Forward Osmosis Energy Use
Comparisons to RO, MSF, MED
R. McGinnis, J. McCutcheon M. Elimelech
Dept. of Chemical Engineering
Environmental Engineering Program
Yale University
NAMS 2007, Orlando, FL
Outline
• Overview of NH3/CO2 FO
• Solute Removal / Recycle Methods
• Modeling Methods
• FO Energy Estimates
• Comparison to RO, MSF, MED
• Impact of Membrane Efficiency on Heat
Use
The Ammonia-Carbon
Dioxide FO Process
Reverse Osmosis
Saline
Membrane
Water HP Pump
J w = A(ΔP − σΔπ )
Energy
Input
Brine Energy Product Water
Recovery
Forward Osmosis Process
Membrane
Saline Water
Energy
Input
Draw Solution Draw Solute
NH3/CO2 Recovery
Product
Water
Brine
0
J w = A(σΔπ − ΔP )
Potential Benefits
• Low Energy Costs
– Can use low temperature heat
– Low cost of heat favors low total water costs
• Lower Energy Use than Other Thermal Methods
– Phase change of solute, not solvent
• High Feedwater Recovery
– No osmotic pressure limitation to recovery
– Pretreatment to prevent scaling will be limiting factor
• Reduced Brine Discharge
• May be Effective for Difficult Feedwaters
– FO uses so far: food concentration, landfill leachate treatment,
anaerobic sludge centrate treatment
Solute Removal /
Recycle Methods
Seawater Distillation
Kg water
GOR = ≈1
Kg steam
Image from Wikipedia
Multi-Stage Distillation
Kg water
GOR = ≈ 8 − 12
Kg steam
Image from Encarta Encyclopedia Online
MED Desalination
Energy
Temperature,
Pressure
Feed
Brine
Kg water
GOR = ≈ 8 − 14
Kg steam
Product
Water
Forward Osmosis Process
Membrane
Saline Water
Distillation
Column
Draw Solution Draw Solute
NH3/CO2 Recovery
Product
Water
Brine
Single Distillation Column
To Membrane System
From Membrane System
Column
Reboiler
Product Water
Heat Duty
(Steam in, Condensate out)
Multi-Stage Column
Distillation
• Benefits from Heat Reuse Efficiencies of
MSF / MED
• Reduces Quantity of Energy Required by
60-70%
• May use Higher Temperatures than MSF
or MED (to increase range of increased
efficiency)
Multiple Column Operation
Temperature,
Pressure
From Membrane System
From Membrane System
Heat Duty
Column
Product Water
Reboiler
To Membrane System
From Membrane System
Column
Product Water
To Membrane System
Reboiler
Multi-Stage Column Distillation
(MSCD)
Temperature,
Pressure Energy
Feed
Draw Solution
Product
Water
McGinnis, Elimelech, “Energy Requirements of Ammonia–Carbon Dioxide Forward
Osmosis Desalination”, Desalination, 207 (2007) 370-382.
Modeling Methods
• AspenTech Hysys Chemical Process
Modeling Software
• OLI Electrolyte Property Database (high
ionic strength)
• Draw Solution Concentrations Based on
Experimental Flux Data
Hysys / OLI
Heat Duty versus
Temperature of Heat
400
MED
MSF
FO MSCD
300
Heat Duty (MJ/m )
3
Electrical Power:
MED = 1.60 kWh/m3
200 MSF = 2.65 kWh/m3
FO = 0.24 kWh/m3
100
0
50 100 150 200 250
o
Heat Temp. ( C)
MED plot based on Performance Ratios (lbs water / 1000 BTU) of 8 - 14.73 for heat temperatures of 70-131 oC;
MSF for GOR of 12 for 115 oC (from Morin, O.J., Design and Operating Comparison of MSF and MED Systems.
Desalination,93(1-3) (1993) 69-109)
Heat Duty vs. Temp. of Heat
35
30
25
20
GOR
15
10
5
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
o
Heat Temp. ( C)
GOR =
[(H steam ) − (H water @ 35 C )](kJ/kg)
0
GOR =
Kg water
Heat Duty FO (kJ/kg) Kg steam
Equivalent Work
Decreasing Steam Pressure, Decreasing Ability to do Work
Mechanical work not done by steam
Steam In Steam Out
LP Steam Turbine Condenser
Kgwater
GOR =
Kgsteam
Steam to Desalination Process
⎛ m3 water ⎞
Wequiv =⎜ ⎟[( H in − H out ) × Eturbine ]× ⎛⎜ 2.77 ×10−6 kWh ⎞⎟ + Welec
⎜ GOR 0 ⎟ ⎝ MJ ⎠
⎝ 35 C ⎠
Equivalent Work vs
Heat Temperature (FO MSCD)
3 RO
Equiv. Work (kWh/m )
3
0
0 50 100 150 200 250
o
Heat Temp. ( C)
⎛ m3 water ⎞
Wequiv =⎜ ⎟[( H in − H out ) × Eturbine ]× ⎛⎜ 2.77 ×10−6 kWh ⎞⎟ + Welec
⎜ GOR 0 ⎟ ⎝ MJ ⎠
⎝ 35 C ⎠
Comparison of Desalination Technologies
Based on Equivalent Work
6
MSF
MED-TVC
5 MED-LT
RO
FO-LT
4
3
kWh/m
0
Contribution from
Electrical Power
Draw Concentration vs.
Energy Use
4
40 160 C
160 C
Equiv. Work (kWh/m )
40-44 C
3
40-44C
3
30
GOR
20 2
10 1
0 0
0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5
Draw Conc. (M) Draw Conc (M)
Adapted from: McGinnis, Elimelech, “Energy Requirements of Ammonia–Carbon Dioxide
Forward Osmosis Desalination”, Desalination, 207 (2007) 370-382.
Concluding Remarks
• Availability of heat determines best
desalination method
– If heat is available for cogeneration, FO is likely
preferable to RO in energy cost
– If only electricity or fuel is available, RO is best
• Multiple columns useful to produce the most
water yield for a given heat source
• FO membrane performance drives energy
use of FO
Acknowledgements
• Funding by the Office of Naval
Research
• Hydration Technologies
• Dow Filmtec
• Cascade Designs
