See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/251555200

Energy analysis and efficiency assessment of reverse osmosis desalination

process

Article  in  Desalination · August 2011

DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2011.03.074

CITATIONS READS

93 686

3 authors:

Cui Liu Ken A Rainwater

Texas Tech University Texas Tech University
11 PUBLICATIONS   572 CITATIONS    74 PUBLICATIONS   967 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lianfa Song
Texas Tech University
115 PUBLICATIONS   4,618 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lianfa Song on 31 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / d e s a l

Energy analysis and efficiency assessment of reverse osmosis desalination process

Cui Liu, Ken Rainwater, Lianfa Song ⁎
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Texas Tech University, 10th and Akron, Lubbock, TX 79409-1023, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A new concept of ideal RO process is introduced in this study for a more appropriate assessment of energy
Received 21 February 2011 efficiency of water desalination, in which all the extra energy above the thermodynamic minimum is spent
Received in revised form 25 March 2011 to maintain the required permeate flux. A pressure-recovery diagram was developed as a graphical method
Accepted 28 March 2011
for better analyses and presentations of energy consumption in cross flow RO. It was demonstrated that the
Available online 22 April 2011
total energy input to a cross flow RO was much higher than the thermodynamic minimal energy for water
Keywords:
desalination. Aside from the energy that remained in the retentate stream, a substantial amount of additional
Reverse osmosis energy was needed in cross flow RO to maintain an economically meaningful nonzero permeate flux
Water desalination and overcome the elevated osmotic pressure due to salt accumulation along the membrane channel
Energy efficiency (configuration associated energy). The configuration associated energy became dominant at high recoveries
Configuration energy and set the ultimate limit on the energy requirement of cross flow RO, which could not be reduced by further
Thermodynamic restriction improvement in membrane permeability. Finally, the energy efficiency of cross flow RO was compared to
an ideal RO process in which the configuration energy was completely eliminated.
Published by Elsevier B.V.

1. Introduction flow rate. The energy requirement in RO desalination is affected by

Reverse osmosis (RO) is becoming an important means for
sustainable water supply in many regions of the world primarily
due to its capability to produce high quality potable water from
nonconventional water sources, such as seawater, brackish ground
water, and agricultural drainage [1–6]. As an energy intensive process,
energy (electricity) consumption is one of the major cost components
in RO desalination [7–13]. A large amount of energy is required to drive
the water through the RO membranes in seawater desalination.
Brackish water RO desalination usually requires less energy at the
same recovery than seawater desalination because of lower salinity
[4,7,13]. However, recoveries of 75% or above are usually required for
brackish water desalination for economical operation and due to the
difficulties associated with retentate handling and disposal [14,15].
Energy consumption in brackish water desalination increases rapidly
with increasing water recovery beyond 75%. Therefore, minimization
of energy consumption is one of the most effective ways to reduce
costs in both seawater and brackish water RO desalination for a more
affordable means of sustainable water supply.
The principle for RO desalination is that a net (positive) driving
pressure is maintained on the feed side of the RO membrane to drive
water through the membrane with the salts left behind. Energy is
consumed when the raw (feed) water is pushed into the membrane
elements by high pressure pumps pressed at the required pressure and
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 806 742 3598; fax: + 1 806 742 3449.
E-mail address: lianfa.song@ttu.edu (L. Song).
feed water salinity, process configuration, and the operating conditions
(e.g., driving pressure and recovery). Although numerous studies
have been conducted in the calculation of energy consumptions in the
cross flow RO processes, the particular usages or needs of energy in RO
desalination processes have not been well analyzed and delineated. The
most frequently noted energy requirement of RO desalination [3,4,9] is
still the thermodynamic minimum in a reversible (equilibrium) process
that was probably first derived by Spiegler [16] more than 30 years
ago. This thermodynamic minimum energy only provides a theoretical
limit on the energy consumption in a RO process with an infinitesimal
permeate flux.
In this paper, an ideal RO was defined and introduced for the first
time as the most energy efficient RO process for desalination at the
required permeate flux, against which the energy efficiency of cross
flow RO processes could be more meaningfully assessed and measured.
In order to define and quantify the energy requirement for the ideal RO
process, the thermodynamic equilibrium RO process was first reviewed
for the theoretical minimum energy requirement in desalination.
Finally, the energy consumption in cross flow RO, which is currently
the predominant configuration in water desalination, was analyzed by
splitting it into different components, i.e., the thermodynamic minimal
energy, additional energy requirement, and energy remaining in the
retentate. The energy efficiency of the cross flow RO process at various
recoveries was analyzed and assessed against the reversible and ideal
RO processes. It is believed that a better understanding of the energy
consumption in the RO desalination processes would be achieved by
analyzing the total energy into individual components for different
functions or needs that are fundamental to the RO processes.

