Demlination, 64 (1987 ) 65-62 65

Eleevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - Printed in The Netherlands

COST AND ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF XX-IA REVBRSE OSWOSIS PLANT (KUWAIT)

S. AKASBAB, M. ABDEL-JAWAD, M. M. ABDELBALIM and J. DABDAB

Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, P.O. Box 24885, Safat 13109, Kuwait

ABSTRACT
The Doha seawater RO plant (DROP) in Kuwait has been operating since
December, 1984. The plant operates under extremely severe seawater conditions
as regards temperature, salinity and SDI. The plant consists of three diffe-
rent membrane configuration systems using surface seawater to produce drinking
water. These are the hollow fiber (HF), spiral wound (SP) and plate and frame
(PF) systems.
This paper presents comprehensive analyses of water costs by HF and PF based
on various scenarios concerning plant capacity, availability, energy price and
consumption, plant capital investment costs , membrane service life and other
process variables.
A comprehensive cost analysis of the SP system is being prepared. The water
cost presented in this paper is based on a preliminary economic assessment.
All costs presented are based on the actual operational results of the RO
systems at DROP and apply the same criteria, assumptions and procedures used to
calculate water costs by the multistage flash (!L9F)system, which is currently
used to produce the bulk of Kuwait's fresh water.

INTRODUCTION
The ultimate goal of the science and technology of desalting and water puri-
fication is to design a process that, ceteris paribus, will produce potable
water at the lowest possible cost. Two major techniques are presently utilized
in different parts of the world on a commercial scale, i.e., distillation and
membrane processes. The dominant distillation process is multistage flash (MSF),
and the main membrane process is reverse osmosis (RO).
The technology of brackish water RO has been advancing steadily. Seawater
RO, on the other hand, is only now reaching widespread commercial acceptance.
It is considered in many parts of the world as an alternative or a complement-
ary process to MSF. Not only has the number of RO plants increased much faster
than that of WSF plants, but also the percentage increase in installed capacity
was much higher for RO than for MSF. As regards the number of new units, 41.4%
are RO and only 18.1% are MSF. Of all desalting plants, 64.5% are MSF and
23.4% are RO. Since 1984, RO has gained considerable ground in the competition
with W9F (ref. 1).
The main contributing factor to the fast growth of RO is that it is inherent-
ly more efficient and much simpler than &SF. The MSF process is carried out at
high temperatures (requires a boiler) and involves changes of phase from liquid
to vap.x and then back to liquid. Consequently, it has relatively more scale

OOll-9X4/87/$03.50 0 1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

and corrosion problems and in addition to requiring highly skilled operating and
maintenance personnel, needs relatively large spaces. The RO process, on the
other hand, is carried out at ambient temperature, involves no change of phase,
and therefore it has comparatively much less scale and corrosion problems.
The phenomenal growth of RO systems attests, above all, to their low energy
consumption. Brackish and seawater RO systems require, respectively, 2.6 - 5.3
kWh/m' and 8 - 13 kWh/m' of fresh water produced as against about 80 kWh/m' re-
quired by the MSF process (ref. 2).
The Doha Reverse Osmosis Plant (DROP), inaugurated in December 1984, aims,
inter alia, at assessing the reliability and technical and economical feasibi-
lity of seawater RO technology in Kuwait and the Arabian Gulf region. The re-
sults so far indicate that the reliability and availability of the units are
excellent (ref. 3). The product water cost analysis presented in this paper is
based on the operational results.

METHODOLOGY
Several studies were conducted by KISR to assess the economics and analyse
the cost of seawater desalination by RO under Kuwaiti conditions. The studies
were based on the same criteria and procedures used to calculate water cost by
the USF system used in Kuwait. The common criteria used for both MSF and RO
were depreciation (method and asset service life), labour wage rate, inflation
rates, energy price, construction rates and other socio-economic parameters.

