Solar Evaporator for Integrated on-Farm Drainage ... · Solar Evaporator for Integrated on ......
Transcript of Solar Evaporator for Integrated on-Farm Drainage ... · Solar Evaporator for Integrated on ......
Solar Evaporator Solar Evaporator for Integrated onfor Integrated on--Farm Drainage Management (IFDM) Farm Drainage Management (IFDM)
System at Red Rock Ranch, System at Red Rock Ranch, San Joaquin Valley, CaliforniaSan Joaquin Valley, California
Jose I. Faria P.E., Jose I. Faria P.E., Special Investigations Branch, ChiefSpecial Investigations Branch, Chief
Department of Water Resources (DWR), San Joaquin DistrictDepartment of Water Resources (DWR), San Joaquin District
Principal Investigator: Alexander Begaliev Ph. D, Principal Investigator: Alexander Begaliev Ph. D, Project Collaborators:Project Collaborators:
Kathleen Buchnoff P.E. DWR, Vashek Cervinka Ph. D, Westside ResoKathleen Buchnoff P.E. DWR, Vashek Cervinka Ph. D, Westside Resources Conservation Districturces Conservation DistrictCollaborators: Mike Delamore, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, John DCollaborators: Mike Delamore, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, John Diener, Jose Lopez, Red Rock Ranch. iener, Jose Lopez, Red Rock Ranch.
ObjectivesObjectives
•• To develop and demonstrate the use of solar To develop and demonstrate the use of solar evaporators as an economic, simple, and evaporators as an economic, simple, and environmentally safe method to evaporate environmentally safe method to evaporate concentrated subsurface drainage water and store its concentrated subsurface drainage water and store its salts as terminal point of an IFDM system.salts as terminal point of an IFDM system.
•• Evaluate possible recovery of drainage salts for Evaluate possible recovery of drainage salts for beneficial use.beneficial use.
IFDM System at Red Rock Ranch
• Consists of 640 acres.• Contains four salinity zones, each with a subsurface drainage system to collect agricultural
drainage water from irrigated fields.• The IFDM system manages irrigation water on salt-sensitive high value crops (tomatoes,
wheat) and reuses drainage water to irrigate salt-tolerant crops (alfalfa, cotton, tall wheat grass), salt-tolerant trees, and halophyte (saltgrass, iodine bush) plants.
• Each sequential reuse reduces the volume of drainage water and increases the salt concentration.
• Drainage water (DW) too saline for irrigation is applied to the solar evaporator (SE).• Manage salts and drainage water on-farm.• Collect the salts for potential commercial and/or industrial reuse.
Methodology of Solar Evaporator ResearchMethodology of Solar Evaporator Research
--Evaluate surface configuration to enhance evaporation, prevent Evaluate surface configuration to enhance evaporation, prevent standing water and therefore access to wildlife; standing water and therefore access to wildlife;
--Evaluate gravel materials for solar evaporator surface for solarEvaluate gravel materials for solar evaporator surface for solarheat absorption and wildlife protection;heat absorption and wildlife protection;
--Evaluate and select water spray devices (spray patterns, angles,Evaluate and select water spray devices (spray patterns, angles,and pressures);and pressures);
--Estimate weather parameters for seasonal and optimal operation Estimate weather parameters for seasonal and optimal operation a solar evaporator; a solar evaporator;
--Measure and evaluate methods to control salt drift;Measure and evaluate methods to control salt drift;--Explore separation of usable salts;Explore separation of usable salts;--Determine preliminary costs and O&M procedures;Determine preliminary costs and O&M procedures;