0011-9164/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier B.V.

doi:10.1016/j.desal.2011.03.074
 C. Liu et al. / Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358
2. Energy consumption calculations
The RO processes were first defined and described for the
determination of thermodynamic minimal energy and the energy
requirement in the ideal (the most energy-efficient) RO process for
the required permeate flux. Referring to the specified RO processes,
equations for energy consumption in both cases were derived. The
calculations of energy consumption in the practical cross flow process
for RO water desalination were also reviewed in this section.
2.1. Reversible RO desalination process
The thermodynamic minimal energy requirement in water desali-
nation was derived by many researchers for the general revisable
separation processes without referring to the specific RO processes
[11,16,17]. The equations for the thermodynamic minimal energy
will be re-derived for a reversible RO desalination process to understand
the implementation of the reversible condition to RO processes. A
reversible RO process, as schematically shown in Fig. 1, can be
represented by a cylinder with an RO membrane on one end and a
piston in the cylinder. The piston is driven down in the cylinder
with a driving pressure that is always equal to the osmotic pressure
of the solution in the cylinder. Therefore, the reversible RO process
implies that the separation in the process is extremely slow with a
permeate flux that is practically zero. According to thermodynamic
principles, the energy required in the reversible process is the minimum
among all possible operations.
Let V0 and C0 represent the initial volume and salt concentration of
the feed water in the cylinder, respectively. As permeate is produced
through the membrane, the volume of the retentate decreases and
salt concentration of the retentate increases. If the RO membrane is
assumed to have a perfect (100%) salt rejection, salt concentration in
the cylinder at any permeate volume is determined as
C0 V0 C0
C= = ð1Þ
V0 − V 1− R
where C is the salt concentration of the retentate, V is the volume of
the permeate produced, and R is the recovery defined as
V to maintain in the ideal RO process for the nonzero permeate flux.
R= : ð2Þ
V0
ΔP = Δπ
Piston
Membrane
Fig. 1. Schematic of a reversible RO desalination process. The driving pressure is always
equal to the osmotic pressure.
353
The osmotic pressure of the retentate can be linearly related to its
salt concentration, i.e.,
C0
Δπ = fos C = fos ð3Þ
1− R
where Δπ is the retentate osmotic pressure and fos is the osmotic
pressure coefficient (Pa/(mg/L)) of the feed water.
Because the driving pressure is always equal to the osmotic
pressure in a reversible RO process, the energy consumption is
calculated by
V V R
E = ∫ ΔPdV = ∫ Δ πdV = V0 ∫ Δ πdR ð4Þ
0 0 0
where E is the energy required to produce volume V of permeate from
volume V0 of feed water. The energy required for per unit permeate
production, which is commonly termed as specific energy, can be
calculated by dividing the energy with the permeate volume
1 1
−5
W1 = 2:05 × 10 C0 ln ð5Þ
R 1−R
where W1 is the specific energy for desalination in the reversible RO
processes. For convenient use, the energy unit in Eq. (5) is given in
kilowatt-hour (kWh) that is equal to 3.6 × 106 J. The osmotic pressure
coefficient used in the determination of the leading coefficient of
Eq. (5) is 73.9 Pa/(mg/L), which is for seawater of average salt
concentration at 25 °C calculated from data found in the literature
[16,18]. With this leading coefficient, the salt concentration in Eq. (5)
should be given in the unit of mg/L.
2.2. Ideal RO desalination process
It has been demonstrated that a nonzero permeate flux has to be
maintained in a practical RO desalination process to minimize the
total cost of membrane desalination [19,20]. An ideal RO desalination
process in this study is defined as a RO system that needs the smallest
amount of energy to maintain a required permeate flux. Such an
ideal RO system is schematically presented in Fig. 2. Unlike in the
reversible RO process, a net driving pressure (ΔP − Δπ N 0) is required
A mechanism is also provided in the ideal RO process to eliminate
Fig. 2. Schematic of an ideal RO desalination process for a constant permeate flux.
A complete mixing is provided in the cylinder to eliminate concentration polarization.
354 C. Liu et al. / Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358

concentration polarization [21], otherwise an extra amount of energy Therefore, the energy used in the cross flow RO process for
is needed to overcome concentration polarization. permeate production EP is
In the ideal RO process, the osmotic pressure of the retentate is
still described by Eq. (2). However, the driving pressure changes to EP = RV0 ΔP: ð10Þ
the osmotic pressure plus a net driving pressure ΔPnet
The specific energy requirement for permeate production in the
ΔP = Δπ + ΔPnet : ð6Þ cross flow RO process is

