Professional Documents
Culture Documents
To cite this article: Abdel-Nasser A. Mabrouk , Ahmed S. Nafey & Hassan E.S. Fath (2010) Steam, electricity and water
costs evaluation of power desalination co-generation plants, Desalination and Water Treatment, 22:1-3, 56-64
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2010.1537
22 (2010) 5664
October
www.deswater.com
1944-3994/1944-3986 2010 Desalination Publications. All rights reserved
doi: 10/5004/dwt.2010.1537
A B S T R AC T
This paper addresses the effect of the oil prices on the cost of low pressure heating steam for
thermal desalination systems, electricity and desalinated water. Two methods of calculating
the low pressure steam, and electricity are developed and compared with a typical power/
water cogeneration plant commissioned in 2009, by the King of Saudi Arabia. The first method
is based on the calculation of the monetary cost of all streams of power cycle and charging the
levelized capital and operating and maintenance costs based on exergy. The cost of bleeding
steam is allocated based on the steam quality. In the second method we calculate the low pressure steam of the back pressure turbine based on equivalent cost of power loss due to the steam
withdrawal for desalination plant. Visual Design and Simulation Program (VDSP) previously
developed by the authors is used. The effect of a wide range of the oil price (5 100 $/bbl) is
investigated. The results showed that the second method overestimates the electricity cost by
8% and underestimates the low pressure steam cost by 25% at oil price of 70 $/bbl. The results
showed also that, the product water, electricity, and steam costs are significantly affected by
the variation in oil price. The product water cost will be less than 1.0 $/m3, only if oil price is
subsidized to near to 20 $/bbl. However, the water unit cost may jump to 4 $/m3 when the oil
price increased to 100 $/bbl.
Keywords: Desalination; Electricity; MSF; Water cost; Exergy; Cogeneration
1. Introduction
Thermal desalination technology, particularly Multi
stage flash (MSF), has proven to be the most reliable
and mature technology for producing high quality distilled water on large scale and for high feed water salinity. Due to its advantages and accumulated operational
experience gained (from over 50 years of operational
feedback), MSF still dominates the thermal desalination
market particularly in the Gulf region.
*Corresponding author.
57
(1)
Qsupply
HE 1
.
.
W SP W DP
SP
.
W
.
W
HE 1
.
Edesal
.
Wloss
58
.
.
.
W DP
(2)
(3)
.
.
.
.
.
(4)
Fig. 2. Power and water cogeneration plant, (400 MW & 4 16.2 MIGD MSF).
C 2 C1
(6)
Q f , boiler ( MW )
1000 5.71
3600
(7)
where the consumed thermal energy, Q f , boiler , is calculated from heat balance of steam generator as follows:
Q f , boiler
.
.
M 2 ( h2 h1 ) + M4 ( h6 h4 )
(8)
C10 + C 9 = C 6 + C 2 C 3 C 7 C 8 + Zturbine
(9)
Auxiliary equations
C2
C7
C8
E8
C6
E6
C6
(12)
E6
C9
(11)
E7
.
(10)
E2
E6 E 2
E3
(5)
C fuel = C barrel
.
.
.
. CI + O & M
.
.
C 2 C1 + C 6 C 4 = C fuel + z boiler
C6 C 4
E2 E1
C3
2.1. Methods
59
C6
(13)
E9
E6
C11
.
E11
C9
.
E9
(14)
(15)
60
.
C12
.
C10
E12
E10
(16)
E10
.
.
.
m2 ( h2 h3 ) + m2 m5 ( h6 h7 )
.
.
.
.
= W T = + m2 m5 m7 ( h7 h8 )
.
.
.
+ m m m m. h h
( 8 9)
5
7
8
2
(17)
m1 P1 P11
E12 = W FWPUMP =
(18)
C5
.
E5
C13
.
E13
(23)
(20)
E4
C 9 C13 C14 = 0
C4
(19)
C4 + C5 = C3
(21)
W SP = W DP + W loss
(25)
C14
.
