Al-Bahri ZK, Hanburry WT, Hodgkiess T. Optimum feed temperatures for seawater reverse osmosis plant oper-
ation in MSF/RO hybrid plant. Desalination 2001;138:335–9.
[7] Awerbuch L. Power–desalination and importance of hybrid ideas. 1997 IDA World Congress on Desalination,
Spain, vol. 4. 1997, p. 184–92.
[8] Kamaluddin BA, Talavera JL, Wangnik K. Reverse osmosis seawater desalination systems in co-generation
plants for additional production of drinking water using off-peak electrical energy. 1997 IDA World Congress
on Desalination, Spain, vol. 1. 1997, p. 387–413.
[9] Wangnik K. A global overview of water desalination technology and the perspectives. International Conference
on Spanish Hydrological Plan and Sustainable Water Management, (Environmental Aspects, Water Reuse and
Desalination) Zaragossa, Spain, 13–14 June. 2001.
[10] Nashar Ali M. The role of desalination in water management in gulf region. International Conference on
Spanish Hydrological Plan and Sustainable Water Management, (Environmental Aspects, Water Reuse and
Desalination) Zaragossa, Spain, 13–14 June. 2001.
[11] Abdel-Jawad M, et al. Fifteen years of R&D program in seawater desalination at KISR. Part I. RO system per-
formance. Desalination 2001;135:155–67.
[12] Ebrahim S, Abdel-Jawad M. Fifteen years of R&D program in seawater desalination at KISR. Part II. Pretreat-
ment technologies for RO systems. Desalination 2001;135:141–53.
[13] Al-Sofi MAK, Hasan AH, El-Sayed EF. Optimum integrated power/MSF/RO plants. 1993 Research Activities
and Studies, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, vol. 3. 1993, p. 61–83.
[14] United Nations, Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting, Series F, No. 61, United Nations, New
York, 1993.
[15] Andersen S. The green tax reform in Denmark: shifting the focus of tax liability. Environmental Liability
1994;2(2):29–41.
[16] Sterner T. Environmental tax reform: the Swedish experienceStudies in environmental and development. Depart-
ment of Economics, Goteborg University; 1994.
[17] European Parliament Fact Sheets 2001, (4.9.1. Environmental policy: General Principles).
[18] European Parliament Fact Sheets 2001, (3.4.7. The taxation of energy). 2001.
[19] Federal Plan for Sustainable Development 2000–2004. (Adopted by the federal Government of Belgium on 20
July 2000, and laid down by Royal Decree of 19 September 2000), Brussels, 2000.
[20] Agenda 21: Programme of Action for Sustainable Development, (Rio Declaration of Environment and Develop-
ment), Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2–14 June 1992.
[21] Costanza R. Ecological economics: the science and management of sustainability. NY: Columbia University
Press; 1991.
[22] O’Riordan T. Ecotaxation. UK: Earthscan Pbl; 1997.
[23] A renaissance may not come. Economist May 19th, 2001:29–31.
[24] Afgan NH, Carvalho MG, Al-Gobaisi D. Indicators for sustainability of Water Desaliantion System. 2002 IDA
World Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse, Manama, Bahrain, 8–13 March. 2002.
[25] Kafarov VV, Dorochov VN. Systemic analysis in Chemical Technology (Background of Strategy) vol. 1.
Moscow: Science Pbl; 1976 in Russian.
[26] Ayres RU. Eco-thermodynamics and the second law. Ecological Economics 1998;26:189–209.
[27] Master plan for the power and water requirements during the period 1995–2010 for WED. (Report HI operation
and user manual for optimization model and probabilistic model for reliability), Bechtel Co. Ltd., 1996.
[28] 1999 update to master plan for the power and water requirements during the period 1995–2010 for ADWEA,
vol. 1. Bechtel Co. Ltd., 1999.

Systemic Approach For Techno-Economic Evaluation of Triple Hybrid (RO, MSF and Power Generation) Scheme Including Accounting of CO Emission

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Systemic Approach For Techno-Economic Evaluation of Triple Hybrid (RO, MSF and Power Generation) Scheme Including Accounting of CO Emission

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Energy 30 (2005) 1283–1303

Systemic approach for techno-economic evaluation of triple

2. Statement of the problem and objectives of the study

3. Ecotaxation and emission trading program are aspects of sustainable policy

Elaboration of an environmentally sound technological policy is an unavoidable trend of

4. Triple hybrid system (power generator, RO and MSF) as an object of modeling

(1) The technological submodel is focused on calculation of technological characteristics at dif-

Fig. 2. Systemic methodology (generalized structure of model).

4.1. Exergy-based characteristics in economic analysis

5. Power-generating submodels (GT, unﬁred HRSG and AB)

5.1. Techno-economic assumptions underlying the GT and unﬁred HRSG

5.2. Techno-economic assumptions for the auxiliary boiler submodel

5.3.1. Assumptions for calculation of the speciﬁc CO2 emissions

5.3.2. Distribution of CO2 emissions between ﬂuxes of heat and electricity

5.4.1. Distribution of expenses between load-dependent ﬂuxes of heat and electricity

6. Submodels for RO and MSF desalination

6.1. Techno-economic assumptions underlying the MSF submodel

6.2. Techno-economic assumptions underlying the RO submodel

emissions can be approximated by the following linear functions.

6.4. Economic submodels for RO and MSF

6.4.1. Estimation of annual manufacturing expenses

6.4.2. Structure of water cost

7. Conclusions and analysis of results

7.1. The inﬂuence of GT load on characteristics

7.2. The inﬂuence of cost of primary fuel on water cost

7.3. The inﬂuence of carbon tax rate on water cost

You might also like