The net driving pressure ΔPnet for a given permeate flux decreases
as the membrane resistance decreases.
If a constant ΔPnet is maintained during the operation, going
through similar integration steps as for the reversible RO process,
the specific energy for the ideal RO process to maintain the required
permeate flux is determined as
−5 1 1 −7
W2 = 2:05 × 10 C0 ln + 2:78 × 10 ΔPnet
R 1− R
where W2 is the specific energy for the idea RO process to maintain
a required permeate flux. The pressure in Eq. (7) is required in the
metric unit of Pa. The first term on the right hand side of Eq. (7) is the
amount of energy required to overcome the osmotic pressure, and the
second term is the amount of energy needed to maintain the required
permeate flux.
2.3. Cross flow RO process
The practical RO desalination processes are dominantly employing
a cross flow configuration with pressure vessels 6–8 m long, in which
6–8 membrane elements are connected in series [22,23]. A cross flow
RO system is schematically presented in Fig. 3. Feed water is supplied
by a high pressure pump into one end of the pressure vessels, and
retentate exits the pressure vessels through the other end. Permeate
comes out of the pressure vessels through the third outlet usually
placed along the central line. More pressure vessels can be arranged in
“Christmas tree” structure for high recoveries. However, a multi-stage
RO process without inter-stage booster pumps can be viewed simply
as a longer pressure vessel. In order to focus on the major mechanistic
points, the pressure drop and the resultant energy consumption in
the membrane channel due to friction are assumed to be negligible in
the following analysis.
The net energy required to pump volume V0 of feed water at
pressure ΔP into a cross flow RO channel is simply determined by
the product of feed water volume and the pressure [20,21]
E = V0 ΔP:
The cross flow RO process is fundamentally different from the
reversible and ideal RO processes in that there is a retentate stream
coming out of the RO process in addition to the permeate stream.
With the assumption that the pressure drop in the membrane channel
−7
W3 = 2:78 × 10 ΔP ð11Þ
where W3 is the specific energy requirement in the common cross
flow RO processes. The pressure Δ P in Eq. (11) is given in the metric
unit of Pa. The specific energy in Eq. (11) is the net energy spent on
permeate production and does not take account of the energy
remained in the retentate stream. If the retentate is discharged
directly without energy recovery, the gross specific energy require-
ð7Þ
ment for permeate production in the cross flow RO process will be
higher accordingly.
Unlike in the case of the reversible RO process, the driving pressure
in some sense is a free variable in the cross flow RO process. Actually,
the driving pressure is a primary design parameter in the cross flow
RO processes. In a cross flow RO process, because the osmotic pressure
increases downstream along the membrane channel, the driving
pressure has to be equal to or greater than the maximum osmotic
pressure in the membrane channel to ensure that the entire channel
contributes to permeate production. The key step for energy calculation
in cross flow RO is the determination of the driving pressure that
will be further elaborated in the following discussions.
3. Discussion
3.1. Pressure-recovery diagram
The energy spent in a cross flow RO process can be analyzed
graphically into different characteristic fractions with the help of a
pressure-recovery diagram. An example of the pressure-recovery
diagram for seawater desalination at a recovery of 40% is shown in
Fig. 4. The driving pressure used in the development of the diagrams
was 4.83 MPa (700 psi). The diagram can be constructed in the shape
of either a square or a rectangle. The horizontal side of the square or
rectangle indicates the volume of feed water pumped into the RO
channel, and the permeate recovery is indicated by a fraction of the
side. The vertical side of the square or rectangle indicates the driving
8
ð8Þ
7
R
6 Δπ
ΔP
Pressure (MPa)