Water costs (by both RO and MSF) were calculated by dividing the annual fixed
and variable costs by total production.
The DROP plant consists of three different membrane configuration systems
known as the hollow fiber (HF), spiral wound (SP) and plate and frame (PF)
systems.
A detailed study of the PF system was conducted in July 1984 (ref. 4). The
study was based on direct manufacturer's quotes for a 1921 ml/d* plant complete
with seawater intake structure, product water storage and energy recovery
system. The study also involved sensitivity analysis tests to study the impact
of the various variables on product water costs. The variables included energy
consumption and price, capital investment costs, membrane service life and
others.
Another study, completed in July 1986, was a preliminary analysis of seawater
desalination cost by the three systems (ref. 5). The plant cost was based on
budgetary turwkeyquotes for an RO plant identical to that at Doha (three RO
lines with common facilities and of the same capacities).
A third study, completed in July 1986 (ref. 61, was an in-depth analysis of
the capital investment and unit production costs of the RF. Using Symphony's
* This is the largest commercially available capacity.
 67

spreadsheet capabilities, a simplified cost evaluation model was created to

estimate these costs and to identify the economies of scale associated with
moving from plant capacities of 4546 to 27276 cubic meters per day. In addi-
tion, extensive sensitivity analysis tests were conducted to examine the impact
of varying several assumptions within the model (i.e., electricity rates and
consumption, service life of RO menbrahes, plant availability, capital invest-
ment costs) on the unit cost of product water and on the subsequent changes in
the cost structure.
The model is built and linked together by establishing mathematical relation-
ships between various components. A production module provides the main start-
ing point of the model. Unit cost measures depend on designed capacities and
actual production figures. These enter into the core of the model which con-
sists of a capital investment cost module and a production cost module. There
are several other modules that feed into these two, i.e, those that canprise
their cost structure. The building and construction cost calculations as well
as the cost of machinery and equipment installed are the basis of the capital
investment cost module, and the production cost module consists of fixed and
variable production costs include labour, chemicals, energy and other components.

BASES OF COST ANALYSIS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The analysis of water cost by the RF system was based on the following:
1. Plant Design Capacity:
2. Plant Availability:
3. Plant Operation:
4. Manpower Requirements:
5. Energy Requirements:
6. Consumption of Chemicals:
6 plants ranging from 4546 m'/d to 27276 ml/d
3 Scenarios
* 50%
* 70%
* 90% (baseline scenario)
Round-the-clock production (continuous)
Four shifts (3 shifts in operation and one
relief shift). The number required per shift
is based on actual practice in Kuwait
Based on actual consumption at Doha plant for
the period August 1984 - December 1985 (with
energy recovery system @ 24% recovery)
Based on actual operation of Doha plant iuclud-
ing chemicals for pre-treatment, RO operation,

cleaning and other uses

7. Depreciation: Straight line over the service life of each
assets as shown:
* Machinery and equipment,
buildings 20 years
* RO membranes 5 years
68

* Other fixed assets 5 years

8. Interest Rate: Annual interestrate on invested capital Is
assumed to be zero, as is the case for the MSF
system.

SOURCES OF COST DATA

1. Machinery, equipment and
membranes:
2. Buildings and construction:
3. Other Fixed Assets:
4. Manpower Cost:
5. Cost of Chemicals:
6. Electricity Price:
7. Spare Parts and Maintenance:
8. Air Conditioning Costs:
Direct quotes* from manufacturers as of June
1986 (membrane cost is 70% of module cost)
Based on current rates in Kuwait obtained from
local contractors as of June 1986'
Based on current prices in Kuwait as of June
1986.
Current rates in Kuwait as of June 1986
Current prices charged by local suppliers,
delivered to plant site as of June 1986
Actual production cost based on real fuel price
assuming two Scenarios:**
18 fils/kWh [lKD = 1000 fils = US $ 3.7 at the
26 fils/kWh (end of April 1987
2% of machinery and equipment cost
10% of total construction cost of the air-
conditioned area based on preliminary estimates
by local A/C contractors.

ANALYSIS OF WATER COST BY HOLLOW FIBER SYSTEM

1. Cost Analysis
The analyses of production costs and capital investment costs assuming the
baseline scenario (electricity @ 18 fils/kWh and plant availability @ 90%)
are shown in Tables 1 through 4. The variation in both the unit capital
investment costs and the unit production costs with the increase in plant
capacity are presented in Figs. 1 through 4. The figures also show the
variation of the individual cost components with increases in plant capacity.
For small plant capacities (4546 m3/d to 13638 m'/d), the unit production
cost varies between KD 0.328/m" and KD 0.290/m' of product water. For plant
capacities of the same level as that of the NSF plants used in Kuwait

* Complete plants with seawater intake structure, product water storage,

energy recovery system and other ancillary equipment.

