Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Water Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/watres

Review

Desalination and sustainability e An appraisal and current perspective

Veera Gnaneswar Gude
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University, MS 39762, USA

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

Article history: Desalination technologies have evolved and advanced rapidly along with increasing water demands
Received 11 July 2015 around the world since 1950s. Many reviews have focused on the techno-economic and environmental
Received in revised form and ecological issues of the desalination technologies and emphasized the feasibility of desalination
26 October 2015
industry as an alternative to meet the water demands in many water scarce regions. Despite these efforts,
Accepted 5 November 2015
Available online 12 November 2015
many perceptions about desalination processes hinder their applications for potential water supplies.
This article has two specific aims: 1) provide an overview of the desalination trends around the world
and discuss the sustainability components of desalination processes in comparison with other water
Keywords:
Desalination
supply alternatives; and 2) discuss case studies for desalination, and drivers and factors that influence
Sustainability sustainable desalination and other alternative water sources for desalination to increase our current
Environmental impacts understanding on the sensitive and futuristic issues of water supply and resource management options
Socioeconomics for drought facing regions. Although some of the facts and recent developments discussed here show
Water transport that desalination can be affordable and potentially sustainable, contributions that meaningfully address
Social acceptance socio-economic and ecological and environmental issues of desalination processes are urgently required
in this critical era of severe water stress for the present context and the future development of desali-
nation technologies.
© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents

1. Introduction (“oilewater” relation) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

2. Worldwide desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.1. Desalination technologies and renewable energy sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
2.2. Current trends in desalination industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
2.3. Recent developments in desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
3. Sustainability of desalination technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.1. Economics of desalination and other alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.1.1. Conventional water supplies vs. desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
3.1.2. Water transportation costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3.2. Energy, environmental, and ecological considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.1. Energy budget for a small RO desalination plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.2. Environmental issues of desalination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
3.2.3. Environmental emission comparison with large dams and wastewater systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
3.2.4. Ecological impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
3.3. Social issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4. Desalination out of desperation e case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
4.1. Desalination in California, USA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.1.1. Energy requirements for different water supply options in CA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.2. Desalination in Australia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
4.3. Desalination in Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.4. Desalination in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

E-mail addresses: gude@cee.msstate.edu, gudevg@gmail.com.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.012
0043-1354/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
88 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106

4.5. Desalination in Saudi Arabia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

4.6. Desalination market around the world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
5. Affordable desalination e a worldwide scenario . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6. What drives desalination? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7. Other alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
8. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

1. Introduction (“oilewater” relation) existing water supply options. Environmental (including energy
and ecological), economic and social aspects of desalination sys-
Water, in general, has evolved as a social and economic com- tems have been discussed. A few case studies have been provided to
modity in many parts of the world (Rogers et al., 1998, 2005) and it elaborate the role of desalination industry in this ever water-
has gained the socioeconomic status of energy sources such as “oil”. challenging and climate changing world.
Water, the primary basis for continued sustenance of all life, cannot
be exactly matched in its quality with any other element present on 2. Worldwide desalination
the Earth. While water and oil have some common features that are
critical to human civilization, a few special characteristics of water While desalination of saline waters has now been accepted as a
as a commodity make it even more precious for our sustainable promising alternative for freshwater source, the energy demands
development: 1) to handle the shortfall of oil resources, there are by the existing desalination technologies for water production
many alternative energy sources that can replace and fill the gap continue to pose challenges in their applications. In general,
between supply and demand, however, the same is impossible for desalination technologies require large quantities of high grade
water, water cannot be replaced with other resources, 2) oil re- thermal energy and/or prime quality electricity for freshwater
serves are finite and non-renewable (at least in human life-cycle separation which results in release of waste heat, greenhouse gas
scale) whereas water resources are renewable and follow certain emissions and concentrates (brine) into the environment. The
cyclic process in which it can neither be destroyed nor created and worldwide desalination capacity is increasing at a steadfast pace
its presence varies along the regions of the world, and 3) oil consuming equivalent amounts of fossil fuel sources with
shortage can be managed in many parts of the world by trans- concomitant greenhouse gas emissions. In 2007, the total installed
porting to the place of need due to its high monetary value for desalination capacity around the world was 47.6 million m3/d, in
economic benefit, which may not be an attractive option for water 2008 it was 58 million m3/d, and in 2011 it reached to 65.2 million
transportation and therefore water issues are local in nature and m3/d and then to 74.8 million m3/d in 2012 which is projected to
are dealt with local water and energy sources (Savenije, 2002). increase to 97.5 million m3/d by the year 2015 (Bennett, 2013).
The importance and value of water has been highly pronounced While global population increased in a linear trend over the past
in recent years due to ever-growing global population, rapid five decades, water production by desalination technologies has
industrialization and urbanization (Gude, 2015a). Over the past taken an exponential path. The production of 1000 tons (m3) per
century, the worldwide population has tripled while the water use day of freshwater by desalination technologies requires 10,000
or water withdrawals increased more than six-fold which suggests tons (toe) of oil per year and results in environmental degradation
increasing water consumption mostly driven by improved living through greenhouse gas emissions and brine discharges
standards and industrialization all over the world. Many regions (Kalogirou, 2005; Gude, 2015a). This situation can be termed as
realize the inadequacy of existing freshwater sources to meet ever “oil for water” or “water for non-renewable energy” sources or
growing water demands. In some cases, sufficient surface and water being named as “the new oil” indicating a pressing demand
ground water sources to even meet current demands for water on the exhaustible fossil fuel reserves around the world. This sit-
supplies are not available. Therefore, the need for utilizing saline uation creates social and economic impacts such as dependence
waters from the oceans and other brackish water sources and the on the oil rich foreign countries and economic instability for both
processes that convert saltwater into freshwater have become oil-rich and water-rich countries. Since oil rich countries will
rational and logical approaches in these regions (Gude and experience high demands for oil supplies and similarly water rich
Nirmalakhandan, 2010). Desalination technologies have been countries for water supplies.
developed over the past 50 years (Semiat, 2000). Desalination
technologies initially were both cost- and energy- prohibitive. 2.1. Desalination technologies and renewable energy sources
However, the impetus to install desalination plants in many coastal
and metropolitan cities for providing freshwater needs stems from: Well established desalination technologies can be classified as
i) the desperate necessity to support the water demands; ii) dra- thermal (phase change) and membrane (non-phase change) pro-
matic improvements in energy consumption by desalination cesses. Thermal processes consist of an evaporator and condenser
technologies; and iii) reduced investment and processing costs for to vaporize freshwater from the feedwater (seawater or brackish
desalination processes. water) under suitable operating temperatures and pressures and
The purpose of this paper is two fold. First, it provides an condense the same to produce freshwater while membrane pro-
overview of the desalination water industry around the world. Then cesses use a physical barrier such as a membrane to separate the
it discusses the sustainability components of desalination from the dissolved salts from the feed water by mechanical or chemical/
perspective of existing alternatives and current scenarios, followed electrical means using a membrane separator between the feed
by an update on the recent approaches to embrace desalination (seawater or brackish water) and product (potable water) (Gude
technologies in water scarce countries and the drivers and factors et al., 2010).
that influence desalination. This article attempts to provide a new Thermal desalination technologies include solar distillation (SD)
perspective on the desalination systems with reference to the such as solar stills and active and passive solar desalination
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Fig. 1. Desalination using renewable energy sources and coupling schemes.
systems; multi-effect evaporation/distillation (MED); multi-stage
flash distillation (MSF); thermal vapor compression (TVC) and
mechanical vapor compression (MVC). Membrane desalination
technologies include electrodialysis (ED) and reverse osmosis (RO).
Other hybrid processes combine both thermal and membrane
separation mechanisms in a single unit or in sequential steps to
produce potable water which are membrane distillation (MD) and
reverse osmosis combined with MSF or MED processes.
Some of the oil-rich countries derive most energy needs for
desalination from the fossil fuel sources at present, however un-
acceptable are their long-term consequences. These supplies are
expected to last in adequate quantities for the present and some
future generations. However, desalination scientists, engineers and
policy makers must consider sustainable alternative energy sources
for desalination and make use of this grace period to determine
what is scientifically possible, environmentally acceptable, and
technologically feasible. Since desalination technologies are energy
intensive, use of existing finite fossil fuel sources is not a sustain-
able and affordable approach. Instead, renewable energy supplies
derived from solar, wind, geothermal and wave (tidal) energy
sources show greater promise for long term sustainability of
desalination technologies for freshwater production. Fig. 1 shows
the relationship between various renewable energy sources and
desalination technologies (Gude, 2015a). To achieve maximum
utilization of energy sources, a suitable energy-desalination
coupling scheme should be identified. Some desalination technol-
ogies require the energy source on site and some do not have this
requirement (off-site). A few on-site desalination and renewable
energy schemes are (i) wind-MVC; (ii) solar thermal-TVC; (iii) solar
thermal-MSF; (iv) solar thermal-MED; (v) solar thermal-SD; (vi)
geothermal-TVC); (vii) geothermal-MSF or MED. Other off-site
schemes are (a) Wind-MVC; (b) Wind-RO; (c) Solar PV-RO; (d)
Solar PV-MVC; (e) Geothermal-MVC; and (f) Geothermal-RO. Other
renewable energy sources that could be of potential interest are
89
biomass based power generation, hydropower and ocean thermal
energy (Bennett, 2011a). Energy storage may become an important
element in these configurations to provide for reliable energy
supply that addresses the fluctuating intensity and intermittent
nature of the solar and wind energy sources. Tidal(wave) energy is
also intermittent in nature and it needs to be generated and stored
for later use by desalination systems. For more details on energy
storage applications in desalination, readers are referred to a
detailed and dedicated assessment presented elsewhere (Gude
2015a).
2.2. Current trends in desalination industry
In year 2005, the desalination technology share was dominated
by thermal technologies namely MSF and MED (up to 60%) followed
by membrane technologies (40%). This situation is now flipped with
membrane based processes accounting for more than 60% market
share and the remaining share by thermal and hybrid processes.
About 70% of the desalination plants installed after the year 2000
were membrane desalination plants (National Water Commission,
2008). Reflecting this trend, current desalination industry repre-
sents 63% reverse osmosis, 23% of MSF and 8% of MED processes,
and the reminder including electrodialysis and other hybrid pro-
cesses (Fig. 2A). The compound annual growth rate of the desali-
nation industry between 1997 and 2008 was 17% and it continues
to grow. The majority of the desalination capacity is owned by
municipalities for drinking water supplies and industrial utilities,
while the remaining portion is shared by power plants, irrigation,
tourism, military and some other applications (see Fig. 2B)
(Bennett, 2013).
The specific energy consumption for water production has
dramatically decreased from 20 kWh in 1970s (Von Medeazza,
2005) to 2.5 kWh in 2010 (Gude, 2011). Desalination costs have
also reduced significantly since mid-1990s to a cost less than
90 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Fig. 2. Desalination industry by technology, users, and cost components (Costs assume a $0.05/kWh electricity cost and an oil price of $60/bbl).
US$0.75 per m3 in 2008 (Fig. 2) (Bennett, 2011b). Technological
developments and lower specific energy consumption have alle-
viated the freshwater costs. Moreover, several amendments in
membrane and heat transfer materials, and manufacturing prac-
tices also contributed to the lower capital and operating costs with
higher productivities (Henthorne and Boysen, 2015). Water pro-
duction costs for dominant desalination technologies are shown in
Fig. 2C. The operating and maintenance costs are shown in detail as
well (see Fig. 2C) (GWI, 2012a, b). RO technology is competitive at
water costs compared to MSF and MED technologies (Kesieme et al.,
2013) in the current industry.
2.3. Recent developments in desalination
Desalination research has advanced significantly in recent years
in both membrane and thermal technologies. Several emerging
technologies such as forward osmosis, and semi-batch RO pro-
cesses have been discussed in membrane desalination technologies
while membrane distillation, humidification and dehumidification,
adsorption desalination, pervaporation are receiving increasing
interest (Subramani and Jacangelo, 2015). Advances in membrane
development include nanocomposite membranes, nanotube
membranes, aquaporin membranes, graphene based membranes.
Among these nanocomposite membranes have reached the
commercialization status while the others still require significant
work towards commercialization. Among the emerging desalina-
tion technologies, adsorption desalination, forward osmosis and
membrane distillation show promise for further developments and
will be discussed here briefly and for more information related to
other emerging and alternative desalination processes, the readers
are encouraged to refer to other recent contributions (Semiat,
2008; Gude et al., 2010; Gude, 2011; Elimelech and Phillip, 2011;
Penata and Garcia-Rodriguez, 2012; Gao et al., 2014; Ghaffour
et al., 2014; Gude, 2015a,b; and Subramani and Jacangelo, 2015).
Adsorption desalination is an emerging and promising tech-
nology for near future. Adsorption desalination and cooling (ADC)
cycles involve selective adsorption of water vapor from saline water
and desorption of the same activated by thermal regeneration.
Activated carbon, silica gel and zeolite materials have been utilized
as adsorption media due to their high surface area and porous
nature (Ng, 2003). Two beds are typically used in ADC cycles, one
for adsorption and the other for desorption. More details on the
operating principles can be found in Ng et al. (2014). Heat recovery
between the condenser and the evaporator is also possible in ADC
process (Ng et al., 2011; 2012). In addition, ADC hybridization with
MED process was also developed (Ng et al., 2011).
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Membrane distillation (MD) technology has over 50 years of
history. MD can be considered as hybrid technology which includes
both membrane and thermal characteristics of desalination pro-
cesses in which freshwater evaporates from hot saline feed water
on one side of the semipermeable membrane which is condensed
by the cooling water stream on the other side of the membrane.
Several configurations namely direct contact, sweeping gas, vac-
uum, and air-gap membrane distillation were developed over the
years for various desalination and other separation applications in
two main configurations of tube type or flat plate (Yarlagadda et al.,
2009, 2011; Camacho et al., 2013). Membrane distillation process
can be integrated with forward osmosis and reverse osmosis and
crystallization processes to enhance water recovery and/or energy
efficiency. Since MD is also an energy intensive process, solar or
geothermal sources or other waste process heat can be used as
heating medium. The economics can be found to be favorable in
some cases.
Most commonly used membranes in membrane distillation are
PTFE (polytetrafluoroethylene), PP (polypropylene), and PVDF
(polyvinyldenefluoride). PVDF has high hydrophobicity, thermal
resistance and oxidation resistance while PVDF has high mechan-
ical strength with good hydrophobicity and thermal resistance. PP
also has good thermal and chemical resistance. Membrane fouling
and wetting have been realized as major obstacles for MD process
advancement into commercial applications. Novel membranes or
materials have been introduced recently which include carbon
nanotubes, fluorinated copolymer materials and surface modified
polyethersulfone (PES) to increase the mechanical strength,
porosity and hydrophobicity. Energy and economic issues still
persist which prevent the technology from commercialization
although this technology has already been used in a wide range of
applications. The future research will need to focus on increasing
the water recovery, improving energy efficiency with cost mini-
mization objectives. Detailed discussions on various aspects of MD
technology have been well discussed by Camacho et al. (2013).
Among the membrane desalination technologies, forward
osmosis (FO) process is being actively pursued recently to increase
recovery of the water source. The FO process is based on the
principle that water (solvent) diffuses through a semi-permeable
membrane from low concentration region to high concentration
region by a natural process. The amount of water recovery is
facilitated by a high concentration draw solution and the extracted
water needs a separation step for final recovery. The separation
process can be expensive depending on the draw solution charac-
teristics. The first generation FO draw solution was water and
ammonium bicarbonate (NH4HCO3) mixture (McCutcheon et al.,
2005). Several innovations were reported recently such as inclu-
sion of high surface area and high osmotic pressure, hydrophilic
magnetic nanoparticles (Ling et al., 2010) and polyelectrolytes of
PAA-Na salts (Ge et al., 2012) for efficient recovery of draw solu-
tions. More details can be found in a detailed review by Chung et al.
(2012). For water reuse and desalination, FO could be an energy-
efficient process when compared with RO process provided that
the separation process is cost-effective. Current challenges include
development of highly efficient membranes, cost-effective recy-
clable draw solutes, and fouling control suggesting future research
needs in these areas.
Hybridization appears to be a feasible option for both mem-
brane and thermal desalination processes. Forward osmosis inte-
grated processes with membrane distillation and other low
pressure membrane processes are good examples for desalination
of groundwater, seawater and wastewater in membrane bio-
reactors (Cath et al., 2010; Linares et al., 2014; Li et al., 2015). The
goal of hybridization is to increase water recovery with low spe-
cific energy consumption. Integrating membrane distillation with
91
MVC technology could be beneficial as well (Swaminathan, 2015).
Recovery of rubidium from RO concentrate using MD and ion
exchange process scheme was also reported. (Naidu et al., 2015).
Zero liquid discharge (recovering water from the concentrates) for
eliminating liquid wastes is another recent development using
electrodialysis (electrodialysis metathesis, EDM) process for
brackish water treatment (Bond et al., 2011; Oren et al., 2010;
Davis, 2015). Most of the emerging technologies (MD, FO, ED,
EDM, and EDR) can be employed in zero liquid discharge schemes.
Energy and cost constraints are the major focus for research in this
area. Not much has been reported on the development of energy
recovery devices since these devices are already operating at
their maximum energy recovery potentials. However, enhanced
water recovery scheme incorporating brine mixing with feedwater
(in a closed-circuit configuration) to optimize both water and
energy recovery is an interesting option (Elimelech, 2015; Stover,
2015).
3. Sustainability of desalination technologies
Sustainability of desalination technologies can be assessed by
four components which comprise environmental, economic, social
and technological areas. In addition to the other key components,
technical feasibility becomes an important component in the
evaluation of desalination processes since they are chemical-, cost-
and energy- intensive contributing to environmental emissions and
technology has a vital role to play in their mitigation. The economic
impact depends on various factors such as water source availability
and its quality, type of energy source, process technology, labor,
operation and maintenance costs, geographical location, and finally
on the financial package. The environmental component includes
the greenhouse gas emissions (global warming and acid rain po-
tentials), brine and chemical discharges (eutrophication, water
quality and ecological impacts) into the receiving environments
and the ecological impacts associated with these environmental
emissions. While the social factors include social acceptance, con-
fidence in quantity and quality of the water sources and their de-
mands and the acceptance of desalination technologies and trust in
the water providers.
3.1. Economics of desalination and other alternatives
3.1.1. Conventional water supplies vs. desalination
Desalination clearly is not a universal solution for freshwater
supplies in all water scarce regions. But it has been proven to be a
viable alternative for communities facing severe drought and
increasing urbanization, industrialization and population growth
issues. Due to their energy and cost intensive nature, desalination
technologies are often looked down upon as a potential water
supply alternative or viewed as a last resort. However, some recent
concerns over climate change and water scarcity combined with
industrial development have led many scientists and engineers to
consider desalination processes as freshwater supply resources.
Desalination costs are influenced by various factors (Zander et al.,
2008). A comparison between the conventional (surface and
ground water sources) and desalination based technologies for
freshwater supplies may help the engineers and scientists realize
the pitfalls and the required improvements in desalination to make
them more acceptable. For instance, a cost comparison between
conventional (coagulation-flocculation-sedimentation and filtra-
tion scheme) and desalination (seawater reverse osmosis, SWRO)
based freshwater supply options shows that conventional water
supplies are only economical in regions where there are ample
sources of surface or ground waters within reasonable distances
(Table 1) (Gude, 2015b). The low-end water costs indicate these
92 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106