5
due to friction is negligible, the energy remaining in the retentate
stream ER is Additional Energy
4 requirement
ER = ð1− RÞV0 Δ P: ð9Þ
3
Energy Remaining in
2 Minimal Retentate Stream
Cross flow membrane channel Energy
Feed Concentrate 1 requirement

0
Pump 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Permeate
Recovery
Fig. 3. Schematic of a cross flow RO desalination process. The membrane splits
continuously the feed stream into permeate (non-pressurized) and concentrate Fig. 4. The three components of energy requirement of cross flow seawater RO processes
(pressurized) streams. at 40% recoveries.
 C. Liu et al. / Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358 355

pressure. The area of the square or rectangle represents the total 4.0
energy used to pump the volume of feed water into the membrane
channel. The total energy is divided into two parts by the vertical line
passing the permeate recovery. According to Eqs. (9) and (10), the
area on the right side of the recovery line represents the energy 3.0
remaining in the retentate stream, while the area on the left side of

Pressure (MPa)
the line is the energy used for permeate production.
The energy for permeate production can be further divided into
two parts by the osmotic pressure curve (broken line in Fig. 4) of the 2.0
retentate as a function of the permeate recovery (Eq. (3)). According

to Eq. (4), the lower part indicates the thermodynamic minimal
energy for permeate production in a reversible RO desalination
process. The upper part represents the additional energy spent in the
cross flow RO process beyond the thermodynamic minimal energy.
The three energy fractions (thermodynamic minimum, additional
energy, and energy remaining in retentate) in cross flow RO were
represented by the sizes of the three regions as indicated on the
pressure-recovery diagram.
3.2. Additional energy requirement
Fig. 4 shows 60% of the total energy remained in the retentate
stream at the recovery of 40%. The energy remaining in the retentate
stream will not be extensively discussed in this paper because this
part of energy is well understood. High efficiency has become
achievable to recover the energy remaining in the retentate stream
of seawater desalination with the pressure exchange type of energy
recovery devices [24]. In the 40% of the energy that was spent for
permeate production, about 27% was the thermodynamic minimum
energy for desalination and the rest about 13% was the additional
energy requirement of the cross flow RO process. The reasons that
the additional energy is required in cross flow RO are the increasing
osmotic pressure along the membrane channel and the practical
need to produce the required permeate flux. As a comparison, the
pressure–recovery diagram at the recovery of 60% (Fig. 5) shows that
the thermodynamic minimal energy and additional energy require-
ments became 35.6% and 24.4% of the total energy consumption,
respectively. Unlike the energy remaining in the retentate stream that
can be recovered with the energy recovery devices, the additional
energy in the cross flow RO was spent or consumed in the process of
permeate production.
The additional energy in the cross flow RO process increases
rapidly with increasing recovery. Because the recovery in seawater
8
in Retentate Stream
Energy Remaining
Additional Energy Requirement
1.0
Minimal Energy Requirement
0.0
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Recovery
Fig. 6. The three components of energy requirement of cross flow brackish water RO
processes at 80% recoveries. The salinity of the brackish water is 5000 mg/L.
desalination RO processes is unlikely to exceed 60%, the following
discussions for higher recoveries are conducted for brackish water
desalination, in which a recovery greater than 80% is not uncommon.
Figs. 6 and 7 are the pressure–recovery diagrams for brackish
water desalination at 80% and 90% recoveries, respectively. Salt
concentration of 5000 mg/L and the osmotic pressure coefficient of
73.9 Pa/(mg/L) were used in the construction of the diagrams. The
driving pressures used for the construction of the diagrams were
1.86 and 3.79 MPa (270 and 550 psi), respectively, for the recoveries
of 80% and 90%. The pressure–recovery diagrams show that the
additional energy requirement of the cross flow RO becomes the
largest fraction of the total energy for brackish water desalination. The
energy efficiency of cross flow RO deteriorated rapidly with increasing
recovery due to the substantial increase in the additional energy
requirement at high recoveries (N80%).
The relative amounts of the three energy fractions in cross flow RO
at recoveries above 50% were listed in Table 1 for salt concentration
4.0

7
Energy Remaining in RetentateStream

3.0
6
Pressure (MPa)

Additional Energy
Pressure (MPa)

5
Requirement Additional Energy Requirement
4 2.0
Energy Remaining
in Retentate
3 Stream

2 1.0
Minimal Energy
Requirement
1
Minimal Energy Requirement
0 0.0
0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0% 0.0% 20.0% 40.0% 60.0% 80.0% 100.0%
Recovery Recovery