** The current subsidized (nominal) selling price of electricity for indust-

rial and domestic use in Kuwait is 2 fils/kWh.
 69

(27276 ma/d) the production cost is estimated at KD 0.277/m'. The cost per
unit capacity (capital investment cost) varies between KD 297.837/m3/d and
KD 220.252/m3/d.
The structure of water production costs is summarized below:

4546 ma/d 27276 m3/d

% of Total % of Total

Fixed Costs
- Depreciation 10.09 8.19
- RO membranes 16.81 17.09
Total fixed costs 26.90 25.28

Variable Costs
- Labour 14.07 6.05
- Chemicals 10.11 11.94
- Energy 45.58 53.84
- Maintenance & spare parts 3.34 2.90

Total variable costs 73.10 74.72

Total production cost 100.00
====z= 100.00
======

It is observed that while the values of the individual water cost components,
and hence the values of the total production cost per unit of product water
decrease significantly with the increase in plant size, the cost structure keeps
almost the same pattern: for a 4546 m'/d and a 27276 m'/d plant, fixed product-
ion costs account for about 27% and 25% of the total cost, respectively. The
membrane cost is about 17%. The most significant item is the energy cost,
which is estimated at KD 0.149/m' product water and makes up about 54% of the
total cost (for a 27276 m'/d plant).
The potential reductions in water costs (productioq and capital investment
costs) due to increase in plant size (i.e., economies of scale) can be observed
from Figs. 1 and 2. When the plant size increases six times, water production
cost and capital investment costs drops by 15.5% and 26% respectively.
The analysis presented in Table 2 shows that both the capital investment
cost (i.e., fixed cost) and the labour cost (variable cost) contribute to the
improvement of the economies of scale. The analysis of the capital investment
costs presented in Table 4 shows that RO membranes account fox about 35% of the
total cost, and machinery and equipment for about 47%. The share of buildings
and civil works is about 15% (for a 27276 m'/d plant).
 TAELEil

Tote1 production costs of seawater desalination by Hollow Fiber RO system (baseline scenario)
mm--_---- ---_- --P-P _-___---_--__
WJDim uctlrlud xcmr 9892crlyc xc431 13u(RI!4/d 26831 1818401 H/d I COST 2273OeUnld IE(sI 27276CuUd 2 COSI
- _-----_ _______________~” __-__-- -_1__1----

A. Fiti CDS;
- wfsci8tl* @Id& RI i E&l n,d2ksr l&m2 @4,2?#.6a5 9.342 116,113X2 9.933 147,iYLYl 8.692 I77,098.093 8.392 204,346m 8.111
- R4liabm@#e9t+mt w72.m l6.m Is6,42#.wp 17.392 227,9wBO 17.402 297,173.200 17.311 364,207.200 17.262 426,770.4@ v.092

B. VwMr cat
- t*lr O,lU.(I 14.m D2,w.ooo 9.162 9wm.ma 7.332 124,6ui.iMi 7.263 137,*r.@O 6.551 151,008.Mo 6.as2
- &llnl 49,7lw3 U.lK 99,420.w - ll.IyI L49J31.422 11.44 19#,841.0!6 Il.382 242,%2.370 a.702 298J62.844 11.94x
-fMm 224,116.rn 4s.yz 4U,232.(M 49.841 672,34i.(Q SI.362 896.444.ao 52.232 l,12O,Yl.Mo 33.092 1,344,697.2@ 33.84x
- fcrr hrts Nd llmmlw 8.B) l6,(11.6@9 3.342 28,6&739 3.192 48,246.937 3.092 sM96.322 3.012 62,432.174 2.962 72,39@.2dl 2.9u3

~____----__--_-___--_ ______________-____-______________--- _-_______--__--_-__-~---~--~

WM FoKwclIm MI 491,7lws4 1m.m 099.311.722l(IQ.002 1,303,937.331lOO.Dm 1,716,478.778100.002 2.110,690.839lM.082 2,497,663&33 lOO.oM
----_-- --_____I_______________~~_____-___-____~~-~_*___-__________*___-___________-________-__-
WI1 CM w/M n) 8.81 0.3m 0.2% VIM VW 0.277
-_.“._^-l_______---_ _-____________________________-________-__-__---________-___ -___“--__

TABLE 2
Analysis of unit cost of seawater desalination by the Hollow Fiber RO system (baseline scenario) KD/Cubic Meter
_____________________________________________________*_______________-_-~~_~_~~~__-____~__-~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*~~~~~~~~~----------------------
wu (* II/d m! c m/c l363B0 M/d 1010401 II/d 2273Ocrlud 27276Cr n/d
2m3 I WY 22/&l I WY r#/rl I roru m/a3 2 low KWJ I IOIY ll/ls x roru
-__-__-_ _--___---_ _______I____- ____I -*---_- -__--- __-- ______I___-----

