Perspectives on Desalination

John S. Young, Jr., PEPresident, AWWSCOctober 13, 2009

2

Desalination Key Drivers & Challenges

Drivers• Risk of water shortage and

restrictions• Population Growth• Aging infrastructure• Technology cost reduction• Consistent water quality and

quantity

Challenges• Getting approval for the

appropriate site• Energy Intensive • Permit and political support• Cheaper alternative water

resources• Environmental opposition due to

waste and brine disposal• Financial constraints and rate

increases• Growth inducing

3

Global Desalination Capacity

63.6 m3/d - 16,800 mgd

WDR vol. 44. no. 33 - Sept 08

More than Doubled in the Last 10 years!

4

Cumulative U.S. Desalting Capacity Has Doubled in Last Decade

- 47 projects in the planning stage with 811 mgd proposed

2008 Data

- 29 plants in construction with 205 mgd under contract

- 1432 plants online with 2132 mgd production

Source: GWI 10/06 and DesalData 1/09

US Desalination Capacity

CT

WA

ORID

MT

WY

UT

CO

NV

CA

AZNM

ND

SD

MN

IA

WI

TX

OK

KS

NE

MO

IL

KY

MI

AK

MS AL GA

PA

LA

FL

SC

VAWV

NY

ME

NH

RI

MD

NC

OHIN

VT

MA

TN

NJ

Hawaii

DE

WV

KY

> 500 mgd> 200 mgd> 100 mgd > 50 mgd> 10 mgd> 5 mgd> 1 mgd> 0.1 mgd< 0.1 mgd

Added Desalination Capacity by State (U.S.) 1995-2006

6

Total Water Cost for Desal

24.6

2.84

7.57

$0.00

$5.00

$10.00

$15.00

$20.00

$25.00

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

$/kg

alCost of desal water is decreasing

Source: Ionics Presentation 2003

Desalination Cost Trends

7

Desalination

Conventional resources

Recycling/Resuse

Marginal resources

1995 2005 2015 2025 2035

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

$/kgal

Source: Global Water Intelligence 10/06

$5/kgal

Convergence of Costs

Costs of Water by Source

8

Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant

• Largest of its kind in U.S.

• 25 mgd design capacity

• Treatment Process• Disinfection• Chemical Feed• Coagulation/Flocculation• Sand Filtration• Diatomaceous Earth• Cartridge Filters• Two pass Reverse Osmosis

• 10,032 membranes installed• Disinfection• Stabilization

• 14 megawatt power demand

• 30 - 40% energy recovery

9

DELAYED MODIFICATION OF WASTE CLEANING SOLUTION DISCHARGE PERMIT– VERY COSTLY

10

CARTRIDGE FILTERS – NEW AND OLD

11

Tampa – Plant Modifications

Residuals Treatment

DE Filter Building

Post Treatment RO Modifications

Pretreatment

12

Facility Acceptance Test

• Acceptance Testing was to demonstrate the sustainable and reliable operation of the facility.

• The overall reliability demonstration was a (30) day period consisting of a (16) day Run-In Period at 25 MGD, followed by a (14) day Acceptance Test.

• Acceptance Test were defined to demonstrate product water production for fourteen (14) consecutive days, during which the first seven (7) days were to be at 28.75 MGD, and the second seven (7) days at 25 MGD.

13

Tampa – Acceptance Testing

Parameter Guarantee ActualProduct water flow average -

week 128.75 MGD 29.33 MGD

Product water flow average -week 2

25.00 MGD 25.23 MGD

RO Differential pressure increase 8 psi (Max.) <2.0 psi

Pretreatment SDI - Primary <5 - all times 4.00 (Max.)

Pretreatment SDI – Secondary <4 - 90% 3.86 (Ave.)

Power Consumption - kW-hr/kgal 15.74 (Max) <14.00

Sludge Production –tons/yr 10,898 <6,000

Chemical Consumption Based on Each Each Under Chemical Max. Limit

14

Acceptance Test: Objective and Goal

• Acceptance Testing was to demonstrate the sustainable and reliable operation of the facility.

• The overall reliability demonstration was a (30) day period consisting of a (16) day Run-In Period at 25 MGD, followed by a (14) day Acceptance Test.

• Acceptance Test were defined to demonstrate product water production for fourteen (14) consecutive days, during which the first seven (7) days were to be at 28.75 MGD, and the second seven (7) days at 25 MGD.

Operational Milestone Test• Four month at an average production rate of 25MGD.• In-Progress

15

US Desalination Market – General Overview

• 1432 plants online or presumed online with 2132 mgd (8.07 billion m3/d)production

• 29 plants in construction with 205 mgd (779 million m3/d)• 47 projects in the planning stage with 811 mgd ( 3.07 billion m3/d)

proposed• Of the 2008 capacity, 11% is SWRO, 75% is brackish water, and 14%

is industrial high purity water supply.• SWRO has increased 10% per annum while Brackish RO increased 3-5%

and Industrial/other has increased 4%• Most contracts awarded through Design-Bid-Build procurement approach

rather than DBO

Source: www.DesalData.com/WDR

16

Proposing Entity Location Water Type Cap. mgd

California

Marin Municipal WD SF Bay Area SWRO 5-15

SF Bay Area Regional SF Bay Area Brackish/SWRO 71

Santa Cruz/Soquel Creek Santa Cruz SWRO 2.5

California American Monterey SWRO 10

Sand City Monterey SWRO 0.3

City of Santa Barbara Barbara County SWRO 5-10

Los Angeles DWP Los Angeles SWRO 25

West Basin MWD Los Angeles SWRO 20

Long Beach Water Dept Haynes P. Plant Nano/Nano 9

Poseidon Huntington Beach SWRO 50

MWD Orange County Dana Point SWRO 15

Poseidon Carlsbad/ Encina SWRO 50

Representative Existing and Proposed US Desal Projects

17

Representative Existing and Proposed US Desal Projects

Texas

El Paso Utilities/Fort Bliss El Paso Brackish RO 27.4

Brownsville PUB Brownsville SWRO 2.5 / 25

San Antonio Water Siystem. San Antonio Brackish RO 20

Brazos River Authority Lake Granbury Surface BRO 15.5

Florida

Tampa Bay Water Big Bend/Tampa SWRO 25 – 28

City of Tarpon Springs Tarpon Springs Brackish RO 6

City of Hialeah/Miami Miami Dade County. Brackish RO 17.5

Coquina Coast Palm Coast SWRO 50

Other Areas

United Water of NY Rocklin County Brackish RO 4

Taunton Mass Taunton River Brackish RO 5

18

Managing Public Concerns with Desalination Implementation Requires:

• Emphasizing Investment is Needed• Exploring All Options• Developing Meaningful Costs and Values• Community Involvement• Energy Consumption Minimization/Carbon Neutrality Strategy• Mitigating Marine and Coastal Environment Issue• Minimizing Concentrate Disposal Impact