Fig. 5. The three components of energy requirement of cross flow seawater RO processes Fig. 7. The three components of energy requirement of cross flow brackish water RO
at 60% recoveries. processes at 90% recoveries. The salinity of the brackish water is 5000 mg/L.
356 C. Liu et al. / Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358

Table 1 the feed water. The specific energy of cross flow RO can be obtained by
Percentages of three energy categories spent in a cross flow RO processa. combining Eqs. (11) and (12)
Energy component Recovery (%)
−5 2− R −7
50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 95.0 W3 = 2:05 × 10 C0 + 2:78 × 10 ΔPnet : ð13Þ
2ð1− RÞ
Minimum energy requirement 23.6 26.7 28.2 27.1 21.1 14.3
Additional energy requirement 26.4 33.3 41.8 52.9 68.9 80.7
The validity pressure range of Eqs. (12) and (13) is ΔP N Δπ0/(1 − R),
Energy remained in retentate 50.0 40.0 30.0 20.0 10.0 5.0
which is the osmotic pressure of the retentate.
a
Conditions: salt concentration is 5000 mg/L and the net driving pressure at the end As indicated in Fig. 8, the required pressure for a given permeate
of the membrane channel is 0.34 MPa (50 psi).
recovery (or average permeate flux) decreases with increasing
membrane permeability. The lowest required driving pressure is the
of 5000 mg/L and net driving pressure of 0.34 MPa (50 psi) at the pressure (a horizontal line) that meets the osmotic pressure at the
end of membrane channel. It can be seen that the additional energy exit end of the membrane channel. The energy requirement at this
requirement is greater than the thermodynamic minimal energy point is the minimum value for cross flow RO that cannot be reduced
requirement for all recoveries. by further improvement in membrane permeability. The shaded
area between the lowest driving pressure and the curve of the osmotic
3.3. Configuration associated energy pressure represents (not in proportion) the energy requirement
associated with the cross flow configuration of the RO process.
The osmotic pressure in cross flow RO increases along the The configuration associated energy was relatively a small fraction
membrane channel [23,25] due to the accumulation of the rejected of the additional energy requirement for the low permeability RO
salt and the driving pressure has to be greater or equal to the osmotic membranes of previous generations because high net driving pressure
pressure (peak value) at the exit end of the membrane channel. The was needed to produce the required permeate flux. The net driving
osmotic pressure and driving pressure along a membrane channel pressure decreased substantially in the last two decades primarily
are schematically depicted in Fig. 8. The requirement of a certain because of the marked improvements on membrane permeability.
permeate flux or recovery of a practical cross flow RO process sets the This configuration associated energy can become a major part of the
final salt concentration or equivalently the osmotic pressure at the additional energy requirement for highly permeable RO membranes.
exit end of the membrane channel. For instance, when a 50% recovery
is required for a membrane channel, the salt concentration or osmotic 3.4. Energy requirement under thermodynamic restriction
pressure by the exit end of the channel doubles its initial values of
the feed water. An equivalent requirement for average permeate flux When thermodynamic restriction occurs in cross flow RO, the
can be determined from the recovery with the total membrane area driving pressure for the RO process with a given recovery is equal to
and feed cross flow velocity of the membrane channel [26]. the osmotic pressure at the exit end of the membrane channel. The
The accurate determination of driving pressure for a cross flow RO driving pressure can be easily determined from the initial feed salt
process for a given average permeate flux or recovery is a challenging concentration and the required recovery as
task because it is a heterogeneous system. However, for most practical
fos C0
designs, the required pressure can be estimated by homogenizing the ΔP = : ð14Þ
1−R
RO system as
The ultimate energy requirement in the cross flow RO process is
2 −R
ΔP = Δπ + vRm = Δπ 0 + ΔPnet ð12Þ determined by substituting Eq. (14) for ΔP in Eq. (11)
2ð1 −RÞ
−5 C0
where v is the average permeate flux, Rm is the membrane resistance, W4 = 2:05 × 10 ð15Þ
1−R
Δπ is the average osmotic pressure, and Δπ0 is the osmotic pressure of
The thermodynamic minimum energy, ideal energy for a required
flux, and energy consumptions in cross flow RO before and after
For low permeability membrane
thermodynamic restriction (TR) for seawater desalination at different
recoveries are listed in Table 2.
Table 2 shows that the specific energy in the ideal RO process was
constantly higher than that in the thermodynamic minimum at the
same recovery by 0.278 kWh/m3. It can be seen that the cross flow RO
process was controlled by thermodynamic restriction for recovery
Driving pressure Δ P greater than 45%. Therefore, the specific energy of cross flow RO could
be calculated with Eq. (13) for recovery smaller than 45%, but with
Pressure