Solar Evaporator Pilot ProjectSolar Evaporator Pilot Project
Evaluation of configuration, volume, slope and cover materialsEvaluation of configuration, volume, slope and cover materials
Reservoir with perforated PVC pipe and gravel cover
Nozzles
Pilot Solar Evaporator RRR
Slope 2%
Water discharge meter
Drainage water from sump
100 ft
100 ft
Coarse Gravel
Area 3A
Coarse Gravel
Area 3B
Mixed Gravel
Area 2A
Mixed Gravel
Area 2B
Exposed liner (no aggregate)
Area 1A
Exposed liner (no aggregate)
Area 1B
Pumps
Fence
Types of Gravel Evaluated
COARSE
MEDIUM
SMALL
Solar Evaporator Test: Evaporative Surfaces
Area covered by coarse gravelArea covered by mixed gravel
Exposed liner area
Nozzle stand
Return flow culvert
Spray Devices Tests at the Center for Irrigation Technology Spray Devices Tests at the Center for Irrigation Technology Testing Facility at California State University, FresnoTesting Facility at California State University, Fresno
Test Nozzles
BETE TF 24- 170
BETE TF 16-170
BETE TF 12-170 BETE TF 12-180
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Height of the nozzle position, ft
10
12
14
16
18
20
Wat
er m
ist r
adiu
s, ft
17
13
10
19
15
11
18
14
11
LegendWater pressure=10 psi/water discharge=11.03 gal/minWater pressure=20 psi/ Water discharge=16.9 gal/minWater pressure=30 psi/Water discharge=20.8 gal/min
Nozzles BETE TF-24-180 and TF-12-180 (water mist radius are measured for different nozzle risers, water flow discharges, and pressures)
2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Nozzle riser height, ft
5.4
6
6.6
5.7
6.3
Wat
er m
ist
radi
us, f
t
666
666
666
Water pressure= 10 psi Water discharge=3.1 gpmWater pressure=20 psi Water discharge=4.3 gpmWater pressure=30 psi Water discharge=5.5 gpm
TF-12-180TF-24-180
Spray Nozzle Tests
Vertically oriented nozzle position with different riser heightswere tested in 2003 (riser=1.5 ft) note windbreak fence
Horizontally oriented nozzle position with different riser heights were tested in 2004 (riser=1.5 ft)
Nozzle positions with different angles and with varying riser heights were tested in 2003 (riser=1.0 ft)
Measuring Weather ParametersMeasuring Weather Parameters
CIMIS Station Components:Total solar radiation (pyranometer) Soil temperature (thermistor) Air temperature/relative humidity (HMP35) Wind direction (wind vane) Wind speed (anemometer) Precipitation (tipping-bucket rain gauge)
Evaporation by Pan (Five Point Station) and Evapotranspiration by CIMIS at RRR
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25
Evaporation, inch/day
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
0.2
0.6
1
1.4
1.8
Evap
otra
nspi
ratio
n, in
ch/d
ay
Eto and EoETo=0.8Eo-0.02
Linear Equation ETo= 0.8Eo- 0.02 or Eo=1.25ETo-0.025
Number of data points used = 56
Average Eo= 1.01205
Average ETo= 0.785893
Residual sum of squares = 0.308747
Regression sum of squares = 10.1932
Coef of determination, R-squared = 0.970601
Residual mean square, sigma-hat-sq'd = 0.00571754
Eo=1.25ETo-0.025
Daily Evaporation by CIMIS at RRR, 2004
0 100 200 300 400Days of 2004
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Evap
orat
ion,
inch
/day
Graph 1Evaporation, inch/day 2Y=-0.084+0.0048X-0.0000139X
•• Measuring Enhanced Solar EvaporationMeasuring Enhanced Solar EvaporationEstimated Daily Average Solar Radiation at Red Rock Ranch
BTU/(hr)(sq.ft.)
020406080
100120
1-Jan15-Jan
1-Feb15-Feb
1-Mar
15-Mar
1-Apr
15-Apr
1-May
15-May1-Jun
15-Jun1-Jul
15-Jul1-Aug
15-Aug
1-Sep
15-Sep
1-Oct
15-Oct
1-Nov
15-Nov1-Dec
15-Dec