A. Firrl Kest
- *mriatl* mK. lllct 4 mit1 wa 1t.m c.lm 9.362 0.026 8.n2 a.023 I.602 0.024 I.392 I.023 8.192
- Y*lrmf @.ms 16.W 0.1852 17.392 0.651 17.482 0.w 17.312 0.049 17.m !A047 17.091

S&otal Fitd Cprt o.ln 26.m (3.0)8 26.732 0.076 26.322 0.074 23.922 0.072 23.632 0.879 23.291

#.W 14m c.B27 9.162 0.022 7.332 0.021 7.262 IAlE 6.332 II.027 6.032
I.@! IO.122 I.&l 11.w em3 II.442 0.w 11.513. ~.I33 II.782 0.033 11.94x
k149 4.915 0.149 49.M2 0.149 51.362 0.149 32.232 0.149 33.092 0.149 33.042
ull 3.342 0.018 3.192 ul89 3.092 O.lQ9 3.11: O.OOI 2.962 0.W 2.902

wtetd rnli*l@ &St 8.244 73.lU 0.228 73.232 0.213 73.622 0.212 74.m 0.2iB 74.332 o.a7 74.m

_~~_l~~_~~~~_l~_-_-_~~~~~~______-____~_-~~~*~ ________________________-___-___________.__.___~_~_____-~~~~~~-._~*__~_~~__~~~~~~~~~“~~..~~__-_-~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
lOI& WIITcw m3) t.81 1mm 0.300 lOe.WZ 0.290 m.ooI 0.286 100.002 0.281 lW.aOZ 0.277 IRl.002
____________________*______________________________*___--____________~___~~~~-~__-_____~~~~~~~”~_~~~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~~-.~___~_~~~_~~~~~~~~~~~~“~~~~~~-~~
 TABLE 3

Total initial investment cost of seawater desalination by the Hollow Fiber RO system (baseline scenario)

1. FIXESMSEIS

- Suildiw ad Comtmctia Cost 203,537.mS KS32 x6,740.921 15.442 511,42S.S99 15.542 663,257.S73 15.4% SO3JS6.247 15.522 939.709.Om 15.642
- lbtbi*n ad Erimmt Cost (u/r SS Ikk* 719,796.Mm 53.162 1,197,KlS.am 3.3Sx 1,637,4%.0&l 49.072 2.aSl,lS4.wo 4S.M 2,4w,164.oM 4S.OS2 2.%1,62S.w0 47.632
- Fwdtur w( WWs 10,44&100 0.m lS.177.0% 8.77l 25,141.%6 0.751 31,64S.162 0.741 37,833.W 0.732 43.774.531 0.m
- *r cadwrin Lb 0.1 6829.5OS US3 lMS.Sw 0.5a lb.lU.97S 0.492 20.7S3.173 o.ca 24,749.414 o.uI M35.S39 O.uI
- RonrkmK 413,364.aSS 3S.uI 782,MO.Mo 32.922 1,139,544.lWl 34.152 1,4&S76.w0 34.702 1.S21.036.IlW 35.1% 2,133852.IW 35.522

l#lM FIZB &SSEls 1,353,966.5M I*.@2 2,375,848.&7 164.oBI 3.337JJ49.93518).901 4.2w69.20) 1w.ra2 5,175,6#.l59 IW.caI &007,599.452 1m.002

WI1 IS91 ID/~ S/d 297.m 261.312 244.6W 235.519 227.677 220.252

II. wrm AslEn

D.W 0.I 0.00 0.w 0.00 0.00

RIM r-rrku 6ssEls 0.m s.80 0.m 0.m 0.m 0.00

--I___--_-____-----_~ ___________________-__-__--_________-_-____--_______-__-___~~_______________-_-____-_~

FUN NlM IlKSllESF CM 1,3kM66.r 2,375,MS.%7 3.337,w.935 4,2S2,6(9.201 5,175,m9.159 6,@37.599.452

---- ___----____I_~ -----__---__-___--__-----~ -_____-___--___-___________-_~-__--____________~--___-
IlllIY IMSlSEnl Ull Cwl IS/C9!J/d n7.Dw %I.312 244.U 235.519 227.677 220.252
_____________________________I____--____-_______--______-_________-_--~___-_-______-~-_-__-__----_

