National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) Power Sector Technology Roadmap 2021

Childress, Amy E.; Giammar, Daniel E.; Jiang, Sunny C.; Breckenridge, Richard; Howell, Andrew; Macknick, Jordan; Sedlak, David L.; Stokes-Draut, Jennifer

doi:10.2172/1782445

Cited by 8 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These research opportunities align with recently published technology roadmaps for the municipal and power end-use sectors. 91,92 For systems involving RO and membrane filtration, these operations are both the most expensive and energy intensive; consequently, research that enables the development of processes with longer lifetimes, lower production costs, and that are more resilient to fluctuations in influent water quality can have major benefits. Research that advances the modularity, autonomy, and electrification (e.g., substitution of electricity for chemicals) of treatment trains has the potential to make potable reuse of municipal wastewater a viable option for small systems as well as for the large systems where they are currently deployed.…”

Section: Comparison Of Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Municipal water reuse can contribute to a circular water economy in different contexts and with various treatment trains. This study synthesized information regarding the current technological and regulatory statuses of municipal reuse. It provides process-level information on cost and energy metrics for three potable reuse and one nonpotable reuse case studies using the new Water Techno-economic Assessment Pipe-Parity Platform (WaterTAP3). WaterTAP3 enabled comparisons of cost and energy metrics for different treatment trains and for different alternative water sources consistently with a common platform. A carbon-based treatment train has both a lower calculated levelized cost of water (LCOW) ($0.40/m3) and electricity intensity (0.30 kWh/m3) than a reverse osmosis (RO)-based treatment train ($0.54/m3 and 0.84 kWh/m3). In comparing LCOW and energy intensity for water production from municipal reuse, brackish water, and seawater based on the largest facilities of each type in the United States, municipal reuse had a lower LCOW and electricity than seawater but higher values than for production from brackish water. For a small (2.0 million gallon per day) inland RO-based municipal reuse facility, WaterTAP3 evaluated different deep well injection and zero liquid discharge (ZLD) scenarios for management of RO concentrate. Adding ZLD to a facility that currently allows surface discharge of concentrate would approximately double the LCOW. For all four case studies, LCOW is most sensitive to changes in weighted average cost of capital, on-stream capacity, and plant life. Baseline assessments, pipe parity metrics, and scenario analyses can inform greater observability and understanding of reuse adoption and the potential for cost-effective and energy-efficient reuse.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Upstream water reuse, where lower-quality water from downstream processes is used in upstream processes, has been less common because of significant treatment and/or dilution requirements . However, upstream reuse is becoming more common with ZLD implementation.…”

Section: Review Of Water Withdrawals Water Use and Reuse And Zld Appr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…ZLD is a wastewater management strategy where no wastewater is discharged and water recovery is maximized. , ZLD does not just refer to an additional series of unit operations but is considered a holistic philosophy that affects how an entire power facility operates. Given the cost implications, power facilities do not choose to implement ZLD freelyfacilities being retrofit for ZLD generally do so only if necessary to meet more stringent discharge regulations; , facilities being newly designed for ZLD operation intend to avoid the more extensive permitting processes and monitoring requirements associated with off-site discharge. Both retrofit and new ZLD facilites also benefit from reduced requirements for water withdrawals.…”

Section: Review Of Water Withdrawals Water Use and Reuse And Zld Appr...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Zero Liquid Discharge and Water Reuse in Recirculating Cooling Towers at Power Facilities: Review and Case Study Analysis

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Zero liquid discharge (ZLD) systems installed at power facilities with the primary purpose of meeting water discharge regulations have the added benefit of providing high quality effluent that can be reused in the facility. This paper provides a review of water use in power sector recirculating cooling towers and a baseline assessment of on-site water reuse at natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power facilities. Two NGCC facilities with reverse-osmosis (RO) or brine-concentrator processes followed by evaporation ponds were selected as case studies; data from these facilities were used to quantify the water, energy, and cost implications of implementing conventional and emerging ZLD technologies. At one case study facility, model results show that implementation of ZLD would reduce water withdrawals by 18%, which is less than savings associated with implementation of dry cooling but comparable to current efforts to reduce water withdrawals by increasing cycles of concentration. Implementation of ZLD using high-recovery RO resulted in a doubling of the levelized cost of water (LCOW). LCOW increased more when a brine concentrator was used. For both case studies, the ZLD system using high-recovery RO required less than 0.1% of a facilitiy's annual electricity generation and the ZLD system using a brine concentrator process required less than 0.8%. Additionally, increasing the evaporation pond area to minimize required ZLD system recovery rates and reduce system electricity costs does not reduce the LCOW. Instead, the LCOW increases because less water is recovered and more water is lost to evaporation. However, if water availability decreases or water competition/cost increases, facilities may be incentivized to maximize water recovery from ZLD systems.

show abstract

“…27 resource extraction, 26,28 and power generation. 25,29 The broad salinity range is represented in terms of two scenarios for desalination: low salinity (2,000 mg/L) and high salinity (35,000 mg/L).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Salinity ranges of nontraditional water sources for distributed desalination. Nontraditional water sources are grouped into different sectorsbrackish groundwater and agriculture,27 resource extraction,26,28 and power generation 25,29. The broad salinity range is represented in terms of two scenarios for desalination: low salinity (2,000 mg/L) and high salinity (35,000 mg/L).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distributed Desalination using Solar Energy: A Techno-economic Framework to Decarbonize Nontraditional Water Treatment

Menon

Jia

Kaur

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Desalination of nontraditional waters (e.g., agricultural drainage, brackish groundwater, industrial discharges, etc.) using renewable energy sources offers a possible route to transform our incumbent linear consumption model (discharge after use) to a circular one (beneficial reuse). This transition will also shift desalination from large-scale centralized coastal facilities towards modular distributed treatment plants (~1000 m3/day) in inland locations. This new scale of desalination can be satisfied using solar energy to decarbonize water production, but additional considerations, such as storage to address intermittency and inland brine management to address high disposal costs, become important. In this work, we evaluate the levelized cost of water or LCOW for 16 solar desalination technologies (with different generation–storage-desalination–brine management subsystems) at 2 different salinities corresponding to nontraditional sources. For fossil fuel-driven desalination plants at the distributed scale, we find that zero liquid discharge is economically favorable to inland brine disposal. For renewable desalination, we discover that (i) solar-thermal energy is better suited to both membrane and thermal desalination plants compared to photovoltaics largely due to the low cost of thermal storage, and that (ii) energy storage, despite its higher cost, outperforms water storage on a levelized basis as the latter has a low utilization factor with intermittently operated desalination plants. The analysis also yields a promising outlook for the LCOW of solar desalination by 2030 as the costs of solar generation and energy storage decrease to meet the U.S. Department of Energy targets. Finally, we highlight subsystem cost and performance targets for solar desalination to achieve cost parity with fossil fuel-driven water treatment.

show abstract

National Alliance for Water Innovation (NAWI) Power Sector Technology Roadmap 2021

Cited by 8 publications

References 14 publications

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

Zero Liquid Discharge and Water Reuse in Recirculating Cooling Towers at Power Facilities: Review and Case Study Analysis

Distributed Desalination using Solar Energy: A Techno-economic Framework to Decarbonize Nontraditional Water Treatment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About