Table 1
Comparison of water costs for conventional and desalination water supply options (Voutchkov, 2011, 2014; Plappally, 2012).

Range Energy requirements (kWh/m3) Water production costs ($/m3)

Conventional water supplies Seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) Conventional water supplies Seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO)

Low 0.1e0.5 2.5e2.8 0.25e0.75 0.50e0.80

Medium 1.0e2.5 3.0e3.5 0.75e2.50 1.00e1.50
Higha 2.5e4.5 4.0e4.5 2.50e5.00 2.00e4.00
a
Conveyance and distribution costs included, even higher water costs are applied in some countries.

Fig. 3. Comparison of water costs for conventional and transported desalination water supply options.

conditions where the lowest costs for desalination can be reported
for brackish water sources. For this scenario, the desalinated water
costs are twice the conventional water supply costs but the specific
energy consumption is quite high (by 5e25 times). In another case
where communities experience significant industrial growth and as
a result population increase, the water supply costs can become
pricy as the technologies need to be updated to meet the increasing
demands and distribution systems need expansion. If brackish or
seawater desalination is considered as an option, the costs could be
reasonably adjusted due to large scale production and if seawater
desalination is considered, the specific energy consumption will be
reduced to a factor in the range of 1.4e3.0. In a case where local
water sources are inadequate and the population to be served is
fairly large, both the specific energy consumption and water
costs increase significantly (case studies to be discussed in later
sections). In this high-end water costs scenario, the local water
resources are not adequate to meet the demands and therefore, raw
water has to be imported from water-rich regions and costs also
reflect the water reuse and conservation efforts as well as trans-
portation requirements. If seawater desalination is considered as an
alternative for this scenario (assuming seawater is available within
reach), the specific energy consumption and water costs can be
more attractive when compared to conventional water supply
option.
3.1.2. Water transportation costs
Average water supply costs in various countries are shown in
Fig. 3. Citizens in some of the European countries are having to pay
much higher water prices than other developed countries. This has
different contexts which include policy, economic and environ-
mental. Water pricing policy should include the socioeconomic,
environmental, sectoral, and structural elements. In developing
countries such as China and India, water prices are heavily subsi-
dized which actually is not a sustainable measure (Sachs, 2013).
This promotes changes in user behavior mainly irresponsible use
and inefficient resource utilization. Many countries in the Europe
have revised their water pricing policies to account for the local
environmental and socioeconomic elements and to ensure the full
recovery of the costs incurred in water supply system. An ideal
water pricing policy should also provide proper incentives to
encourage efficient resource utilization leading to pollution
reduction and resource protection and its longevity. When sub-
sidies applied previously on the water prices were removed in
many of the European Union states, water prices were increased by
a very high factor (between 5 and 20). For example, water prices in
Hungary went up by 15 times when these subsidies were removed
(Water Prices-Policy issue, 2010).
According to a recent water tariff survey by Global water intel-
ligence (2014), global water costs have risen by 4.3% during the last
year with an average cost of $2.14/m3 for water and wastewater
services combined. The highest water tariff of $10.09/m3 was re-
ported for Aarhus, Denmark while other countries such as
Turkmenistan and Ireland did not have any tariffs. Ukraine expe-
rienced a steep increase (doubled the water tariffs) while the water
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
tariffs in Germany and Denmark have fallen significantly due to the
payoff of their investments in the water infrastructure. The water
prices in US have increased by 7% over the last year mainly part of
the planning for reviving aging infrastructure and combatting the
water scarcity due to drought especially in California (Bednorz,
2014).
In many urban areas, local water resources are reaching the
capacity limits in serving the populations, leaving transportation of
desalinated water as a source of water supply. A study estimated
costs of the transported freshwater from coastal desalination plants
(Zhou and Tol, 2005). For example, the city of Beijing in China could
transport freshwater from the nearest ocean source located at a
distance of 135 km and an overall elevation difference in trans-
portation of 100 m (see Fig. 3). The water supply cost for this source
was estimated as $1.13/m3. Similarly for Delhi, India, Riyadh, KSA
transported desalinated water costs will be $ 1.90 and $1.60 for
transportation distances of 1050 km, 350 km and elevation differ-
ences of 500 m and 750 m respectively. A comparison between the
conventional water supply costs and transported desalinated water
costs shows that the difference is acceptable since the desalinated
water costs have reached to the levels of conventional water sup-
plies in recent years but the transportation costs will be unavoid-
able. The difference in costs that stems from the transportation
distance cannot be considered as a hurdle since water must be
supplied to the communities at any cost.
3.2. Energy, environmental, and ecological considerations
3.2.1. Energy budget for a small RO desalination plant
Water production involves energy utilization and associated
environmental emissions (Gude et al., 2011). Energy is required at
various stages of water production (Plappally, 2012). Energy utili-
zation in large scale desalination plants can be well managed. For
example, in MSF and MED processes, the specific energy re-
quirements decrease with number of stages which is known as
performance ratio. The same applies to membrane processes where
addition of stages increases energy savings as well as water re-
covery and often energy budget is enhanced by energy recovery
devices. However, for small scale applications such as domestic
uses whether desalination is affordable depends on the overall
energy budget of the individual domestic unit. A comparison be-
tween the desalination energy utilization with that for other do-
mestic uses may provide a useful insight on the overall energy
budget of a domestic household. A typical family consisting of four
members in the Middle Eastern countries would have a water
consumption rate of nearly 18 m3/month (150 L per person for a
family of four) and uses about 1200 kWhe of electricity or other
equivalent energy sources per month (Semiat, 2008). A seawater
desalination process (RO process) can deliver the freshwater needs
at an energy utilization rate of 140 (kWhth)/month (fuel value)
excluding water transportation energy needs. The transportation
needs for an average distance of 1500 km/month can be met by a
family car with 160 L of oil consumption per month which is
equivalent to 1500 (kWhth)/month while the electricity needs (for
lighting, heating and cooling) are around 1200 kWhe/month which
are equivalent to 2667 (kWhth)/month (with a conversion effi-
ciency of 45%; 1200 kWhe/0.45). From this analysis, desalination
energy needs represent only 9.3% or 5.2% or 3.2% of the trans-
portation energy, electricity, and total domestic energy needs
respectively. This analysis clearly supports the use of desalination
process for affordable freshwater supplies at domestic levels.
3.2.2. Environmental issues of desalination
Desalination plants can have significant impact (direct or in-
direct) on the environment. Increased use of fossil fuels for
93
desalination may accelerate air pollution due to greenhouse gas
emissions which include carrbon monoxide (CO), nitric oxide
(NO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2) known to
have detrimental influence on local public health and environ-
ment (Younos, 2005). Desalination plants also utilize significant
amounts of chemicals for pretreatment of saline water and post-
treatment of desalinated water. Discharge of large amounts of
chemicals into the coastal waters results in ecological imbalances
and major impacts are usually observed in confined water bodies
(Lattemann and Ho € pner, 2008; Qdais, 2008). The concentrates
generated from brackish water via an RO process (with 60e85%
recovery) would have a concentration factor that is 2.5e7 times
higher and the same for the seawater RO (with 30e50% recovery)
would be between 1.25 and 2.0 (National Water Commission,
2008). Thermal desalination technologies have a wide range of
recovery ratios between 15 and 50% with a concentration factor
of 1.15 (due to cooling water mixing). Table 2 compares chemical,
biological and physical properties of the RO and MSF desalination
process concentrates (Chang, 2015; Roberts et al., 2010). Specific
seawater concentrate properties such as salinity, temperature,
and various chemicals used for coagulation, biocides for con-
trolling biological growth, anti-foaming, anti-corrosion and
cleaning chemicals cause serious environmental concerns for
their proper disposal. About 2 units of concentrate is generated
for every unit of desalinated water produced. Current practice of
handling these concentrates is to discharge them into the coastal
waters which could have detrimental effects on the aquatic life
and coastal environment. Brine/concentrate disposal technolo-
gies and management options are not as robust and practical as
desalination technologies and in many cases, brine discharge
poses major concerns for disapproval of new inland desalination
plants and some coastal desalination plants. Continuous recovery
and discharge of the seawater at a specific location may also
affect the quality of incoming supply water for desalination in
the long run. To mitigate major environmental concerns related
to brine/concentrate discharges, concentrates should be pre-
diluted with the seawater to minimize the effects related to
high salt concentrations. Temperature effects can be eliminated
by proper heat dissipation though cooling towers and by diluti-
ing with seawater. Removal or substitution of hazardous sub-
stances by implementing alternative treatment methods would
alleviate the negative impacts on the environment. In particular,
biocides such as chlorine may acutely affect non-target organ-
isms in the discharge site, should be replaced or treated prior to
discharge. Chlorine can be effectively removed by different
chemicals, such as sodium bisulfite as practiced in RO plants,
while sulfur dioxide and hydrogen peroxide have been suggested
to treat thermal plant reject streams. Filter backwash waters
should be treated by sedimentation, dewatering and land depo-
sition, while cleaning solutions should be treated on-site in
special treatment facilities or discharged to a sanitary sewer
system. Recovery of valuable chemicals such as gypsum from the
concentrates is an attractive option. Reuse of treated brackish
water in irrigation applications is another alternative to reduce
the demands for freshwater sources. Air pollution can be miti-
gated by using natural gas and renewable energy sources. Finally,
improving the desalination process schemes would enhance the
energetic and environmental performance of the desalination
processes. For instance, a SWRO plant with a capacity of 100
million m3 (per year) would require an electrical load of 50 MW
(Semiat, 2008). A desalination and power plant cogeneration
scheme would operate at a higher efficiency than separate
desalination and power generation plants. Because the cogene-
ration scheme operates based on the water supply demands
which are subject to dayenight and summerewinter fluctuations
94
Table 2
Potential ecological/environmental impacts of the RO and MSF desalination process concentrates (Lattemann and Ho
Physical properties
Salinity and temperature
Plume density
Dissolved oxygen (DO)
Biofouling control additives and by-products
Chlorine
Halogenated organics
Removal of suspended solids
Coagulants (e.g. iron-III-chloride)
Coagulant aids (e.g. polyacrylamide)
Scale control additives
Antiscalants acid (H2SO4)
Foam control additives
Antifoaming agents (e.g. polyglycol)
Contaminants due to corrosion
Heavy metals
Cleaning chemicals
Cleaning chemicals
resulting in an energy-efficient process scheme. Gas turbines can
provide higher efficiency with the use of high thermal energy
released in off-gases reducing the actual energy utilization
compared to other common uses.
V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
RO plants
Up to 65,000e85,000 mg/L ambient
seawater temperature
Negatively buoyant
If well intakes used: typically below
ambient seawater DO because of the
low DO content of the source water
If open intakes used: approximately the
same as the ambient seawater DO
concentration
If chlorine or other oxidants are used to
control biofouling, these are typically
neutralized before the water enters the
membranes to prevent membrane
damage
Typically low content below harmful
levels
May be present if source water is
conditioned and the filter backwash
water is not treated. May cause effluent
coloration if not equalized prior to
discharge
May be present if source water is
conditioned and the filter backwash
water is not treated
Not present (reacts with seawater to
cause harmless compounds, i.e. water
and sulfates; the acidity is consumed by
the naturally alkaline seawater, so that
the discharge pH is typically similar or
slightly lower than that of ambient
seawater). Typically low content below
toxic levels
Not present (treatment not required)
May contain elevated levels of iron,
chromium, nickel, molybdenum if low-
quality stainless steel is used
Alkaline (pH 11e12) or acidic (pH 2e3)
solutions with additives such as:
detergents (e.g. dodecylsulfate),
complexing agents (e.g. EDTA), oxidants
(e.g. sodium perborate), biocides (e.g.
formaldehyde)
€ pner, 2008; Dawoud and Al Mulla, 2012).
MSF plants
About 50,000 mg/L þ 5e15  C above
ambient
Positively, neutrally or negatively
buoyant depending on the process,
mixing with cooling water from co-
located power plants and ambient
density stratification
Could be below ambient seawater DO
because of physical deaeration and use
of oxygen scavengers
Approx. 10e25% of source water feed
dosage, if not neutralized
Varying composition and
concentrations, typically
trihalomethanes
Not present (treatment not required)
Not present (treatment not required)
Typically low content below toxic levels
(reacts with seawater to cause harmless
compounds, i.e. water and sulfates; the
acidity is consumed by the naturally
alkaline seawater, so that the discharge
pH is typically similar or slightly lower
than that of ambient seawater)
Typically low content below harmful
levels
May contain elevated copper and nickel
concentrations if inappropriate
materials are used for the heat
exchangers
Acidic (pH 2) solution containing
corrosion inhibitors such as
benzotriazole derivates
3.2.3. Environmental emission comparison with large dams and
wastewater systems
Construction of dams may increase access for water supplies but
these contribute to many environmental and ecological issues
Environmental/ecological impacts
Can be harmful; reduces vitality and
biodiversity at higher values; harmless
after good dilution
Can be harmful; can have local impact