TABLE4

Analysis of initial investment cost of seawater desalination by the Hollow Fiber RO system (baseline scenario)

9092Cu S/d I 101~ 1363S

CMn/d I TOIll 22730
CuWld I 1OlM 27276
Cun/d I lOill

- *ildi49 wd Cmstr*tim Cast u.m is.822 40.337 15.441 P.013 15.54: 36.475 15.492 35.341 15.522 34.452 15.642
- Mlw9 wd Erimt Cat (II/OR4Mrw 15S.336 53.lU 131.654 5O.?aS 123.00 49.072 114.451 48.6M 109.466 4S.SS2 NM.914 47.632
- **kmes 90.929 1.531 S6.014 32.923 ax557 34.153 El.713 34.702 80.116 35.192 m.232 35.522
- otks 3.799 IAS3 3.307 i.2n 3.S49 1.253 2.u) I.221 2.753 1.212 2.655 1.21x

2
~_~_~___~~___-~~~____~~~--____~~~_-~~--__--~~~~~-~~~---~_~~~~__--~~_-~~~-~~~~~~~--_~~~~~___-~~~~~__~_-~~~~~~____~~~~~~~_
IRIlMl IWESFIEMlWI COW ID/@ Ii/d 297x7 l@.a2 261.312 lOO.Cil3 2u.6w lW.w2 235.519 lOLOSS 227.677 lUl.002 220.252 100.00:
__--~.___-__--____--__I______-___-__-____--~~-__-____~_______-____--____~~_~____-______-__-_________-_____~~_________~~____-_____-____________________________-______
12

KD/m' 0.33
product c

0.32

0.31 .

0.3

0.26

0.28

0.27 -l-
4646 9082 136SE 16184 22750 27276
Capacity, ma/d

Fig. 1 Decreases in water production cost with increases

in RF RO plant capacity.

KD/m',d xl0
product
260

260

270

260

260

240

230

220
4646 9062 136ZS 16164 22750 27276
Capacity m'/d

Fig. 2 Decreases in capital investment cost with

the increase in HF RO plant capacity.
 13

150

140
130
120
I10
100
90
80
TJ
. 70
2 60
2 50
40
30
20
10
0
4546 9082 13638 18184 22730 27276

Capacity, d/d
0 Building & Construe. + Machinery & Equip.

0 Membranes A Others

Fig. 3 Analysis of capital investment cost versus HF RO plant capacity

0.15
0.14
0.13
1
-’

0.12 0 Depreciation + Membrane 0 Labour

L,
2 0.11 A Chemicals X Energy 0 Sapre parts
%I
E 0.1
cb 0.09
2 0.08
2 0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
4546 8082 13633 16184 22730 27276

Capacity, m'/d

Fig. 4 Analysis of production cost versus HF RO plant capacity.

14

2. Sensitivity analysis
The baseline scenario cost analysis discussed above assumes fixed values
of system inputs. To study the impact of possible changes in the values and/
or amounts of system inputs on the water cost , a sensitivity analysis test
was conducted. The test involved pessimistic changes in the values and/or
amounts of the following variables:
a. The price of electricity was increased by about 44.4% above the baseline
level (from 18 fils to 26 fils/kWh) to reflect the increases in energy
price and/or the energy consumption.
b. Plant availability was reduced from 90% for the baseline scenario to 70%
and 50% (similar to the availability levels over which the operation of
MSF in Kuwait fluctuates).
c. Simultaneous changes in both electricity price and plant availability as
in (a) and (b) above.
d. Capital investment costs were increased by lo%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50%
above the baseline scenario to account for the possibility of underestima-
tion and price inflation.

The results of the sensitivity test are presented in Tables 5 through 8 and
graphically shown in Figs. 5 through 8. The results indicate the following:
When the electricity price is increased by 44.4% the unit water cost
increases by about 24% (from KD 0.277 to KII 0.344/m') for a 27276 m'/d plant.
The corresponding share of the energy price in the total cost increases from
about 54% to 63% (Table 5).
If plant availability drops to 50% (with all other input values at their
baseline scenario levels), the water cost increases by about 28% (from
W 0.277 to KD 0.354/m') as shown in Table 6.
When the electricity price is assumed to be 26 fils/kWh (44.4% above the
baseline scenario) and the plant availability is only 50%. the water product-
ion cost is estimated at KD 0.421/m'. When the plant availability is 70% and
the electricity price is 26 fils/kWh, the water cost is estimated at
KD 0.372/m' (Table 7).
If the estimated capital investment cost is increased by 50%. (assuming
other variables at their baseline scenario values) water cost would increase
by only 13% (from KD 0.277 to 0.313/m'). It is to be noted that the share of
the capital investment cost in the total water production cost is about 25%
(Tables 2 and 8).