E14
(22)
+O& M
C SP , power = C fuel + zCI
equipment + add. turbine , $/hr
(26)
CSP , power =
. CI + O & M
, $/kWh
(27)
Wlost , $/hr
(28)
W SP
C lost , power =
. CI + O & M
W SP
61
(29)
Exergy,
MW
Cost,
$/h
Specific cost,
$/ton
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
534
534
534
482
52
482
28
28
454
141.36
773.31
617.56
557.78
59.78
593.83
27.93
22.07
303.61
367.58
25.46
11.09
32.07
275.23
2106
10,429.00
8328
7522
806
7996
376
297
4088
6332
343
191
426
3662
4.14
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.74
3.74
3.74
3.74
4.79
3.74
4.79
3.7
3.7
1.1
5.42
4.33
4.33
4.33
4.61
3.76
2.94
2.5
454
48
406
0.21
2.47
2.5
62
Stream
No.
Exergy,
MW
Cost,
$/h
Specific cost,
$/ton
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
534
534
534
482
52
482
28
28
454.5
141.36
773.31
617.56
557.78
59.78
593.83
27.93
22.07
303.61
367.58
25.46
11.09
32.07
275.23
9,253
48,138
38,442
34,720
3,721
36,939
1,737
1,373
18,886
27,847
1,584
742
2,083
16,804
18.18
17.29
17.29
17.29
17.29
17.28
17.28
17.28
17.28
21.04
17.28
21.04
18.06
18.06
4.81
25
20
20
20
21.3
17.4
13.6
11.54
48
406
0.97
12
11.5
30
25
454.5
Elecriicty, $ /kWh
Table 2
Thermo economic results of power cycle of 400 MW at (70 $/bbl)
20
15
10
Exergy Method
5
Power Loss
Method
0
0
20
40
60
80
Oil Price, $ / barrel
100
120
Table 3
Comparison between exergy and power loss method
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Exergy Method
Power Loss
0
20
40
60
80
Oil price, $/barrel
100
120
Electricity, % diff
5
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
7
7
11
10
10
10
9
8
13
12
11
12
16
21
23
24
24
24
25
25
25
26
63
Chemicals 1%
Electricity 17%
Material 53%
piping 5%
valves 7%
LP steam 82%
I &C 9%
b: Specific OPEX
a: Specific CAPEX
de-aerator. The exergy model takes also care of the levelized cost details and the cost allocation is based on
the steam quality. The results showed that the power
loss method overestimates the electricity cost by 8%
and underestimates the low pressure steam cost by
25% at oil price of 70 $/bbl.
Fig. 6 shows the overall cost breakdown of MSF
plant. The specific capital cost (CAPEX) percentage
includes the evaporator material, pumps, valves, and
instrumentation and control devices costs is shown in
Fig. 6a. The cost analysis showed that the material cost
of MSF represented 53% of the total specific CAPEX.
The pumps with its facilities came as the second contributor of 26%. The specific operating cost (OPEX) is
varying according to the oil price as explained above.
The OPEX includes the low pressure steam, the electricity and the chemicals costs as shown in Fig. 6b.
Based on oil price of 70 $/bbl, the low pressure steam
cost represents also 82% of the OPEX. The electricity
cost represents the second item cost 17%; however the
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90 100 110
4. Conclusion
Two methods of calculating the cost of low pressure
steam, electricity are developed and compared for a
typical power-water cogeneration plant, recently commissioned on 2009, KSA. The first method (exergy) is
based on calculating the monetary cost of all streams
of power cycle and charging the levelized capital and
operating and maintenance cost based on exergy. The
second method is based on equivalent cost of power
loss due to steam withdrawal to the desalination plant
(power loss). The thermoeconomic (exergy based)
method considered the cost of bleeding steam as well
as allocating cost based on the steam quality. The effect
of a wide range of the oil price (5100 $/Barrel) is studied. The results showed that the power loss method
overestimates the electricity cost by 8% and underestimates the low pressure steam cost by 25% at oil price of
70 $/bbl. The results show also that, the product water,
electricity, and steam costs are significantly affected by
the variation in oil price. The product water cost will be
less than 1.0 $/m3, if fuel cost is subsidized to near to
20 $/Barrel. However, if the fuel cost is not subsidized
the water unit cost may jump to 4 $/m3 if the fuel price
increased to 100 $/Barrel.
64
References
Symbols
C
E
h
M
Q
S
T
W
Subscripts
F
MSF
O
P
fuel
multi stage flash
dead state
product
Greek letters
hb
Efficiency