on biodiversity
Very toxic for many organisms in the
mixing zone, but rapidly degraded,
THM e RO e MSF
Carcinogenic effects; possible chronic
effects, more persistent, dispersal with
current, main route of loss is thorough
evaporation
Non-toxic; increased local
turbidity / may disturb
Photosynthesis; possible accumulation
in sediments
Poor or moderate degradability þ high
total loads / accumulation, chronic
effects, unknown side-effects
Non-toxic in concentration levels; good
degradability
Copper e MSF (15e100 mg/L) e Low
acute toxicity for most species; high
danger of accumulation and long term
effects; bioaccumulation
Only traces metals; partly natural
seawater components; no toxic or long
term effects (except maybe for Ni in
MSF)
Highly acidic or alkaline cleaning
solutions that may cause toxicity
without neutralization, disinfectants
highly toxic at very low concentrations,
detergents moderate toxicity;
complexing agents very poorly
degradable
MSF cleaning solutions e Low pH,
corrosion inhibitor e Highly acidic
cleaning solutions that cause toxicity
without neutralization low toxicity;
poor degradability
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
(Timofti et al., 2011; Lindstrom et al., 2012; Subbaraman et al.,
2013). One of the main impacts is the loss of habitats since the
dams serve as barriers for fish migration from one place to the other
leading to extinction. Temperature and chemical composition of
water in the reservoirs is also different from the flowing waters. The
restricted and reduced flow downstream is more saline which
makes it less suitable for certain fish and aquatic species while
human activities upstream the reservoir could cause accumulation
of nutrients resulting in eutrophication (International Rivers). Also
anaerobic conditions in the deep reservoir water causes decom-
position of vegetation emitting greenhouse gases over large surface
areas which also causes higher water losses.
As a comparison, wastewater treatment by activated sludge
process releases 1500 tons of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide) for
every 1000 tons of wastewater treated. These emissions are not
generally considered greenhouse gas emissions (these are consid-
ered “natural emission cycles” by USEPA). In addition, greenhouse
gas emissions for the electricity use in wastewater treatment ac-
counts for 0.5e1.1 kg CO2 emissions per unit (m3) of wastewater
(Shrestha et al., 2011). Other emissions include NO2, N2O, H2S, and
CH4 from various process stages. On this basis, water production by
desalination plants should not be a prohibitive option. Moreover,
according to a recent report by the Australia's National Center of
Excellence for Desalination, the Perth desalination plant has been
providing freshwater for the residents in a most sustainable
manner supported by renewable energy sources with little or no
environmental impact. This plant discharges its brines into Cock-
burn Sound, a confined body of water. This plant has the most-
monitored brine outfall location in the world which has operated
for the past several years without any environmental harm. This is
an encouraging report for the current desalination industry.
3.2.4. Ecological impacts
Thermal desalination plants draw the source water equivalent to
8 or 10 times of the freshwater quantities produced in the plant
while the reverse osmosis plant draws 3 times the product (Morton
et al., 1996). Thermal desalination plants discharge brines at slightly
higher temperatures but their salinity is lower than membrane
desalination plants. It appears that thermal desalination plants
would have higher ecological impacts but the membrane desali-
nation plants use large quantities of chemicals for pretreatment,
control of membrane scaling and biofouling. The desalination
brines were previously reported in terms of their salt concentra-
tions ignoring the additive chemicals used for the above purposes.
Although these concentrations are quite small when compared to
salt concentrations, they have been reported to have direct or in-
direct impacts on the marine aquatic life in a few cases. Chlorine
concentrations should be closely monitored as well. Selection of an
ideal location with minimum ecological significance along with low
intake velocities is an important measure to mitigate the ecological
impacts (Morton et al., 1996). Desalination plants similar to other
water supply or treatment systems would have environmental and
ecological impacts during and after construction and in operation
stages (Lokiec, 2013). Several measures can be implemented to
minimize the environmental and ecological impacts.
It is often very difficult to compare the environmental impacts of
different water supply options such as surface water sources,
groundwater withdrawal, transported water across long distances
and brackish water or seawater desalination. These options present
complex situations for different locations which cannot be
normalized for all the geographical locations around the world. A
large body of literature is available on the ecological issues but it is
quite descriptive and qualitative rather than quantitative and many
studies assessed considering site-specific socioeconomic and
environmental parameters only. Some studies are deficient in
95
proper design details and statistical analyzes making conclusive
interpretation of results difficult (Roberts et al., 2010). Assessment
methodologies should be improved significantly to clearly identify
the ecological impacts (Roberts et al., 2010; Zhou et al., 2011).
Comprehensive environmental impact assessment using the
framework of integrated coastal management with large number of
indicators covering most of the critical issues would be helpful
which are generally overlooked under conventional assessments
(Liu et al., 2013).
Pre-treatment of source water is essential for preventing
biofouling in membrane processes. Some post-treatment including
disinfection can also cause some health concerns. Recent studies
report on the adverse impacts of disinfection byproducts (DBPs)
discharged through brine flows into the marine environment.
Disinfection byproducts formed in the pretreatment of membrane
processes from the organic compounds such as chloroform, bro-
moform, halophenols and other phenols can be detrimental to the
aquatic life (Agus and Sedlak, 2010). Chronic effect of bromoform as
low as 50 mg/L concentration on oyster larvae were reported while
the lethal dosage was reported to be as high as 1000 mg/L (Stewart
et al., 1979). Haloacetic acids are also toxic to species like aquatic
macrophytes and phytoplankton at relatively low concentrations
(e.g., monochloroacetic acid and monobromoacetic acid inhibited
growth in green algae Scenedesmus subspicatus at concentrations of
7 mg/L and 20 mg/L, respectively (Kuhn and Pattard, 1990)).
Bromide-rich brines can cause formation of trihalomethanes (Agus
et al., 2009; Krasner et al., 2006). Kim et al. (2015) provided a
detailed review of the impacts of disinfection byproducts and
several recommendations were made in this report. These include
systematic evaluation of full-scale seawater desalination plants for
various DBPs, impact of dissolved organic carbon, and other
chemical compounds such as antiscalants (e.g., BaSO4, CaSO4,
SrSO4, CaCO3, and silica) or antifoaming agents (e.g., acylated pol-
yglycols, fatty acids and fatty acid esters, silicon-based compounds)
and the interaction chemistry of the disinfection agents with these
chemicals.
3.3. Social issues
Techno-economic and environmental aspects of the desalina-
tion plants receive considerable attention when compared with the
social issues. Similar to environmental impacts, installation of
desalination plants could have significant social impacts during
construction and operational phases. Social issues for desalination
technologies include lack of public trust and confidence in water
provider, people's response to dust, noise, and visual amenity im-
pacts, beach and ocean-based recreational activity impacts,
disruption to the properties and activities along the pipeline,
impact on the future residential development, impact on the in-
dustrial development in the local area, impact on local economic
activity, risk to public safety, disruption of local businesses, and
impact of construction on road users.
A survey was conducted in Australia for four locations namely
Binningup, Myalup, Pamelup estate and Pipeline route with over
333 respondents. About 45% of respondents on this survey had a
very low or low levels of trust while 28% neither trust nor distrust
the water corporation. When asked about the installation of the
desalination plant, 55% of the respondents did not approve the
seawater desalination project while 23% neither approve nor
disapprove (SSDP, 2009). A good portion of the respondents
expressed concerns about the negative impacts on the marine
environment during both the construction and operation phases of
the project. Also a majority of the respondents mentioned about
the negative impacts on the recreational use of the beach. Other
significant opinions expressed over the positive impact that the
96 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
desalination project might have were about local economy during
both construction and operation phases. When asked for sugges-
tions to improve the desalination project, the respondents have
indicated a few important aspects such as noise reduction, visual
and environmental impacts. About 41% of the respondents sug-
gested that the desalination plant be located elsewhere which
might have the possibility for inclusion of water transportation
costs. Other suggestions included adaptive management, fostering
local employment and further research on environmental impacts.
Social issues with desalination technologies also vary with the
size of the community. Small communities might have lesser issues
when compared with large communities having large number of
issues (Werner and Scha €fer, 2007). For example, small communities
are usually located in remote locations where water supply infra-
structure itself does not exist and reliance on transported water is
common. For these communities, onsite water production via
desalination technologies might seem attractive. The social issues
or concerns with small communities are not insignificant in their
impact. For example, it is important to have skilled labor to main-
tain the desalination facilities. Especially if the community has a
limited access to the electric grid, renewable energy sources have to
be employed which again demand higher levels of expertise and
skills from the operators. Public education and participation is a
must. Where the communities did not accept desalination tech-
nologies as their water supply option, systems introduced in these
communities did not fare well. Where the social impacts were
neglected, such installations resulted in abandonment and
dysfunctional units. The community should also demonstrate the
commitment and ownership of the facility to ensure reliable water
supply both in quantity and quality. For small communities, oper-
ative risk and demand satisfaction also become important factors
connected with skill levels and sustainable behavior.
Sustainable behavior can have a positive impact on the success
of the desalination plants. Respectful use of water sources and
proper maintenance of the desalination plants is critical to suste-
nance of small communities. Sustainable behavior can be improved
by public education but it can have both positive and negative
impacts. Those people that already oppose the desalination tech-
nologies might become even stubborn in their perspective but the
others with uncertain opinion might embrace desalination option.
Another common issue is that communities, in many cases, do not
like to have a physical plant installed in nearby locations or cities
for various reasons often termed as “Not In My Backyard (NIMBY)”.
Construction of large desalination plants involves several in-
conveniences to the local communities including closure of recre-
ational facilities, local transportation, noise and air pollution and
Fig. 4. Existing and proposed desalination plants in California, surface water and brackish desalination plants in Florida and Texas.
aesthetical depreciation, inflow and outflow traffic transporting
materials.
Other foreseeable social impacts with desalinated water are
diverse. First, desalinated water is now introduced as a commodity
which might have both positive and negative impacts on the eco-
nomic and social status/reforms of a region or country. The fresh-
water costs through desalination are agreed to be affordable for
tourism purpose but the same is not acceptable as a domestic water
supply source in many regions which can be considered a social
injustice or a conflict with the most basic human right to have
access to clean and affordable water supplies. The former use can
also have a significant impact on the local energy sources and the
local environment.
4. Desalination out of desperation e case studies
While the value of water sources is underappreciated in many
parts of the world, water scarcity can present substantial challenges
for sustainable development. Water scarcity hinders economic
development, detriments human health, leads to environmental
degradation and promotes political and social instability. Measures
such as water conservation, improving efficiency of supply and
distribution systems could help but the contribution from these
efforts will not be substantial. New water supplies/resources must
be identified and developed for reliable and sustainable develop-
ment of future water supplies since global populations are expected
to increase by 50% by 2030. Global agencies (including WHO, UNDP,
UNICEF, etc.) expect that 24 of the least developed countries, many
of them along coastal areas without access to freshwater and
electricity, need to more than double their efforts to reach the
Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) for basic health, sanita-
tion, and welfare (Gude and Nirmalakhandan, 2010). It is impera-
tive for arid and oil-rich countries in the Middle Eastern region to
rely on desalination technologies for their freshwater supplies. But
some other parts of the world rich in water resources earlier are
now facing serious water source-supply issues. Climate change and
shifting population demographics, which exacerbate water short-
ages in certain areas of accelerated population growth, are adding
to rapid industrialization where reliable freshwater supplies are
being severely stretched. Seawater represents as an obvious
resource to tackle the resulting problem of water scarcity, especially
in coastal areas. Five case studies can be discussed here: the state of
California in the USA, desalination plants in Australia, sustainable
water supply scheme in Singapore, SoutheNorth water trans-
portation project and desalination trends in China, and the desa-
lination plants and water supply in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Fig. 5. California's continuous drought since 2011 and water supply options and relative energy consumption (kWh/m3) for southern California to battle the continuous drought and
simultaneous increase in water demands (water transport from the northern Californian dams and reservoirs, water transport from Colorado River, water reclamation for indirect
water reuse, and desalination of inland brackish water or seawater from pacific ocean and gulf of Mexico (Cooley, 2014).
98 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106