Energy Demand for EvaporationEnergy Demand for Evaporation
•• Heat of Vaporization: Heat of Vaporization: 1,045.55 BTU/lb H1,045.55 BTU/lb H22OO
•• QQnetnet = Q= Qsolarsolar + Q+ Qairair + Q+ Qgrgr
•• Solar RadiationSolar Radiation•• Convective Heat Transfer from AirConvective Heat Transfer from Air•• Convective Heat Transfer from GravelConvective Heat Transfer from Gravel
Solar EvaporationSolar EvaporationExample Example –– mid Junemid June
•• SE area is 100 x 100 ftSE area is 100 x 100 ft•• Solar heat input = 27.12 million BTU/day Solar heat input = 27.12 million BTU/day •• Convective heat input from gravel = 6.7 million Convective heat input from gravel = 6.7 million
BTU/dayBTU/day•• Convective heat input from air = 9.26 million BTU/day Convective heat input from air = 9.26 million BTU/day •• Total heat input = 43.08 million BTU/dayTotal heat input = 43.08 million BTU/day•• Evaporate 41,200 lbs/day of waterEvaporate 41,200 lbs/day of water
= 4,935 gallons/day = 3.43 gallons/minute= 4,935 gallons/day = 3.43 gallons/minute= 14.9 gallons/minute acre= 14.9 gallons/minute acre
Pilot Experiment ResultsPilot Experiment Results
Nozzle riser= 1.5 ft
Nozzle riser= 1.0 ft
RRR - SOLAR EVAPORATOROPERATIONAL DATA
DATE/parameters DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE DATE6/9/2003 6/10/2003 6/11/2003 6/12/2003 6/13/2003 6/14/2003
Time,start 10.50 am 9.20 am 7.55 am Tomato 10.20 am 6.43 amTime,finish 11.10 am 9.40 am 8.20 pm Tank 10.30 am 7.08 amTime duration,min 20 min 20 min 25 min 10 min 25 minInput reading,start 67400 69600 72000 74800 75900Input reading,finish 69500 72100 74800 75900 78700Input gallons 2100 2500 2800 3160 1100 2800EC 13.83 14.5 17.3 61.5 17.63 16.21Tem, C 22.1 19.1 21.8 20.7 22.8 20.2PPT,garm/L 8.5 8.4 10.1 41.1 10.4 9.6
SE runningTime,start 11.15 am 9.40 am 8.30 am 8.30 am 10.40 am 7.20 amTime,finish 4.15 pm 5.40 pm 5.30 pm 7.30 pm 1.40 pm 4.20 pmTime duration,min 5 hour 8 hour 9 hour 11 hour 3 hour 9 hourOutput reading, start 650100 672400 701460 736800 781100 790100Output reading,finish 672000 701000 736300 780500 789700 822600Volume of running,gallons 21900 28600 34840 43700 8600 32500EC 49.51 46.54 39.15 92.8 69.3 60.5Tem, C 19.7 16.7 25.2 19.2 24.6 20.6PPT, gram/L 32.4 30.3 25.3 66.7 47.4 40.8Pressure,psi 58 58 58 58 58Evaporation rate,gallons/day 2100 2300 2560 700
TOMATO TANK, Time 10.40 am 9.06 am 7.20 am 6.30 am 9.46 am 6.50 amMoved volume,gallons 400 400 460 500 600 300EC 47.38 48.84 46.77 41.05 92.8 60.5Tem,C 23.7 19.8 16.6 20.1 19.2 20.5PPT, gram/L 30.8 31.8 30.5 26.3 66.7 40.7 TOMATO TANK, Time NORTH, SOUT WESTDATE 6/9/03 EC 68.4 67.9 66.7 TEM 23.4 23.5 23.4 PPT 46.7 46.7 45.6
JUNE, 2003
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45Evaporation by pan (Eo=1.25ETo-0.025), inches/day
1
2
3
4
5
6
Sol
ar E
vapo
rato
r-Sal
t Con
cent
rato
r (Eo
-SE-
SC),
inch
es/d
ay
ln(Y)=2.12*X+0.74riser 2.5 ftln(Y)=2.7*X+0.26riser 2.0 ftln(Y)=3.128X-0.03riser 1.5 ftln(Y)=3.22*X-0.10riser 1.0 ftln(Y)=3.218X-0.22riser 0.50 ftln(Y)=3.22*X-0.31riser 0.25 ft
Relationship between actual pan evaporation (Eo pan) and enhanced evaporation
at the pilot solar evaporator RRR, March-October 2003.
0.16 0.2 0.24 0.28 0.32 0.36Evaporation (Eo) pan, Five Points, (ETo=1.25Eo-0.025), inch/day
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
Sol
ar E
vapo
rato
r-Sal
t Con
cent
rato
r (SE
-SC
) Eo,
inch
/day
riser 2.00 ln(Y)=2.66*X+0.234riser 1.50 ft ln(Y)=3.38*X-0.228riser 0.50 ft ln(X)=3.9*X-0.518riser 0.25 ft ln(Y)=4.02*X-0.581
Relationship between actual evaporation (Eo pan) and enhanced evaporation
at the pilot solar evaporation RRR, March-October 2004.