Eq. (15) for recovery greater than 45%. The specific energy in the
cross flow RO before thermodynamic restriction was only slightly
For high permeability membrane higher than the ideal RO. However, the specific energy increased
The minimum driving pressure much faster in the regime of thermodynamic restriction. For example,
at a recovery of 75%, the energy requirement of ideal RO was
Configuration associated energy 1.585 kWh/m3, but the energy requirement in the cross flow RO could
Osmotic pressure Δπ be as high as 2.829 kWh/m3.
It should be pointed out that the energies presented in the tables
and discussed in this paper were the net energies consumed by the
Length RO units. When the data are compared with the actual electricity
Fig. 8. The driving pressure and osmotic pressure profiles along a pressure vessel. The
consumption in a desalination plant employing RO process, the
required driving pressure decreases with increasing membrane permeability. The conversion efficiencies of motors and pumps and energy consumption
shadowed area indicates the configuration associated energy of cross flow RO. other than RO units have to be considered. For example, the high
 C. Liu et al. / Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358 357

Table 2 3.00
Specific energies for RO seawater desalination (C0 = 34,500 mg/L, ΔPnet = 10 bar).
2.70
Recovery (%) Specific energy (kWh/m3) Salinity = 34,500 mg/L
Thermodynamic Ideal Cross flow Cross flow 2.40
minimal process (before TR) (after TR) Cross-flow
2.10 ultimate
0 0.707 0.985 0.985 0.707

Energy (kWh/m3)
5 0.726 1.004 1.004 0.744
10 0.745 1.023 1.025 0.786 1.80
15 0.766 1.044 1.048 0.832 2.07 MPa
20 0.789 1.067 1.074 0.884 1.50
25 0.814 1.092 1.103 0.943
1.38 MPa
30 0.841 1.119 1.137 1.010 1.20
35 0.870 1.148 1.176 1.088
40 0.903 1.181 1.221 1.179 0.69 MPa Reversible
0.90
45 0.940 1.218 1.275 1.286
50 0.980 1.258 1.339 1.415
55 1.027 1.305 1.417 1.572 0.60
60 1.080 1.358 1.516 1.768
65 1.142 1.420 1.642 2.021 0.30
70 1.216 1.494 1.810 2.358
75 1.307 1.585 2.046 2.829 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Recovery (%)
pressure pumps for RO units usually consume about 70% of total Fig. 9. Energy requirement for dead-end RO seawater desalination.
energy in a desalination plant and the combined conversion efficiency
of the motors and pumps is about 70%. From Table 2, the specific
energy requirement of the cross flow RO process at the recovery of required permeate flux. Although the theoretical ultimate energy
40% is 1.22 kWh/m3. If the energy in the retentate stream is assumed requirement in the cross flow RO was smaller than that of the ideal
to be 100% recovered, the actual electricity consumption for 1m3 RO for lower recoveries in Fig. 6, it would not occur because the need
permeate would be 1.22 kWh/(0.70)(0.70) = 2.49 kWh. for maintaining the required permeate flux would be the controlling
Because of the configuration of cross flow RO, the majority of the factor for the driving pressure. Higher pressure (energy) would be
total energy input either remains in the retentate stream for low required to maintain the required permeate flux in that case. The
recoveries or is wasted as the configuration associated energy for ultimate specific energy is only valid for the cases where the pressure
high recoveries. While the energy remaining in the retentate stream (energy) is controlled by thermodynamic restriction.
can be recovered with high efficiency by energy recovery devices, the The specific energy requirements of ideal RO for desalination of
configuration associated energy imposes the ultimate limit on the brackish water of 5000 mg/L salinity are presented in Fig. 10. Because
energy efficiency of cross flow RO processes in water desalination. of the higher permeability of the RO membrane for brackish water, net
driving pressures of 0.34, 0.69, and 1.03 MPa (50, 100, and 150 psi)
3.5. Energy consumption at high recoveries in cross flow RO were used in the calculations. It can be seen that the ultimate specific
energy in cross flow RO (broken line) for brackish water desalination
From the results presented in Table 2, it is clear that the driving increased rapidly with recovery when the recovery was high. The
pressure in cross flow RO at high recoveries is practically determined specific energy was 0.5 kWh/m3 for 80% recovery but it becomes
by thermodynamic restriction, rather than the need to maintain the 1.0 kWh/m3 for 90% recovery. In contrast, the energy requirement of
required permeate flux. In this case, the configuration associated ideal RO increased much more moderately than that of cross flow
energy resulting from the increased osmotic pressure along the RO. For instance, the specific energy of the ideal RO with 0.69 MPa net
membrane channel becomes one of the major energy components in
cross flow RO. The energy efficiency of cross flow RO can be greatly 1.00
reduced by thermodynamic restriction, which can be assessed by
0.90
comparison to the energy consumption in the ideal RO process.
Salinity = 5,000 mg/L
The energy requirements for the ideal RO for seawater desalination
0.80
at various recoveries are presented in Fig. 9 for net driving pressures
Cross-flow
of 0.69, 1.38, and 2.07 MPa (100, 200, and 300 psi), respectively. For a 0.70 ultimate
given permeate flux, the required net driving pressure decreased with
Energy (kWh)