ANALYSIS OF WATER COST BY SPIRAL WXJND SYSTEM

A comprehensive water cost analysis by the spiral wound RO system, similar to

that already conducted for the HF system, is being prepared. The results of a
 0.30
I
0.37 -

0.36 -

0.35 -
+J
3 0.34 -
a

0.27 I I I I 1
0 10 20 XJ 40 50

% Increase in Initial Investment

Fig. 5 Impact of increases in capital investment costs on
water production cost (HF RO System).

0.4
1
0.39

0.38

0.37

u 0.36
g
0.35
B
N
a 0.34

? 0.33
9:
0.32

0.31

0.3
_\___%_
0.29

0.28

0.27 I 1 I I

4546 9092 13638 18164 22733 27276

Capacity, d/d

Fig. 6 Impact of increasing electricity rate on water production

cost for various plant capacities (HF RO System).
76

0.52

0.5

0.48

0.46

0.44
?I
3 0.42

!% 0.4

? 0.36

B 0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3

0.28

0.26
4546 Capacity, m'/d 27276

Fig. 7 Impact of changing energy rate and plant availability on water

production cost for various plant capacities (HF RO System).

460

240

226
0 10 2u 30 40 50

% Increase in Initial Investment

Fig. 8 Impact of increasing total estimated capit& investment costs

on water cost per unit capacity (HF RO System).
TABLE 5
Impact of changing electricity prices from KD O.OlB/kWh with
90% availability on the unit cost of water, total energy cost, and cost structure

4546 ma/d 9092 ml/d 13638 m'/d

Electrical Energy unit Energy Cost Unit Energy Cost unit Energy Cost
Price cost Cost % of Total Cost % of Total Cost % of Total
W/kWh Ku/m3 KU/m) KD/m' KU/m3

0.018 0.149 0.328 45.58% 0.300 49.84% 0.290 51.56%

0.026 0.216 0.394 54.75% 0.366 58.94% 0.356 60.59%

18184 ml/d 22730 m'/d 27276 m3/d

Electrical Energy Unit Energy Cost unit Energy Cost Unit Energy Cost
Price cost cost % of Total Cost % of Total Cost % of Total
KD/kWh KU/m' KU/m3 KU/m' W/m'

0.018 0.149 0.286 52.23% 0.281 53.09% 0.277 53.84%

0.026 0.216 0.352 61.23% 0.348 62.05% 0.344 62.75%

TABLE 6
Impact of changing plant availability on the unit cost of water (18 fils/kWh).

Plant 4546 m' 27276 m'

Availability
% Unit Cost Unit Cost
KU/m3 KU/m'
90.4 0.328 0.277
70.0 0.370 0.305
50.0 0.445 0.354

TABLE 7
Ccmbined impact of changing plant availability and electricity price on the
unit cost of water MD/m')

Plant 4546 m’ 27276 m3

Availability
% Electricity Price Electricity Price
m/kwh W/kWh
0.018 0.026 0.018 0.026
90.4 0.328 0.394 0.277 0.344
70.0 0.370 0.437 0.305 0.372
50.0 0.445 0.512 0.354 0.421
TABLE 8

Impact of increase in initial investment cost on unit capital cost and unit
product water

4546 m3 27276 m'

Increase in
Capital Initial product Initial Product
Investment % Investment Water Investment Water
KD KD/m) KD KD/ma
0 297.837 0.328 220.252 0.277
10 327.621 0.337 242.277 0.285
20 357.404 0.345 264.303 0.292
30 387.188 0.354 286.328 0.299
40 416.972 0.363 308.353 0.306
50 446.755 0.372 330.372 0.313

preliminary analysis completed in July 1986 and based on the actual results of
the operation of the Doha Plant are Summarsied in Table 9. Assuming energy
recovery to be 24%, plant availability 90%, and electricity price 18 fils/kWh,
the water cost is estimated at KD 0.343/m' of product water. The cost struc-
ture shows that energy accounts for about 47% of the total cost and membrane
replacement for about 9.6%. The share of the total fixed costs is about 22%.
The share of the labour cost looks relatively high (about 22%) because of the
small plant capacity considered for the analysis.