Salt Drift Evaluation:Salt Drift Evaluation:DWRDWRCSUCSU--FresnoFresno
Salt Drift Barrier Selected
Smaller droplets drift longer distances
Evaporator Salt Drift Evaporator Salt Drift DWR EvaluationDWR Evaluation
Glass plates were use to measure salt drifting outside the SE
Evaluation by DWR
DWR Evaluation Results
00.050.10.150.20.250.30.350.40.450.50.55
Pilot Solar Evapor a tor Module (30.5x30.5 m)
Salt-dirt deposition kg/square meter since 07/29/03 until 08/26/03
Salt-dirt deposition 13.0 kg/day or0.54 kg/hour (07/29/03-08/26/03)
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Dist ance, meter
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50
Dist ance, meter
0
10
20
30
40
50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6Pilot Solar EvaporatorModule (30.5x30.5 m)
Salt-dirt deposition kg/squar e meter since 07/29/03 until 08/26/03
2 D salt-dirt deposition contour map
3 D salt-dir t deposition surface map
Salt Drift EvaluationSalt Drift EvaluationCSUCSU--Fresno EvaluationFresno Evaluation
Evaluation by Professor Charles Evaluation by Professor Charles KrauterKrauter
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Salt Deposition, mg/m2/hour
South
North
North
South
Solar Evaporator(30x30 meters or100x100 feet)
Solar Evaporator(30x30 meters or100x100 feet)
Total salt deposition 5.9 kg/day (09/20/2004)
Nozzles raised at 0.5 ft
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
Solar Evaporator(30x30 meters or100x100 feet)
Salt Deposition, mg/m2/hour
Nor th
South
North
South
Solar Evaporator(30x30 meters or100x100 feet)
Total salt deposition 10.4 kg/day (08/02/2004)
Nozzles raised at 1.5 ft
051015202530354045505560
Salt Deposition,mg/m2/hour
Solar Evapo rat or(30x30 m eters or100 x100 f eet)
Solar Evaporator(30 x30 me ters or100x10 0 fee t)
South
South
North
North
Total salt deposition 22.4 kg/day (09/07/2004) test 2
Nozzles raised at 2.0 ft
Pilot Solar Evaporator Salt Drift Results
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.50.25 0.75 1.25 1.75 2.25
Nozzle riser height, ft
0
0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6
2
0.2
0.6
1
1.4
1.8
Salt
Dep
ositi
on, k
g/ho
ur
Experimental data(Fresno State University, Dr. Krauter)
Experimental Data(Department of Water Resources) 2 Y=9.14-20.05*X+13.77*X
Salt Drift Evaluation ConclusionsSalt Drift Evaluation Conclusions
•• DWR and CSUF evaluations agree on measured drifted rates for 1.5DWR and CSUF evaluations agree on measured drifted rates for 1.5 nozzle nozzle height (0.5 height (0.5 vsvs 0.4 Kg/hr) but disagree on deposition distance 50 0.4 Kg/hr) but disagree on deposition distance 50 vsvs 200 200 meters. meters.
•• Approximate emission rates vary from 0.2 to 1.85 lb/hr dependinApproximate emission rates vary from 0.2 to 1.85 lb/hr depending on g on nozzle elevation (0.6% to 5.3% of total SE input)nozzle elevation (0.6% to 5.3% of total SE input)
•• The 6 ft fence decreases the total emissions by interfering withThe 6 ft fence decreases the total emissions by interfering with the wind the wind pattern at the nozzle level and by intercepting 99.4 to 94.7% ofpattern at the nozzle level and by intercepting 99.4 to 94.7% of the total the total emissions before they leave the SE perimeter. emissions before they leave the SE perimeter.
•• A established salt tolerant tree barrier (30 ft or higher) placeA established salt tolerant tree barrier (30 ft or higher) placed within 100 d within 100 yards of SE will contain nearly 99.9 % of salt that drifts outsiyards of SE will contain nearly 99.9 % of salt that drifts outside the SE. It de the SE. It will allow placement of nozzles at a higher elevation, thereforewill allow placement of nozzles at a higher elevation, therefore increasing increasing evaporation rates.evaporation rates.