4.1. Desalination in California, USA takes nine times as much energy as surface water treatment and 14
times as much energy as groundwater production. This is based on
Large disparities exist within the United States water source estimated energy consumptions for seawater reverse osmosis
availability. The USA is relatively a water abundant country in ab- desalination process of 3.4 kWh.m3; conventional surface water
solute terms but there are significant regional differences: the treatment (coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation and filtration/
Southwest region of the country is arid and drought-prone while disinfection of 0.36 kWh/m3; and groundwater treatment of
the Northeast and Midwest areas have more precipitation and ac- 0.24 kWh/m3). These numbers are based upon the assumptions
cess to the Great Lakes (which make up the largest surface fresh- that the water sources are readily available within reasonable
water system on Earth). An additional 60.56 billion m3 per year of depths or distances. But this is not the case everywhere. For
water is required by 2020 for municipal and light industrial uses in example, southern California receives surface water from Colorado
USA (Cohen, 2007). In California alone, combined agricultural, ur- River through massive supply pipelines and conveyance systems.
ban, and environmental demands already exceed average supplies Since water has to be supplied through long distances with
by 1.23  109 m3 (326 billion gallons) per year while 50% of the geographic elevations, the energy costs are significant counting
nation's future population growth is forecast to occur in CA, FL, and between 14 and 19 percent of the residential energy costs which
TX e regions already experiencing water shortages. Fig. 4 shows the includes air conditioning. In contrast, a conventional intake system
map of existing desalination plants in California, Florida and Texas of a seawater reverse osmosis facility is only 15 to 20 percent of the
states in the USA. Florida leads the nation in the use of desalination total water production costs. These costs decrease significantly
technology, both in number of facilities using the process (more with the desalination plant capacity. Therefore, it can now be
than 140) and the quantity of potable water produced each day concluded that desalination could be a better alternative in areas
(1.95  106 m3 or 515 million gallons). This is reflective of efforts to where other traditional water supply schemes prove to be energy
meet the needs of the state's increasing population while avoiding or capital (cost) intensive and pose environmental issues.
overuse of traditional drinking water sources, particularly in coastal
areas of central and south Florida. The majority of the source water
4.2. Desalination in Australia
treated at desalination plants in Florida is not saltwater, but
brackish ground water or surface water. A few Florida water plants
Australia is the driest continent inhabited in the world
draw their source water from coastal seawater. The Tampa Bay
(Australian Government National Water Commission, 2005). It's
Seawater Desalination Facility is the only large-scale reverse
water supply sources are continuously being jeopardized due to
osmosis facility in the state using a coastal surface water source.
climate change patterns of severe droughts followed by forest fires
However, seawater desalination technology is being considered for
and floods. The continent experienced worst drought for many
application in other areas such as the Coquina Coast project in
years since early 2000s (Hall et al., 2011). Similar to California in
Flagler County in Northeast Florida where land-based and novel
USA, 10e15 years of low rainfall (El Saliby et al., 2009) what is
ship-based approaches are being considered. Texas is in a severe
known as “millennium drought” (most dry period in more than 100
drought, with groundwater supplies predicted to decline by 30%
years) has been the cause for the urgent rise of desalination plants
over the next 50 years. At the same time, the population of Texas is
in Australia. Fig. 6 shows the precipitation levels over the past 55
predicted to grow by 21 million, which will further stress the de-
years (1950e2005) (Bureau of Meteorology) and the desalination
mands for freshwater. With dwindling surface and ground water
plant locations and their capacities in Australia (Griffin, 2013). The
sources, it is necessary for Texas to examine alternative methods of
first major desalination plant was commissioned in 2006 in the city
providing freshwater. One option is to desalinate the abundant
of Perth which produces a 45 million m3 per year. A second desa-
supply of brackish groundwater.
lination plant produces about 50 million m3 per year which will be
expanded to double its capacity due to continued drought. Adelaide
4.1.1. Energy requirements for different water supply options in CA
installed a 100 million m3 per year plant and another one in the
The state of California has been experiencing a historical record
state of Queensland, a 48 million m3 plant is built. Above all, the
of drought that is considered worst in the past 1200 years. Fig. 5
most expensive and controversial plant was commissioned in
shows the drought trends in various parts of the USA and a
Melbourne at a capacity of 150 million m3/d ($3.6 billion invest-
recent noticeable severe drought trend for California. Texas is not
ment). But when the drought situation has been alleviated with
too far from this situation. The demand for water supplies in Florida
recent excess rainfalls some of the plants are not operating round
originates from the economic development and population growth.
the clock or some extended periods. However, by building this
This situation which is also common in some parts of Texas and
particular plant in the state of Victoria, the water supply security for
Florida forces many legal administrators, engineers and scientists
to consider desalination as a freshwater supply alternative since
inexhaustible sources of seawater are available along the coastal
lines for these states. In California, other alternatives of water reuse
and conservation practices have been implemented in recent years
to battle the drought conditions. Between April 2013 and April
2015, water use decreased by 13.5%. In April 2015, Gov. Jerry Brown
has urged a 25% percent reduction in urban water use. Residential
water use accounts for 12% of total use in the state and commu-
nities with highest per capita water use are forced to cut the daily
consumption by 36%. Further, the California's drought resulted in
announcing a $1 billion desalination plant, slated to begin con-
verting Pacific seawater into 0.19  106 m3 (50 million gallons) of
potable water daily by 2016 which will be the largest desalination
plant in the Western Hemisphere.
Energy requirements for different water supply options are
shown in Fig. 5 (NOAA, 2015). Seawater desalination in California Fig. 6. Drought in Australia, desalination plant locations and costs.
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106 99