the improvement on membrane permeability. Therefore, the three net 0.60

pressures can be viewed as membranes with three permeabilities.
Roughly, the amount of 0.2 kWh/m3 energy is saved per 0.69 MPa 0.50
1.03 MPa
(100 psi) decrease in the net driving pressure. The dotted line is the
0.40
thermodynamic minimal energy in the reversible RO process. The 0.69 MPa
broken line on the figure is the ultimate specific energy requirement 0.30
by the cross flow RO process under thermodynamic restriction. 0.34 MPa
Fig. 9 shows that the ultimate specific energy in the cross flow RO 0.20
process at high recoveries can be much higher than those in the ideal Reversible
RO process, indicating that that cross flow RO is not energy efficient 0.10
for desalination at high recoveries. For example, for a membrane
that requires 0.69 MPa (100 psi) net driving pressure, the specific 0.00
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
energy requirement was 1.77 kWh/m3 for cross flow RO but only Recovery (%)
1.27 kWh/m3 for ideal RO at the recovery of 60%. It should be pointed
out that the ideal RO is the most energy efficient process for the Fig. 10. Energy requirement for dead-end RO brackish water desalination.
358 C. Liu et al. / Desalination 276 (2011) 352–358
driving pressure was 0.45 kWh/m3 for recovery of 90%. Specific
energy only increased by 0.05 kWh/m3 when the recovery increased
from 80% to 90%. The results again suggest that the cross flow RO
is not an energy efficient desalination process at high recoveries.
The lower energy efficiency of the cross flow RO at high recoveries is a
necessary cost to pay for the benefits of the cross flow configuration,
including the continuous operation, concentration polarization reduc-
tion, fouling mitigation, and process simplicity.
4. Conclusions
There is a serious limitation for the use of the thermodynamic
minimal energy as a baseline to assess the energy efficiency of RO
processes in water desalination because of the practically zero
permeate flux in the thermodynamic reversible RO process. Because
a nonzero permeate flux is always required for practical RO
desalination processes, the energy efficiency of the RO processes is
better assessed against the ideal RO process that represents the most
energy efficient desalination process for a required permeate flux.
The energy consumption in the cross flow RO process could be
graphically analyzed with the pressure–recovery diagram into three
fractions: energy remaining in the retentate stream, thermodynamic
minimum energy, and additional energy requirement. The additional
energy is needed in the cross flow RO processes to maintain the
required permeate flux and overcome the elevated osmotic pressure
along the membrane channel. When the cross flow RO is working at
low recoveries before thermodynamic restriction, the additional
energy is mainly used to maintain the permeate flux. Therefore, the
total energy requirement for the cross flow RO process is only slightly
higher than that for the ideal RO process. However, the total energy
requirement for cross flow RO process can be much greater than that
for the ideal RO process when it is working at high recoveries under
thermodynamic restriction.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to acknowledge that the research was
partially supported by the U.S. Department of Energy through project
of Great Plains Wind Power Test Facility.
References
[1] M. Kumar, S.S. Adham, W.R. Pearce, Investigation of seawater reverse osmosis
fouling and its relationship to pretreatment type, Environmental Science &
Technology 40 (2006) 2037–2044.
[2] A. Rahardianto, B.C. McCool, Y. Cohen, Reverse osmosis desalting of inland
brackish water of high gypsum scaling propensity: kinetics and mitigation of
View publication stats