TARLE 9
Analysis of water production cost by Spiral Wound RO system (ref. 5)
cost
Component
KD/m' % of Total

Depreciation 0.043 12.54

RO membrane replacement 0.033 9.62
Total fixed costs 0.076 22.16
Labour (O&M) 0.075 21.87
Energy (elect.)* 0.162 47.23
Chemicals 0.030 8.75
Total variable costs 0.267 77.85
Total productiOn cOSt 0.343 100.00

* including energy recovery @ 24%

Electricity price = 18 fils/kWh and plant availability = 90%.
 79

ANALYSIS OF WATER COST BY PLATE AND FRAMJZ SYSTEM

Attempts are being made by KISR to obtain cost data for PF plants larger than
the Doha installation, to analyse the water cost and assess the economics of the
system. Cost data for a 1921 m'/d plant, were obtained and a detailed cost
analysis study was completed in July 1984 (ref. 4). The cost analysis was con-
ducted on the same grounds as for other RO systems and the MSF system used in
Kuwait.
Table 10 summarizes the results of the water cost analysis with and without
the inclusion of an energy recovery unit in the system. When it is possible to
recover 20% of the energy, the water production cost is estimated at KD 0.605/m'
of product water (plant availability is 90% and electricity price is 18 fils/
kWh). It is to be noted here that, in the original study, asset service lives
were assumed to be 15 years for machinery and buildings and 3 years for membranes,
When the service lives are adjusted to the (20 and 5 years respectively), the
water production cost decreases to KD 0.563/m' of product water (electricity
price is 18 fils/kWh). Costsof energy and membranes comprise 33% and 5.8% of
the total cost respectively.
The high share of the operation and maintenance cost, with the major compo-
nent being the labour cost, can be explained as follows:
1. The plant capacity considered is very small and four shifts were assumed to
run the plant round-the-clock.
2. The wage rates used to estimate the labour cost were higher than the current
rates.

TABLE 10

Analysis of water cost by Plate and Frame RO System (with and without
energy recovery) (ref. 4)
cost
cost Without Energy
20% Energy Recovery
Component Recovery
KD/m' % of Total W/m' % of Total
Depreciations 0.077 11.48 0.082 13.14
RO membrane replace- 0.055 8.20 0.055 8.82
ment
Total fixed costs 0.132
-- 19.68 0.137
-- 21.96
Operation, mainte-
nance and spare
parts 0.266 39.64 0.266 42.63
Chemicals 0.014 2.08 0.014 2.24
Energy 0.259 38.60 0.207 33.17
Total variable 0.539 80.32 0.487 78.04
costs -- --
Total production 0.671 100.00 0.624 100.00
costs

Electricity price = 20 fils/kWh and plant availability = 90%.

ANALYSIS OF WATER COST BY MSF IN KUWAIT
The water cost by MSF presented in Table 11 is obtained from Kuwait's region-
al paper presented at the Symposium on Water Resources and its uses in the Arab
world (ref. 7). Operating expenses comprise manpower cost, including both
operation and maintenance staff, chemical cost and cost of supplies. Capital
costs include depreciation of machinery and equipment, buildings and construct-
ions and other depreciable assets.
The cost analysis applies straight line depreciation and the annual interest
rate on the invested capital is assumed to be zero. The total production cost
is KD 0.429/m-' and KD 0.405/m' of product water with and without the inclusion
of administration and other indirect costs, respectively. The share of the
capital cost (fixed) in the total production cost is 11.43%. Energy is the mOst
significant cost item as its cost is about 70% of the total production cost.
The cost of energy per unit of water produced is KD 0.300/m3.

TABLE 11
Analysis of water production cost by MSF system existing in Kuwait 1983/84(ref.7)

Component KD/m' % of Total

Capital cost (depreciation) 0.049 11.43

Energy (fuels) 0.300 69.93
Operating expenses 0.036 8.39
Maintenance & spares 0.020 4.66
Administrative i indirect 0.024 5.59

Total 0.429 100.00

CONCLUDING REMARKS
The successful operation and excellent performance of DROP over more than
two years of continuous operation under extremely severe conditions as those in
Kuwait (15 - 35’C seawater temperature and about 5% salinity) have considerable
significance for the production of drinking water at reasonable costs. It is
found that water cost by RF ranges between KD 0.328/m> and KD 0.277/m' for a
4546 m'/d plant and a 27276 m'/d plant, respectively. The cost structure keeps
almost the same pattern over the capacity range considered. The share of energy
for this system ranges from about 45% to 54% and the membranes contribute about
17% of the cost. The capital (fixed cost) share was found to be about 8% and
the cost of chemicals was about 10% of the total cost. Increases in energy
consumption and/or price would have little impact on the water cost since an
increase of 44% would increase the water cost by only 24%.
 81