the most populated city was enhanced albeit at high capital costs
which could have been reduced significantly if the decision-
construction process was delayed for over a year (Traves and
Davies, 2008; Water Services Association of Australia, 2008;
Water Services Association of Australia Ltd, 2013). Renewable en-
ergy sources such as wind farms have been utilized at many of
these plants (WSAA, 2011). The Australia's annual investment in
water supply and sources is about $2 billion per year equivalent to
$81 per capita per year (Australian dollars). The average residential
water use has decreased from 243 L per capita per day in 2003 to
191 L per capita per day in 2007 (WSAA, 2012). The country has
invested significantly in water conservation, water reuse, recycling,
and reclamation, and rainwater harvesting as a strategic plan for
mitigating the impacts of droughts as well as allocating large res-
ervoirs as water storage vessels. Although the recent drought
conditions disappeared, these will return in time and Australia is
prepared with its sophisticated infrastructure and management
policies to provide sustainable water supplies with confidence
(WSAA, 2013; Radcliffe, 2015).
Desalination is not the ultimate solution for many communities
in Australia where it can have detrimental environmental impacts
on the concentrate receiving environment. Water recycling through
indirect potable reuse is a potential option to reduce the need for
high desalination capacities. However, there could be a high op-
position from the local communities. As a part of the efforts to
convince the public and encourage high social acceptance for water
recycling alternatives (indirect potable reuse) over desalination
(because treatment costs and energy requirements for wastewater
recycling are lower) for water source supplies, several campaigns
were implemented. A comparison between the two options was
prepared as shown in Table 3 (National Water Commission, 2008).
Despite several successful attempts on the public educational
campaigns, indirect potable reuse was an unacceptable option for
public leaving desalination as the primary technology for water
supply.
high end use. The country has set a target of becoming water self-
sufficient by the year 2061. To achieve this, a sustainable strategy
with four major elements has been adopted (Fig. 7). These are
‘water catchment (i)’, ‘reclaimed water (ii)’ ‘desalination (iii)’ and
‘imported water (iv)’ (Xie, 2006; Khoo, 2009; Luan, 2010). The local
water catchment area includes a comprehensive network of drains,
rivers and canals and 17 reservoirs which occupy about 65% of the
land area. This is planned to be enlarged to 90% of the land area by
2061 to increase the local water catchment for beneficial uses
making this project the largest in the world for an urban setting
(Wong, 2011). Reclaimed water also known as “NEWater’ is a
recycled water program that collects wastewater effluents and
processes it through advanced treatment schemes such as mem-
brane filtration (ultrafiltration followed by reverse osmosis) and UV
disinfection for reuse purposes. This treatment scheme provides
water quality which exceeds the WHO (world health organization)
guidelines for drinking water quality. This NEWater system
network consists of four major used water treatment plants (Bedok
e 86,000 m3/d; Kranji 55,000 m3/d; Ulu Pandan e 150,000 m3/
d and Changi e 230,000 m3/d) which meets up to 30% of the cur-
rent nation's water demand. The third element is the desalination
processes installed to treat seawater to produce freshwater at two
major desalination plants with a total capacity of 460,000 m3/d but
only operating at 230,000 m3/d which is 10% of the current water
needs. The fourth and the most significant water supply option for
Singapore is imported water. Nearly 1.1 million m3/d of water is
transported from Malaysia through causeway system. The 2061
water self-sufficiency strategic plan for the country is to provide for
100% water needs independently by the first three strategic ele-
ments -by increasing the NEWater supplies to 50% and desalination
capacity to 30% and local water catchment to 20%. Singapore also
invested significantly into programs to enhance the efforts of public
education and water conservation (Tortajada and Joshi, 2013).
4.4. Desalination in China

4.3. Desalination in Singapore
Singapore (land area e 700 km2 and annual precipitation e
2400 mm) is home to 5.5 million population with a water demand
of nearly 2 million m3/d. The country depends on its water needs on
Johor, Malaysia protected by a bilateral agreement made in 1961
(Tan et al., 2009). It's annual investments in water supplies and
sources are $ 609 million equivalent to $117 per capita per day. The
average water tariffs are about $1.88 per m3, and $2.38 per m3 for
550 of the China's 600 largest cities are experiencing severe
water stress today listing the country as one of the 13 water poorest
countries in the world (Macedonio et al., 2012). China is home to
20% of the world's population but only 7% of its freshwater (Sachs,
2013). Per capita water resources available in China are 2200 m3
which places China at 121st among other nations in the world and
this volume is expected to decrease to 1700 m3 within the next 50
years (Liu and Chen, 2001). Similar to the USA, China's precipita-
tion, surface and groundwater supplies are concentrated in the

Table 3
Comparison of desalination and water recycling schemes in Australia (National Water Commission, 2008).

Item Desalination Water recycling

Example Kwinana Desalination Plant, Perth, Western Australia Western Corridor Recycling Project, Queensland
Plant location Kwinana Industrial Precinct Located at existing wastewater treatment plants
(Luggage Point, Bundamba, Gibson Island, Oxley)
Intake structure Sub-surface collector wells Collection basin prior to discharge pump station
Intake structure capacity 2e2.5  product water capacity 1.2e1.3  product water capacity
Feed water Seawater Secondary treated municipal wastewater
Total dissolved solids, 26,000e40,000 mg/L 600e1500 mg/L
in feedwater (TDS)
Treatment process Process mechanical screening, chemical flocculation and filtration Mechanical screening followed by chlorination and
to remove microorganisms, suspended solids and particles membrane filtration to control biological fouling and
Reverse osmosis to remove dissolved solids remove microorganisms and particles
Chlorination, chemical stabilization and fluoridation to prepare Reverse osmosis to remove dissolved solids
water for distribution system Advanced oxidation (UV þ H2O2 or Ozone) to disinfect
parasites and remove small organic molecules
Chlorination and chemical stabilization to prepare
water for discharge in the environment
Product distribution Return to large node in drinking water distribution system Supplied to power stations and used to recharge
Wivenhoe dam
100 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Fig. 7. Sustainable water supply strategic plan for Singapore: (i) local catchment areas; (ii) wastewater reclamation and reuse; (iii) desalination; and (iv) water transport (map of
catchment areas in the inset).
South, whereas the Northern part of the country is drought-prone.
About 80% of the surface and groundwater is available in Yangtze
River and southern parts of china where 54% of the population
resides in nearly 35% area of the whole country (Zhou and Tol,
2004). The water scarcity issues in northern China have been
complicated by the upstream and downstream use conflicts and
political issues (Cai, 2008). The Chinese government is attempting
to address this uneven distribution through an ambitious $60
billion South-to-North water transfer project (Liu and Zheng,
2002), which aims to divert water from the Yangtze River to drier
regions in the North, where major cities like Beijing and Tianjin are
located with the hopes of attaining economic prosperity and sta-
bility in more populous northern region where the per capita share
of regional water has declined to near-crisis levels (shown in
Fig. 8A). The water transport system consists of an extensive system
of tunnels, dams, reservoirs and canals, all connecting and diverting
water from China's largest rivers e including the Yangtze, Yellow
and Hai River. At its peak capacity, the entire system can move
nearly 45 billion m3 of water annually. First proposed by Mao
Zedong in 1952, the project was officially approved in 2002. The
first stage of construction, the 717 mile (1155 km) long eastern
route, was completed in 2013. This project had to face many criti-
cisms due to enormous environmental damage that it created
through mining, construction and environmental pollution and
increased potential of floods and droughts in some areas and with
displacement of many people from their homes (Futuretimeline,
2015). After all this, it appears that by 2050 southern China may
not be in a position to transport water to the northern region since
the region has already begun to experience drought weathers
leaving desalination an option. The central government's Special
Plan for Seawater Utilization calls for producing 3.05  106 m3 (807
million gallons) a day of purified seawater by 2020 e roughly
quadruple the country's current desalination capacity. Fig. 8B
shows the energy requirements for various water supply options
including groundwater supplies, local and distance water trans-
portation and brackish or seawater desalination in China. It is clear
that seawater desalination requires about 9 times higher energy
requirements when compared to groundwater supply source.
However, it can be noticed that the desalination costs have been
reduced significantly over the recent years from 12.5 RMB/m3 in
1995 to 5 RMB/m3 in 2015 (Fig. 8C) while the desalination market
revenues increased steadily over the recent years (Fig. 8D) despite
the energy requirements and associated environmental emissions
(Peng, 2015).
4.5. Desalination in Saudi Arabia
Saudi Arabia withdraws about 20,000  106 m3 annually despite
its annual renewable water capacity of only 2400  106 m3
(Kajenthira et al., 2012). It is the largest country in the world
without rivers and lakes (Llamas and Custudio, 2003) and has a
population of 25.7 million. About 80% of the water supplies are met
with the non-renewable groundwater sources which require
desalination due to high salinity. Saudi Arabia has the largest share
(17%) of the worldwide desalination capacity. The country needs to
increase the daily desalination capacity by 6  106 m3 which may
cost up to 200 billion dollars (Mezher et al., 2011). Between 2012
and 2015, the desalination capacity was expected to grow by 9.5
percent annually. The Saline Water Conversion Corporation (SWCC)
plans to invest $11.7 billion in capital expenditures and $4.5 billion
in operations expenditures through 2020, highlighting the vast
opportunities for desalination technology development and engi-
neering, procurement, and construction firms (KSA, 2013).
Saline Water Conversion Corporation in Saudi Arabia con-
structed the world's largest desalination in Ras Al-Khair, an in-
dustrial city with a capacity of 0.728  106 m3 per day in 2014
(Water technology 2015a). The hybrid desalination plant consists of
8-MSF units and 17-RO units. The MSF units have a capacity of
0.606  106 m3 per day while the RO units hold a capacity of
0.257  106 m3 per day. This project also houses 2650 MW com-
bined cycle power plant. The project construction cost was SAR
27bn which is approximately $7.2bn (Water technology 2015b).
There are six major projects expected to tender during the
2015e2016 timeframe. The largest is the Jubail thermal and reverse
osmosis (hybrid) project estimated to be worth US$ 3 billion (GWI,
2015). The remaining five projects are all saline water conversion
plants utilizing reverse osmosis; they include Rabigh Phase 4, US$
1.2 billion; Umluj SWRO, US$ 30 million; Aqeer SWRO, US$ 20
million; and, South Dhahran SWRO, US$ 200 million. For this to
happen, developments in engineering services, membrane and
thermal desalination technologies and efficient utilization of solar
energy should be pursued. Wastewater treatment also needs
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106 101