Salt Accumulation and SeparationSalt Accumulation and Separation
Salt mixture on the solar evaporator surface
Extractable TDS ConstituentsExtractable TDS ConstituentsAverage % by Dry Weight:Average % by Dry Weight:
•• Sodium Sulfate Sodium Sulfate 37%37%•• Sodium Chloride Sodium Chloride 33%33%•• Calcium Sulfate Calcium Sulfate 16%16%•• Magnesium Chloride Magnesium Chloride 7%7%•• Sodium Nitrate Sodium Nitrate 3% 3% •• Calcium Carbonate Calcium Carbonate 2% 2% •• Boron Boron 1%1%•• Potassium Chloride Potassium Chloride 0.8% 0.8% •• Selenium Selenium 0.01%0.01%•• Other Other 0.19%0.19%
Sequence for Increasing Salt ConcentrationSequence for Increasing Salt Concentration
Sump “D” Water
Tomato tub # 2
Tomato tub # 1
Tomato tub # 3
Tomato tub # 4
Tomato tub tanks 3,000 gallons
Step 1- tomato tub # 1- salt concentrations 27-48 ppt
Step 2- tomato tub #2- salt concentrations 41-107 ppt
Step 3- tomato tub #3- salt concentrations 61-220 ppt
Step 4- tomato tub #4- salt concentrations 77-415 ppt
To Salt Crystallization (Solar Still or Solar Evaporator)
Increasing Salt Concentration Increasing Salt Concentration
Salt accumulated at a green house at RRR
Sodium sulfate is the dominating salt in the mixture
Approximate Value of Dissolved Salt ComponentsApproximate Value of Dissolved Salt ComponentsRRR Sump RRR Sump ““DD”” Drainage Water (10 af)Drainage Water (10 af)TDS: 10,000 mg/L with 1 mg/L SeTDS: 10,000 mg/L with 1 mg/L Se
<1%<1%$20$20$7.5/ton$7.5/ton2.8 tons/yr2.8 tons/yrCalcium BicarbonateCalcium Bicarbonate
12%12%$1690$1690$300/ton$300/ton5.6 tons/yr5.6 tons/yrSodium NitrateSodium Nitrate
16%16%$2,338$2,338$255/ton$255/ton9.2 tons/yr9.2 tons/yrMagnesium ChlorideMagnesium Chloride
8%8%$1,152$1,152$25/ton$25/ton46.1 tons/yr46.1 tons/yrSodium ChlorideSodium Chloride
$14,438$14,438$1,149$1,149
$6,898$6,898
$580$580
$610$610
MarketMarketValueValue
100%100%TotalTotal8%8%$52/lb$52/lb22 lbs/yr22 lbs/yrSeleniumSelenium
49%49%$134/ton$134/ton51.5 tons/yr51.5 tons/yrSodium SulfateSodium Sulfate
4%4%$30/ton$30/ton19.3 tons/yr19.3 tons/yrGypsum (Gypsum (calcinatedcalcinated))
4%4%$425/ton$425/ton1.4 tons/yr1.4 tons/yrBoronBoron
%%ValueValueUnit ValueUnit ValueQuantityQuantity
Source USGS Mineral Commodity Statistics (Prices are fob at mineSource USGS Mineral Commodity Statistics (Prices are fob at mine 2006)2006)
Solar Evaporator Estimated CostsSolar Evaporator Estimated Costs
Pilot Solar Evaporator Estimated Costs (1 Acre)
Gravel delivered and placed $7,500Tile Drain System and Sump $5,000Grading and Excavation $4,000Pumps $5,000Spray System inc. tips $2,000Corrugated Drain Pipes $2,500Drift Fence $6,250Land (SJV Westside) $5,000Engineering fees and permits (20%) $9,313
Total Capital Costs $46,563
Capital Costs 20 yr at 7% $4,395 yearPumping Costs $6,983 yearO&M $5,400 year
Total Combined Costs $16,778 year
Brine Water Evaporated 16.50 af per ac/yrTotal Unit Cost $1,017 per af
Conclusions
With fan sprinklers at 1.5 ft, the SE achieved 3.3 times the rate of pan evaporation.
A minimum of 16.5 acre-feet per acre per year of subsurface drainage water can be evaporated at the pilot SE.
Salt drift can be minimized with a screened 6-ft fence resulting in drift rates up to 1lb per hour of operation. This represents about 1% of the total salt volume.
At higher sprinkler elevations the evaporation rates can be increased substantially, but a taller barrier will be needed to control salt drift.
Pilot demonstration project results indicate that is feasible to design, construct, and operate a solar evaporator for IFDM.
It could be used to manage concentrate from desalination processes and effluent from industrial processes
Salts can be stored and separated in different components (need large salt volume to attract commercial operations)