membrane mineral scaling, Environmental Science & Technology 42 (2008)
4292–4297.
[3] M.A. Shannon, P.W. Bohn, M. Elimelech, J.G. Georgiadis, B.J. Marinas, A.M. Mayes,
Science and technology for water purification in the coming decades, Nature
452 (2008) 301–310.
[4] Committee on Advancing Desalination Technology (NRC), Desalination:
A National Perspective, National Academies Press, Washington, D.C., 2008.
[5] B. Van der Bruggen, C. Vandecasteele, T. Van Gestel, W. Doyen, R. Leysen, A review
of pressure-driven membrane processes in wastewater treatment and drinking
water production, Environmental Progress 22 (2003) 46–56.
[6] C. Fritzmann, J. Löwenberg, T. Wintgens, T. Melin, State-of-the-art of reverse
osmosis desalination, Desalination 216 (2007) 1–76.
[7] A. Zhu, P.D. Christofides, Y. Cohen, Energy consumption optimization of reverse
osmosis membrane water desalination subject to feed salinity fluctuation,
Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research 48 (2009) 9581–9589.
[8] S. Veerapaneni, B. Long, S. Freeman, R. Bond, Reducing energy consumption
for seawater desalination, American Water Works Association Journal 99 (2007)
95–106.
[9] S. Avlonitis, K. Kouroumbas, N. Vlachakis, Energy consumption and membrane
replacement cost for seawater RO desalination plants, Desalination 157 (2003)
151–158.
[10] M. Busch, W.E. Mickols, Reducing energy consumption in seawater desalination,
Desalination 165 (2004) 299–312.
[11] R. Semiat, Energy issues in desalination processes, Environmental Science &
Technology 42 (2008) 8193–8201.
[12] K.V. Reddy, N. Ghaffour, Overview of the cost of desalinated water and costing
methodologies, Desalination 205 (2007) 340–353.
[13] M. Li, Minimization of energy in reverse osmosis water desalination using
constrained nonlinear optimization, Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research
49 (2010) 1822–1831.
[14] B. Van der Bruggen, L. Lejon, C. Vandecasteele, Reuse, treatment, and discharge of
the concentrate of pressure-driven membrane processes, Environmental Science
& Technology 37 (2003) 3733–3738.
[15] P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Optimized brackish water desalination plants with
minimum impact on the environment, Desalination 108 (1997) 19–26.
[16] K.S. Spiegler, Salt-water Purification, 2nd edition Plenum Press, New York, 1977.
[17] K.S. Spiegler, Y.M. El-Sayed, The energetics of desalination process, Desalination
134 (2001) 109–128.
[18] H.U. Sverdrup, M.W. Johnson, R.H. Fleming, The Oceans, Prentice-Hall, New York,
1942.
[19] S. Liang, C. Liu, L. Song, Two-step optimization of pressure and recovery of reverse
osmosis desalination process, Environmental Science & Technology 43 (2009)
3272–3277.
[20] M. Mulder, Basic Principles of Membrane Technology, 2nd edition Kluwer
Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1997.
[21] M. Wilf, Design consequences of recent improvements in membrane performance,
Desalination 113 (1997) 157–163.
[22] L.F. Song, M. Elimelech, Theory of concentration polarization in cross-flow
filtration, Journal of the Chemical Society-Faraday Transactions 91 (1995)
3389–3398.
[23] L.F. Song, J.Y. Hu, S.L. Ong, W.J. Ng, M. Elimelech, M. Wilf, Emergence of
thermodynamic restriction and its implications for full-scale reverse osmosis
processes, Desalination 155 (2003) 213–228.
[24] R.L. Stover, Seawater reverse osmosis with isobaric energy recovery devices,
Desalination 203 (2007) 168–175.
[25] A. Zhu, P.D. Christofides, Y. Cohen, Effect of thermodynamic restriction on energy
cost optimization of RO membrane water desalination, Industrial & Engineering
Chemistry Research 48 (2009) 6010–6021.
[26] L.F. Song, K.G. Tay, Performance prediction of a long crossflow reverse osmosis
membrane channel, Journal of Membrane Science 281 (2006) 163–169.