Fig. 8. Water transfer project in China. (A) Red lines show the southenorth water transportation project for transferring water from Yangtze River to Beijing and Tianjin major cities;
(B) energy requirements for various water supply options; (C) trends in desalination costs between years 1995 and 2015; and (D) desalination market value over the recent years.
(For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

investments of nearly $23.9 billion in capital expenditures and
$11.9 billion in operations expenditures between 2012 and 2020.
Saudi's wastewater treatment capacity is expected to expand by
12.8 percent annually as well. Water reuse should be given a high
priority considering the water scarcity and the economic growth.
Saudi Arabia is the third-largest per capita water user in the world
(SAMC, 2010), yet currently treats and reuses only 18% of the total
wastewater produced (Al-Musallam, 2006; U.S.-SABC, 2009, 2010;
Kajenthira et al., 2011). Kajenthira et al. (2012) suggested that
implementation of increased water conservation and reuse across
the oil and natural gas sectors could conserve up to 29% of total
industrial water withdrawals at costs recovered over 0e30 years,
depending on the specific improvement. This study also indicated
that increasing wastewater treatment and reuse in six high-altitude
inland cities (Macca, Taif, Medina, Khamis, Abha, and Riyadh) could
save a further $225 million (2009 dollars) and conserve 2% of Saudi
Arabia's annual electricity consumption.
4.6. Desalination market around the world
The top desalination markets between 2010 and 2013 were
listed as Saudi Arabia ($1e5.16 billion); USA ($2e4.42 billion) and
Australia ($3e3.24 billion) followed by Israel, Kuwait, Libya and
UAE at $2.5 billion; $2.480 billion; $2.44 billion; and $2.2 billion
respectively (GWI, 2010). China and India, the most populated
countries would have unprecedented demand for the desalination
industry to meet the ever growing water supply needs. These
countries were at $1.52 billion and $1.3 billion respectively fol-
lowed by Chile with $1.2 billion. Other countries in most need for
desalination are Caribbean Islands, Morocco, Spain, Oman, Iran,
Egypt, Bahrain, Turkey, Algeria and Jordan which completes the top
20 desalination markets in the recent years. Advancement of
desalination industry also promotes the economic growth and local
employment security for the nations. In many of these countries
the need for desalination industry arises since there are simply not
adequate freshwater sources or they are heavily polluted rendering
them not suitable for potable uses.
5. Affordable desalination e a worldwide scenario
At present, one third of the world population is lacking access to
clean water and by 2025, 1.8 billion people will experience absolute
water scarcity, and two thirds of the global population will be living
under water-stressed conditions (Macedonio et al., 2012). Many
parts of the world are reaching a critical situation of water scarcity.
Water scarcity is classified into physical water scarcity and eco-
nomic water scarcity (Rijsberman, 2006). Physical water scarcity
means that there are simply no adequate water resources to meet
the current needs. The economic water scarcity refers to a situation
where the water sources are available in abundance (water
resource availability is higher than the withdrawal, or the resource
capacity is underutilized) but the mechanisms to acquire access to
these sources have not been established or are influenced by hu-
man, institutional, and financial capital limitations. This could be
because of the economic issues, polluted water resources and po-
litical and social and climatic issues. In most cases the economic
water scarcity refers to a situation where the affordability to obtain
clean water has been jeopardized due to economic issues. Physical
102 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
water scarcity is currently experienced in southwestern region of
the United States which includes California, Arizona, New Mexico
and Texas and Mexico, Middle Eastern and North African countries
(MENA region) and southeastern European countries, Southern
India, Pakistan, Mongolia, Afghanistan, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and western Australia. Economic water
scarcity is experienced in central and Latin America including
Caribbean region, South and central Africa, North India, some parts
of China and some other Asian countries. In some of these coun-
tries, desalination supported by renewable energy sources could be
implemented as a sustainable option but many non-technological
barriers need to be overcome.
As it was discussed before, the energy requirements for desali-
nation have fallen significantly in recent years. Although the energy
budget for domestic desalination units appears to be reasonable,
many communities around the world cannot afford these energy
demands and associated costs. Fig. 9 depicts the desalinated water
affordability around the world. The vertical axis presents the cost
per capita of desalinated water to all at all times. The horizontal axis
depicts the ability to pay for water and it increases from left to right.
Four basic quadrants can be identified. The bottom right quadrant
depicts situations where the costs of supplying water in a sus-
tainable manner are low, and countries' ability to pay is high. These
situations are limited largely to rich humid regions, particularly in
Western Europe and North America. In these countries the main
cost may pertain to assuring adequate water quality and pollution
prevention. The top right quadrant pertains to regions where the
per capita cost of clean water supply is high, but as these regions are
rich these costs are still only a small share of the total gross national
Fig. 9. Water desalination affordability around the world (These water tariffs include water and wastewater fixed costs, water variable costs, wastewater variable costs and total
sales tax (GWI)).
product (GNP) per capita. Thus countries in this quadrant, such as
the arid but rich Gulf oil states, can afford the high cost of clean
water supply even when this includes large-scale seawater desali-
nation. These countries may enjoy the desalinated water, despite
their extreme first order scarcity due to availability of ample non-
renewable energy sources and inexhaustible seawater sources.
The bottom left area depicts poor regions with ample water re-
sources. In these regions the cost of desalinated water supply may
be low, but as the GNP is also low even these comparatively low
costs may become a significant burden. These countries do not
suffer from first-order scarcity. Because of second-order scarcity
and particularly low financial capacity, desalination may not be an
attractive alternative. Examples of such countries would include
Congo, Madagascar, or Bangladesh. The worst situation, however, is
depicted by the upper left quadrant. This is the situation where the
per capita cost of sustainable clean water to all people at all times
would require high cost per capita, and in which such costs would
be a large share of the per capita GNP. Thus, regions in this situation
may find that the costs of sustainable clean water are unaffordable
for their citizens and especially through desalination technologies.
The countries most prone to this situation are, naturally, poor
countries in arid or semi-arid regions. Such countries may have had
relatively high adaptive capacity, as demonstrated by traditional
societal institutions and infrastructures, and yet may not have the
financial resources to cope with rapid increases in population or
pollution due to a weak economic base. Desalination alternative
may not be meaningful for many low income countries due to very
low GNP where other meaningful indicators could make more
sense (Feitelson and Chenoweth, 2002).
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Comparison of current worldwide water supply costs could
provide a different perspective as shown in Fig. 9. Many developed
countries such as Canada and USA and many European countries
have high freshwater costs. Water supply costs (tariffs including
wastewater disposal) of as high as 9.7 $/m3 were also reported (e.g.,
Copenhagen, Denmark). These data are collected from GWI data-
base (GWI, 2014). The water costs in highly populated (such as
China, India, and Pakistan and Bangladesh) and poor countries are
barely minimum and often water supplies are available free of cost.
The citizens in these countries may not be willing to pay the high
costs of desalinated water. It is interesting to note that the water
costs (mostly supplied by desalination processes) in some of the
Middle Eastern countries are very low with Jeddah in Saudi Arabia
charging about 0.03 $/m3 (Zetland and Gasson, 2013). The water
prices are heavily subsidized in some of these countries despite the
use of large quantities of non-renewable energy sources. A reason
for this could be that desalination plants are often combined with
power production schemes reducing the water costs significantly.
The governance of the country also influences water costs. How-
ever, there is no clear relationship between the wealth and the
water costs of a nation. For example, the water costs for Gent,
Belgium are 7.43 $/m3 in 2011 but the water prices in Egypt are
$0.04/m3. The low water prices could possibly be related to low
capital and labor costs in Egypt. However, based on the GNP,
Belgium has a GNP per capita which is 14 times higher than that for
Egyptians while the water costs are 188 higher for Gent, Belgium
(Zetland and Gasson, 2013).
6. What drives desalination?
Considering the freshwater costs from desalination alone, they
have dramatically decreased over the past decades due to the im-
provements in process schemes, materials for construction and
other significant improvements in membrane materials, water flux,
durability and costs and energy recovery possibilities. However, the
desalination costs and market implementation are affected by
external factors such as population growth, climate change, envi-
ronmental emissions, and economic downturn or growth
(Masciangioli et al., 2004). Many countries will be affected by these
external factors in their ability to afford for desalinated water.
Fig. 10 shows how external factors affect the per capita costs and
the ability to pay for desalinated water costs. Other factors that
influence the desalination industry positively for a coastal com-
munity will be saltwater intrusion issues due excess groundwater
pumping, industrial expansion, population growth, tourism in-
dustry growth, cheap energy sources (as in oil rich countries)
subsidized environmental emissions fee, and most importantly
water shortages and continued drought periods. The factors that
might inhibit the growth of the desalination market will be the
Fig. 10. Energy, environmental and economic drivers of desalination industry.
103
environmental opposition (concern for greenhouse gas emissions
and marine environment), water reuse and recycling programs,
high capital costs, high energy costs, and political instability and
fluctuating drought period which will not allow for a critical eval-
uation of the future needs of a community. Cost is perceived to be
the major hurdle for the desalination plants to produce freshwater.
It is estimated that freshwater supply costs could be 5 to 6 times
higher even with favorable financial package. Despite these high
costs, several desalination projects are currently being planned to
replace some part of the water supply that Southern California now
draws from the Colorado River. Because the cost analysis shows
that desalinated water is cost-effective for this region which is
stricken by continuous droughts recently.
7. Other alternatives
Other potential sources for water supplies are brackish water
sources available in local aquifers, produced waters from oil and gas
industries and recycled water from wastewater treatment plants.
These can be considered as non-conventional water sources for
water desalination in that the water composition and salt levels are
significantly different from seawater sources and the technologies
required to treat these are also different. For example, ground
(brackish) water has a greater tendency to precipitate sulfate (for
example, gypsum), carbonate (for example, calcite), and silicate
scales. The dissolved solids concentration of saline groundwaters
typically is less than that of seawater. The tendency of saline
groundwater to form scale is important to its suitability for use in
desalination. Saline groundwater also may contain some constitu-
ents, such as arsenic, elevated radioactive compounds, and dis-
solved organic material, at greater concentrations than in seawater.
Although a relatively large body of information exists on the
chemical behavior of solutes within desalination systems, relatively
little research has been undertaken on the chemical suitability of
water from various aquifers as sources for desalination.
Brackish water desalination may have less environmental im-
pacts based on life cycle analysis. This is mainly due to the fact that
some of the brackish water sources have lower salt concentrations
which reduces the energy demands for salt separation and asso-
ciated environmental emissions (Mun ~ oz and Fern andez-Alba,
2008). Energy and environmental impacts may vary by location
because brackish water sources have a wide range of dissolved
solids concentrations (between 1000 mg/L to 150,000 mg/L). For
example, seawater desalination may have an energy and air emis-
sion footprint of 1.5e2.4 times larger than that of imported water in
California which can reduce the environmental impacts of brackish
water desalination (between 53 and 66%) in comparison. If the