It was also found that the lower plant availability (50% as opposed to the
actual 90% achievpd at Doha water cost is KD 0.354/m' (i.e., 28% higher than the
cost at 90% availability). Future price inflation, particularly in the prices
of machinery, equipment and membranes would have an insignificant impact on
water cost as increasing the prices by 50% above the reference level would in-
crease the water cost by only 13% assuming real energy price.
in the extremely pessimestic scenario (50% plant availability and 26 fils/
kWh) the water cost is KD 0.421/m', which is comparable and even less than the
cost by MSF in Kuwait (KD 0.429/m'). The preliminary analysis of water cost by
SP based on preliminary quotes for small capacity, was comparable with that for
RF (KD 0.343/m' for a 1000 m'/d SP plant versus KD 0.328/m" for a 4546 ml/d HF
plant). The cost structure for both systems appears to be the same, with the
cost of energy being 45% and 47% of the total water cost by HF and SP respecti-
vely. It is worth noting that the energy consumption of SP reported for DROP is
9.72 km/m". The water cost by PF appears to be higher than by HF and SP
(KD 0.343/m' for RF and SP respectively). Although these results are based on a
system different from that at DROP, it is expected that PF will still cost more
as its operational results at DROP showed lower performance than the other
systems (reported availability and specific energy consumption with energy re-
covery @ 22% overtheperiod from Jan 1985 - June 1986 were 81.6% and 12.5 kWh/m'
product water respectively).

The analysis shows that economies of scale do exist in the HF system as

evidenced from the analysis of the capital investment and production costs.
When plant size is increased six times the cost per unit capacity decreases by
26% (from KD297/m3/dfora4546 m'/d plant to KD 220/m'/d for a 27276 m"/d plant).
It is most likely that the system will offer greater cost reduction opportunit-
ies and hence better economies of scale in the future as there is more room for
R&D effort to improve the design, operation and maintenance of the system,
especially in comparison with desalination processes other than RO (e.g., MSF)
that have limited cost reduction and economic improvement potentials as they
are well established from the design , operation and maintenance viewpoints.
Due to its modular nature, the PF system appears to be less economical than
the AF system. The PF system consists of RO modules that were found to account
for about 65% of the total machinery and equipment costs (ref. 4). The latter
comprises about 90% of the total capital investment costs. The costs of PF
modules are known to be proportional to their size and therefore there are less
economies of scale in this system than in the HF system. The lower performance
of the PF system at DROP (higher energy consumption and lower availability)
also contributes to increasing the water cost. It is therefore believed that
the PF system is less economical than the HF system.
82

REFERENCES
K. Wangnick, 1986 World Market of Desalting PIants, The IDA Magazine 1 (4)
53-61. 1987.
D.C. Block, Proc. of 1st Dasal. Congress of ths Am. Continent,
paper no. IV-3. 1976.
A.L.A. Malik, K.M. Mousa, N.G. Younan and B.J.R. Rao, Performance evaluation
of the three different seawater RO membranes at DROP in Kuwait, Proc. of the
Symposium on Reverse Osmosis Seawater Desalinaticm TechNovember 22-24,
Kuwait, 1986.
M. Abdel Halim and M. Girgis, Techno-Economic Assessment of the DDS Reverse
Osmosis Seawater Desalination System. Kuwait Institute for Scientific
Research, Report No. KISR 1396, Kuwait, 1984.
M. Abdel Halim and J. Dahdah, A preliminary analysis of water cost by RO
seawater desalination. Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait,
1986.
M. Abdel Elalim and J. Dahdah, Comprehensive analysis of water cost by
RO seawater desalination based on actual operation of Doha Plant (Aug. 1984
to Dec. 1985). Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, Kuwait (Unpublished
Report). 1986.
NEW. Kuwait Experience in Seawater Desalination. Ministry of Electricity
and Water, Regional Paper presented at the Symposium on Water Resources and
its uses in the Arab world, organized by the Arab Center for Desert and Arid
Zones studies, Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development and Kuwait Fund
for Arab Economic Development, Kuwait, 17-20 Feb. 1986.