annual water needs (326 m3) of a typical Californian were to be met
with imported water, it will require 5.8 GJ of energy with associated
360 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions while seawater desalination
may require 14 GJ and release 800 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions.
Interestingly, water desalination using solar thermal energy has
lower greenhouse gas emissions than that of imported or recycled
water as discussed in Stokes and Horvath (2009).
Although brackish water sources are attractive for desalination,
it should be noted that these sources are not infinite unlike
seawater sources. Increased extraction of groundwater may result
in a situation termed as “water mining” due to the fact that
groundwater aquifers recharge at a much slower rate than they are
consumed. This may result in land subsidence. If brackish
groundwater sources are exploited for domestic water supplies,
continued extraction of brackish water in coastal communities may
result in saltwater intrusion into groundwater aquifers which
eventually increases energy consumption for the desalination
process along with environmental emissions.
104 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Produced waters are different from groundwater sources since
they are a byproduct of various energy production operations and
its extraction is inevitable. These can serve as excellent sources for
desalination processes. However, the salt concentrations are often
10e20 times higher than the seawater sources but vary between
100 mg/L and 400, 000 mg/L of total dissolved solids (Guerra et al.,
2011). This fact poses significant limitations for existing desalina-
tion technologies because they are not designed for this type of
brackish water source. Other significant issue with produced wa-
ters is that they contain high concentrations of organic compounds
which may also affect the performance of desalination
technologies.
Water reuse is emerging as a promising non-conventional water
resource (Molinos-Senante et al., 2011). However, proper assess-
ment of reuse options are essential to determine its suitability. As
shown in Table 3, comparison between the water recycling process
treatment and the desalination process schemes shows that
advanced treatment of wastewater effluents need additional pro-
cess steps to deliver water quality suitable for most indirect potable
uses (National Water Commission, 2008). This indicates the po-
tential for higher environmental emissions associated with them.
In the case of desalination plants, the salt concentrations are
generally higher and with water recovery this is expected to be
even higher. However, with proper dilution and pre-treatment of
the brine discharge from the desalination outfalls, the ecological
and environmental impacts can be mitigated.
8. Conclusions
Once considered as energy- and cost-intensive technology for
freshwater production, desalination has now become a promising
alternative for providing freshwater needs around the world. The
desalination industry is projected to experience unprecedented
growth concurrently with population growth and rapid industri-
alization all over the world. The following areas need to be given
proper consideration while planning for new desalination plants:
 Desalination costs have declined significantly for both thermal
and membrane technologies over the past decades. Significant
cost reductions have been achieved, especially for RO technol-
ogy, favored by growth rate, plant capacity, higher permeation
rates and improvements in membrane materials. However,
further reduction in desalinated water costs in the future is quite
a challenging task despite the continuous improvements in
membrane and energy recovery technologies since the equip-
ment, raw materials, and energy costs are rapidly rising. Hence,
greater understanding of water scarcity scenarios and discov-
eries targeting local supply issues will benefit from strategic
planning and management. Further, technological advances in
novel membrane development, process configurations such as
closed circuit RO and process hybridization of membrane and
thermal processes are crucial for developments in the near
future.
 More research efforts should be dedicated to development of
desalination technologies such as membrane distillation and
adsorption desalination that can efficiently harvest solar energy
and waste process heat for water production. Process manage-
ment schemes should not only focus on minimizing specific
energy consumption but also on enhancing water recovery
through various options.
 Environmental regulations for desalination plants are being
implemented more strictly in countries like the United States,
the European Union and Australia which might add to the
desalination costs, particularly due to high project permitting
requirements and fee. However, if the environmental pollution
from the desalination plants can be reduced by utilizing
renewable energy sources and by modifying the process
schemes to use less toxic chemicals, freshwater production
through desalination systems can become an affordable, sus-
tainable, and environmentally-benign approach in the near
future.
 The environmental, economic and social components of desa-
lination sustainability are similar in nature to other water sup-
ply and wastewater treatment alternatives. As the economic and
social issues related to desalination are more flexible in nature,
environmental and ecological issues need more non-biased and
comprehensive investigations. For regions where desalination is
the most feasible alternative, the environmental issues demand
serious consideration.
 A new perspective needs to be adopted to deal with the water
scarcity issues and the crisis around the most drought stricken
areas to promote desalination as alternative or primary water
supply process. Engineers and scientists along with the policy
makers and regulators are urged to exercise caution in evalu-
ating the desalination process as an option for meeting the
water demands.
 A well-informed, unbiased and objective assessment with
reference to other available options is necessary to design a
scientifically feasible, economically affordable and environ-
mentally friendly water supply scheme for a local community.
This can only become possible with availability of more detailed
studies addressing ecological and environmental impacts of
desalination processes at small and large scale applications. The
effects of various chemicals used in Pre- and Post-treatment of
desalination process streams on the consumers as well as the
receiving water bodies should be studied in detail.
 Since desalination is not a sustainable alternative for all situa-
tions, other alternatives such as water reuse and rainwater
harvesting should also be actively pursued because these op-
tions carry a different set of environmental benefits.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported the Department of Civil and Envi-
ronmental Engineering (CEE), the Bagley College of Engineering
(BCoE), and The Office of Research and Economic Development
(ORED) at Mississippi State University. The author acknowledges
the funding support from the United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (USEPA) through P3 (People, Planet, and Prosperity)
Phase I Awards SU835721 and SU835722.
References
Agus, E., Voutchkov, N., Sedlak, D.L., 2009. Disinfection by-products and their po-
tential impact on the quality of water produced by desalination systems: a
literature review. Desalination 237, 214e237.
Agus, E., Sedlak, D.L., 2010. Formation and fate of chlorination by-products in
reverse osmosis desalination systems. Water Res 44 (5), 1616e1626.
Al-Musallam, L., 2006. Water and wastewater privatization in Saudi Arabia. In:
SAWEA 2006 Workshop: Privatization and Outsourcing of Water and
Wastewater.
Australian Government National Water Commission, 2005. http://www.water.gov.
au/publications/AWR2005_Level_2_Report_May07.pdf
Bednorz, E., 2014. Global Water Prices Outstrip Inflation as Scarcity, Neglect and
Public Finances Catch up with Customers. http://www.prweb.com/releases/
2014/10/prweb12216091.htm. Retrieved on June 21, 2015.
Bennett, A., 2011a. Cost effective desalination: innovation continues to lower
desalination costs. Filtr. Sep. 48 (4), 24e27.
Bennett, A., 2011b. Sustainable desalination: renewable energy in desalination
systems. Filtr. Sep. 48 (5), 24e27.
Bennett, A., 2013. 50th anniversary: desalination: 50 years of progress. Filtr. Sep. 50
(3), 32e39.
Bond, R., Batchelor, B., Davis, T., Klayman, B., 2011. Zero liquid discharge desalination
of brackish water with an innovative form of electrodialysis: electrodialysis
metathesis. Fla. Water Resour. J. 63 (7), 36e44.
 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Government. http://www.bom.gov.au/info/
climate/change/gallery/45.shtml.
Cai, X., 2008. Water stress, water transfer and social equity in Northern China-
dimplications for policy reforms. J. Environ. Manag. 87 (1), 14e25.
Camacho, L.M., Dume e, L., Zhang, J., Li, J.D., Duke, M., Gomez, J., Gray, S., 2013.
Advances in membrane distillation for water desalination and purification ap-
plications. Water 5 (1), 94e196.
Cath, T.Y., Drewes, J.E., Lundin, C.D., Hancock, N.T., 2010. Forward osmosisdreverse
osmosis process offers a novel hybrid solution for water purification and reuse.
IDA J. Desalination Water Reuse 2 (4), 16e20.
Chang, J.S., 2015. Understanding the role of ecological indicator use in assessing the
effects of desalination plants. Desalination 365, 416e433.
Chung, T.S., Li, X., Ong, R.C., Ge, Q., Wang, H., Han, G., 2012. Emerging forward
osmosis (FO) technologies and challenges ahead for clean water and clean
energy applications. Curr. Opin. Chem. Eng. 1 (3), 246e257.
Cohen, R., September/October 2007. The water energy nexus e natural resources
Defense Council. Southwest Hydrol. 16e18.
Cooley, H., 2014. Desalination and Energy Use…Should We Pass the Salt? http://
pacinst.org/desal-and-energy-use-should-we-pass-the-salt/.
Davis, T., August 28e29, 2015. Electrodialysis Metathesis (EDM) to Prevent Scaling
in Desalination of Gypsum-rich Groundwater. DesalTech 2015, San Diego,
California.
Dawoud, M.A., Al Mulla, M.M., 2012. Environmental impacts of seawater desalina-
tion: Arabian Gulf case study. Int. J. Environ. Sustain. 1 (3), 22e37.
El Saliby, I., Okour, Y., Shon, H.K., Kandasamy, J., Kim, I.S., 2009. Desalination plants
in Australia, review and facts. Desalination 247 (1), 1e14.
Elimelech, M., August 28e29, 2015. Energetics of Desalination. DesalTech 2015, San
Diego, California.
Elimelech, M., Phillip, W.A., 2011. The future of seawater desalination: energy,
technology, and the Environment. Science 333, 712e717.
Feitelson, E., Chenoweth, J., 2002. Water poverty: towards a meaningful indicator.
Water Policy 4, 263e281.
Futuretimeline, 2015. China Completes the Largest Water Diversion Project in
History. http://www.futuretimeline.net/21stcentury/2050-2059.htm#.
ViwUiLerTRY.
Gao, L., Rahardianto, A., Gu, H., Christofides, P.D., Cohen, Y., 2014. Energy-optimal
control of RO desalination. Ind. Eng. Chem. Res. 53, 7409e7420.
Ge, Q.C., Su, J.C., Amy, G., Chung, T.S., 2012. Exploration of polyelectrolytes as draw
solutes in forward osmosis processes. Water Res. 46, 1318e1326.
Ghaffour, N., Lattemann, S., Missimer, T., Ng, K.C., Sinha, S., Amy, G., 2014. Renewable
energy-driven innovative energyefficient desalination technologies. Appl. En-
ergy 136, 1155e1165.
GWI, 2012a. http://www.globalwaterintel.com/global-water-intelligence-magazine/
archive/11/7/market-insight/desalination-market-returns.html.
Griffin, M., 2013. Drought Prompts Australia to Turn to Desalination Despite Costs.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-06/drought-prompts-australia-to-
turn-to-desalination-despite-cost.html.
Gude, V.G., 2011. Energy consumption and recovery in reverse osmosis. Desalina-
tion Water Treat. 36 (1e3), 239e260.
Gude, V.G., 2015a. Energy storage for desalination processes powered by renewable
energy and waste heat sources. Appl. Energy 137, 877e898.
Gude, V.G., 2015b. Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power
generation systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 45, 52e68.
Gude, V.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., 2010. Sustainable desalination using solar energy.
Energy Convers. Manag. 51 (11), 2245e2251.
Gude, V.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., Deng, S., 2010. Renewable and sustainable ap-
proaches for desalination. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (9), 2641e2654.
Gude, V.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., Deng, S., 2011. Desalination using solar energy:
towards sustainability. Energy 36 (1), 78e85.
Guerra, K., Dahm, K., Dundorf, S., 2011. Oil and Gas Produced Water Management
and Beneficial Use in the Western United States. US Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation.
GWI, 2010. The Desalination Market Returns, vol. 11(7). Retrieved on June 21, 2015.
GWI, 2012 (October 2012b). Technology Choice Still Open at Yanbu 3, vol. 13(10).
http://www.globalwaterintel.com/global-water-intelligence-magazine/archive/
13/10/general/technology-choice-still-open-yanbu-3.html. Retrieved on June
21, 2015.
GWI, 2014. Cost of Water: GWI's 2014 Water Tariff Survey. http://www.desalination.
com/wdr/50/35-4.
GWI, 2015. Global Water Intelligence with OEEI Estimates.
Hall, M.R., West, J., Sherman, B., Lane, J., de Haas, D., 2011. Long-term trends and
opportunities for managing regional water supply and wastewater greenhouse
gas emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45 (12), 5434e5440.
Henthorne, L., Boysen, B., 2015. State-of-the-art of reverse osmosis desalination
pretreatment. Desalination 356, 129e139.
International Rivers (Organization), 2013. Dams and Extinction: Going, Going, Gone.
International Rivers. Retrieved June 20, 2015, from: http://www.
internationalrivers.org/blogs/229/dams-and-extinction-going-going-gone.
Kajenthira, Arani, Anadon, Laura Diaz, Siddiqi, Afreen, June 2011. “The Case for
Cross-Sectoral Water Reuse in Saudi Arabia: Bringing Energy into the Water
Equation.” Dubai Initiative Policy Brief. Cambridge, Mass.: Energy Technology
Innovation Policy Program, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs,
Harvard Kennedy School, Harvard University.
Kajenthira, A., Siddiqi, A., Anadon, L.D., 2012. A new case for promoting wastewater
reuse in Saudi Arabia: bringing energy into the water equation. J. Environ.
105
Manag. 102, 184e192.
Kalogirou, S.A., 2005. Seawater desalination using renewable energy sources. Prog.
Energy Combust. Sci 31 (3), 242e281.
Kesieme, U.K., Milne, N., Aral, H., Cheng, C.Y., Duke, M., 2013. Economic analysis of
desalination technologies in the context of carbon pricing, and opportunities for
membrane distillation. Desalination 323, 66e74.
Khoo, T.C., 2009. Water management in 2020 and beyond. In: Biswas, A.K., et al.
(Eds.), Water Resources Development and Management. Springer-Verlag Berlin
Heidelberg, pp. 237e250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-89346-2_12.
Kim, D., Amy, G.L., Karanfil, T., 2015. Disinfection by-product formation during
seawater desalination: a review. Water Res. 81, 343e355.
Krasner, S.W., Weinberg, H.S., Richardson, S.D., Pastor, S.J., Chinn, R., Sclimenti, M.J.,
Thruston, A.D., 2006. Occurrence of a new generation of disinfection byprod-
ucts. Environ. Sci. Technol 40 (23), 7175e7185.
KSA, 2013. Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Environmental Technologies Export Market
Plan 2013.
Kühn, R., Pattard, M., 1990. Results of the harmful effects of water pollutants to
green algae (Scenedesmus subspicatus) in the cell multiplication inhibition test.
Water Research 24 (1), 31e38.
Lattemann, S., Ho € pner, T., 2008. Environmental impact and impact assessment of
seawater desalination. Desalination 220 (1), 1e15.
Llamas, R., Custudio, E., 2003. Intensive Use of Groundwater: Challenges and Op-
portunities. A.A. Balkema Publishers, Lisse, The Netherlands, p. 481.
Li, Z., Linares, R.V., Ghaffour, N., Amy, G., August 28-29, 2015. Forward Osmosis-low
Pressure Reverse Osmosis e Indirect Desalination and Engineered Potable
Reuse in the Coastal Regions. DesalTech 2015, San Diego, California.
Linares, R.V., Li, Z., Sarp, S., Bucs, S.S., Amy, G., Vrouwenvelder, J.S., 2014. Forward
osmosis niches in seawater desalination and wastewater reuse. Water Res. 66,
122e139.
Lindstrom, A., Granit, J., Weinberg, J., 2012. Large-scale Water Storage in the Water,
Energy and Food Nexus: Perspectives on Benefits, Risks, and Best Practices.
SIWI paper, 21.
Ling, M.M., Wang, K.Y., Chung, T.S., 2010. Highly water soluble magnetic nano-
particles as novel draw solutes in forward osmosis for water reuse. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Res. 49, 5869e5876.
Liu, C.M., Chen, Z.C. (Eds.), 2001. Water Strategy for China's Sustainable Develop-
ment Report 2, Current State of China's Water Resources and the Outlook of
Future Demand and Supply. China Water Resources And Hydropower Press,
Beijing, China.
Liu, C., Zheng, H., 2002. South-to-north water transfer schemes for China. Int. J.
Water Resour. Dev. 18 (3), 453e471.
Liu, T.K., Sheu, H.Y., Tseng, C.N., 2013. Environmental impact assessment of seawater
desalination plant under the framework of integrated coastal management.
Desalination 326, 10e18.
Lokiec, F., 2013. Sustainable desalination: environmental approaches. In: The In-
ternational Desalination Association World Congress on Desalination and Water
Reuse 2013/Tianjin, China.
Luan, I.O.B., 2010. Singapore water management policies and practice. Int. J. Water
Resour. Dev. 26 (1), 65e80.
Macedonio, F., Drioli, E., Gusev, A.A., Bardow, A., Semiat, R., Kurihara, M., 2012.
Efficient technologies for worldwide clean water supply. Chem. Eng. Process.
Process Intensif. 51, 2e17.
Masciangioli, T.M., Wood-Black, F., Norling, P. (Eds.), 2004. Water and Sustainable
Development:Opportunities for the Chemical Sciencesea Workshop Report to
the Chemical Sciences Roundtable. National Academies Press.
McCutcheon, J.R., McGinnis, R.L., Elimelech, M., 2005. A novel ammoniacarbon di-
oxide forward (direct) osmosis desalination process. Desalination 174, 1e11.
Mezher, T., Fath, H., Abbas, Z., Khaled, A., 2011. Techno-economic assessment and
environmental impacts of desalination technologies. Desalination 266 (1),
263e273.
Molinos-Senante, M., Herna ndez-Sancho, F., Sala-Garrido, R., 2011. Costebenefit
analysis of water-reuse projects for environmental purposes: a case study for
Spanish wastewater treatment plants. J. Environ. Manag. 92 (12), 3091e3097.
Morton, A.J., Callister, I.K., Wade, N.M., 1996. Environmental impacts of seawater
distillation and reverse osmosis processes. Desalination 108 (1), 1e10.
Mun ~ oz, I., Ferna
ndez-Alba, A.R., 2008. Reducing the environmental impacts of
reverse osmosis desalination by using brackish groundwater resources. Water
Res. 42 (3), 801e811.
Naidu, G., Jeong, S., Vigneswaran, S., 2015. Sustainable operation of vacuum
membrane distillation for mineral recovery from hypersaline reverse osmosis
concentration. MDES 2015.
National Water Commission, 2008. Emerging Trends in Desalination: a Review.
Waterlines report. National Water Commission, Canberra.
Ng, K.C., 2003. Recent developments in heat-driven silica gel-water adsorption
chillers. Heat Transf. Eng. 24, 1e3.
Ng, K.C., Thu, K., Amy, G., Chunggaze, M., Al-Ghasham, T.Y., 2011. An Advanced
ADMED Cycle for Low-temperature Driven Desalination. US Provisional Appli-
cation No. 61/450, 165.
Ng, K.C., Thu, K., Saha, B.B., Chakraborty, A., 2012. Study on a waste heat-driven
adsorption cooling cum desalination cycle. Int. J. Refrig. 35, 685e693.
Ng, K.C., Thu, K., Shahzad, M.W., Chun, W., 2014. Progress of adsorption cycle and its
hybrids with conventional multi-effect desalination processes. IDA J. Desali-
nation Water Reuse 6 (1), 44e56.
NOAA, 2015. http://ncdc.noaa.gov/news/us-drought-monitor-update-january-
13e2015 (accessed online on 23.10.15.).
106 V.G. Gude / Water Research 89 (2016) 87e106
Oren, Y., Korngold, E., Daltrophe, N., Messalem, R., Volkman, Y., Aronov, L., Gilron, J.,
2010. Pilot studies on high recovery BWRO-EDR for near zero liquid discharge
approach. Desalination 261 (3), 321e330.
Penata, B., Garcia-Rodriguez, L., 2012. Current trends and future prospects in the
design of seawater reverse osmosis desalination technology. Desalination 284,
1e8.
Peng, J. Market Report: Developing Desalination in China. Retrieved on June 21,
2015 http://www.waterworld.com/articles/wwi/print/volume-25/issue-6/
regional-spotlight-asia-pacific/market-report-developing-desalination.html.
Plappally, A.K., 2012. Energy requirements for water production, treatment, end
use, reclamation, and disposal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 16 (7), 4818e4848.
Qdais, H.A., 2008. Environmental impacts of the mega desalination project: the
RedeDead Sea conveyor. Desalination 220 (1), 16e23.
Radcliffe, J.C., 2015. Water recycling in Australiaeduring and after the drought.
Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1, 554e562.
Rijsberman, F.R., 2006. Water scarcity: fact or fiction? Agric. Water Manag. 80 (1),
5e22.
Roberts, D.A., Johnston, E.L., Knott, N.A., 2010. Impacts of desalination plant dis-
charges on the marine environment: a critical review of published studies.
Water Res. 44 (18), 5117e5128.
Rogers, P., Bhatia, R., Huber, A., 1998. Water as a social and economic good: how to
put the principle into practice. Sweden: Global Water Partnership/Swedish
International Development Cooperation Agency, Stockholm.
Rogers, P.P., Llamas, M.R., Cortina, L.M. (Eds.), 2005. Water Crisis: Myth or Reality?.
CRC Press.
SAMC, July 2010. “Forty Sixth Annual Report: The Latest Economic Developments
1431H (2010),”. Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency: Research and Statistics
Department, Riyadh.
Sachs, Goldman, 2013. Sustainable Growth: Taking a Deep Dive into Water.
Savenije, H.H., 2002. Why water is not an ordinary economic good, or why the girl is
special. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 27 (11), 741e744.
Semiat, Raphael, 2000. Present and Future. Water International 25.1, pp. 54e65.
Semiat, R., 2008. Energy issues in desalination processes. Environ. Sci. Technol. 42
(22), 8193e8201.
Shrestha, E., Ahmad, S., Johnson, W., Shrestha, P., Batista, J.R., 2011. Carbon footprint
of water conveyance versus desalination as alternatives to expand water supply.
Desalination 280 (1), 33e43.
Southern Seawater Desalination Project e Social Impact Management Plan, 2009.
Watercorporation.com.au. Retrieved on June 21, 2015.
Stewart, M.E., Blogoslawski, W.J., Hsu, R.Y., Helz, G.R., 1979. Byproducts of oxidative
biocides - toxicity to oyster larvae. Mar. Pollut. Bull 10, 166e169.
Stokes, J.R., Horvath, A., 2009. Energy and air emission effects of water supply.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 43 (8), 2680e2687.
Stover, R., August 28e29, 2015. High Efficiency Water Treatment. DesalTech 2015,
San Diego, California.
Subbaraman, R., Shitole, S., Shitole, T., Sawant, K., O'Brien, J., Bloom, D.E., Patil-
Deshmukh, A., 2013. The social ecology of water in a Mumbai slum: failures in
water quality, quantity, and reliability. BMC Public Health 13 (1), 173.
Subramani, A., Jacangelo, J.G., 2015. Emerging desalination technologies for water
treatment: a critical review. Water Res. 75, 164e187.
Swaminathan, J., August 28-29, 2015. MVC-MD Hybrids for Lower Specific Energy
Consumption. DesalTech 2015, San Diego, California.
Tan, Y.S., Lee, T.J., Tan, K., 2009. Clean, Green and Blue: Singapore's Journey towards
Environmental and Water Sustainability. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.
Timofti, D., Doltu, C., Trofin, M., 2011. Eutrophication phenomena in reservoirs.
Aerul Apa. Compon. Mediu. 473.
Tortajada, C., Joshi, Y.K., 2013. Water demand management in Singapore: involving
the public. Water Resour. Manag. 27 (8), 2729e2746.
Traves, W., Davies, K., 2008. Water. J. Aust. Water Assoc. 35 (4), 65e69.
U.S.-SABC, 2009. The Water Sector in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. U.S.-Saudi
Arabian Business Council, Vienna.
U.S.-SABC, 2010. Publice Private Agreements Upgrade Saudi Water Infrastructure,
U.S.-Saudi Business Brief. U.S.-Saudi Arabia Business Council, Vienna, pp. 9e10.
Von Medeazza, G.M., 2005. “Direct” and socially-induced environmental impacts of
desalination. Desalination 185 (1), 57e70.
Voutchkov, N., 2011. Current & Future Desalination Trends WateReuse Research
Foundation. Strategic Planning Session January 18 2011.
Voutchkov, N., November, 2014. Overview of Desalination Trends and Jaffna Project.
Asian Development Bank.
Water Prices-policy Issue: Are Water Prices and Water Saving Technologies Effec-
tive Tools to Improve Water Conservation?, 2010. http://www.eea.europa.eu/
data-and-maps/indicators/water-prices.
Water Services Association of Australia, 2008. Launch of the WSAA Report Card for
2007/2008. Water Services Association of Australia Website.
Water Services Association of Australia Ltd, 2011. A Sustainable Future for the Urban
Water Industry.
Water technology, 2015a. http://www.water-technology.net/projects/yanbu-phase-
3-seawater-desalination-plant/.
Water technology, 2015b. http://www.water-technology.net/projects/-ras-al-khair-
desalination-plant/ (accessed online on 24.10.15.).
Werner, M., Sch€ afer, A.I., 2007. Social aspects of a solar-powered desalination unit
for remote Australian communities. Desalination 203 (1e3), 375e393, 5
February 2007.
Wong, T.C., 2011. Eco-cities in China: Pearls in the Sea of Degrading Urban Envi-
ronments?. In: Eco-city Planning. Springer, Netherlands, pp. 131e150.
WSAA, 2012. Climate Change Adaptation in the Australian Urban Water Industry.
Water Services Association of Australia.
WSAA, 2013. Urban Water Security. Water Services Association of Australia. http://
www.wsaa.asn.au/WSAAPublications/Documents/WSAA%20Seawater%
20Desalination%20Information%20Pack.pdf.
Xie, J., 2006. Dealing with Water Scarcity in Singapore. Institutions, Strategies, and
Enforcement, China. Addressing Water Scarcity Background Paper No, 4.
Yarlagadda, S., Camacho, L.M., Gude, V.G., Wei, Z., Deng, S., 2009. Membrane
distillation for desalination and other separations. Recent Pat. Chem. Eng. 2 (2),
128e158.
Yarlagadda, S., Gude, V.G., Camacho, L.M., Pinappu, S., Deng, S., 2011. Potable water
recovery from As, U, and F contaminated ground waters by direct contact
membrane distillation process. J. Hazard. Mater. 192 (3), 1388e1394.
Younos, T., 2005. Environmental issues of desalination. J. Contemp. Water Res. Educ.
132 (1), 11e18.
Zander, A., Elimelech, M., Furukawa, D., Gleick, P., Herd, K., Jones, K.L., Wood, W.W.,
2008. Desalination: a National Perspective. National Research Council, The
National Academies.
Zetland, D., Gasson, C., 2013. A global survey of urban water tariffs: are they sus-
tainable, efficient and fair? Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 29 (3), 327e342.
Zhou, Y., Tol, R.S., 2004. Implications of desalination for water resources in China-
dan economic perspective. Desalination 164 (3), 225e240.
Zhou, Y., Tol, R.S., 2005. Evaluating the costs of desalination and water transport.
Water Resour. Res. 41 (3).
Zhou, J., Chang, V.W.C., Fane, A.G., 2011. Environmental life cycle assessment of
reverse osmosis desalination: the influence of different life cycle impact
assessment methods on the characterization results. Desalination 283,
227e236.