7

Salinity Gradient

Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this chapter, one should be able to:

1. Describe the concept of generating energy and power from salinity gradients.
2. Enumerate the various ways of generating useful energy and power from salinity
gradients.
3. Estimate available power from saline systems.
4. Describe the various applications of salinity gradients.
5. Describe the various conversion efficiencies in salinity gradient systems.
6. Relate the overall environmental and economic issues concerning salinity gradi-
ent power systems as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the system.

7.1 Introduction
Salinity gradient energy, sometimes referred to as osmotic energy, is technology that takes
advantage of the osmotic pressure differences between salt water and fresh water. If a
semi-permeable membrane (like that in a reverse osmosis filter) is placed between sealed
bodies of salt water and fresh water, the fresh water will gradually travel through the fil-
ter by osmosis. By exploiting the pressure difference between these two bodies of water,
energy can be extracted in proportion to the difference in osmotic pressure. There are two
established practical methods currently being used—reverse electro-dialysis (RED) and
pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO). The key process is the osmosis of ions in various mem-
branes, which creates differential pressure. This phenomenon was first observed as early as
1954 when fresh water from inland was mixed with salt water along deltas (Pattle, 1954).
However, the original observers did not come up with technology to harness the difference
in osmotic pressure. In the 1970s, practical methods, using various impermeable mem-
branes, were discovered by Professor Sidney Loeb at the Ben-Gurion University of the
Negev, Beersheba in Israel (Weintraub, 2011). These methods were applied to an area along
the Jordan River flowing into the Dead Sea. In 1977, Professor Loeb invented a method of
producing power with a reverse osmosis electro-dialysis heat engine. The rest, as they say,
is history. The technology has now evolved worldwide into commercial use, particularly in
the Netherlands, which initiated the development of RED, and in Norway, the precursor of
PRO. It is common knowledge in the energy community that membranes are quite costly.
Now, the research is directed toward finding the cheapest membrane that can yield the

189
190 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

most power. Salinity gradient or osmosis power is one of the renewable energy resources
that does not contribute to an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; there is basi-
cally no associated fuel use, unlike some renewable technologies (such as fuel cells). Before
the development of real osmotic power, the solar pond was thought to be the pathway for
power generation, as a temperature gradient exists on open ponds, especially those with
high concentrations of salt. The difference in temperature also gives rise to an increase in
pressure, which may be enough to turn a low-power turbine. This phenomenon is the sole
power source of a solar pond. This will be briefly discussed in the next section.

7.2  The Solar Pond

A solar pond is not quite a salinity gradient facility; rather, it is a facility that takes advan-
tage of the thermal heat from the sun and generates energy or power for beneficial uses.
Figure 7.1 shows a solar pond facility in El Paso, Texas. This facility has an area of 3,200 m2
[34,427 ft2] in which the Bruce Foods Corporation operates (STM, 2017). This is the first-
ever solar pond in the United States but only the second largest. The salt water along the
pond forms a vertical salinity gradient that is called a “halocline.” This demonstrates that
low-salinity water floats on top of high-salinity water. In short, there is still a resulting
gradient. To have a large vertical temperature gradient, a large area must be allocated.
The primary cost is that of the impermeable liner, which is used to ensure that water will
not percolate through the ground. The surface water is constantly evaporated due to the

FIGURE 7.1
A solar pond facility in Pecos, Texas (STM, 2017).
Salinity Gradient 191

heat of the sun, causing the accumulation of salt, which would have to be removed. The
energy obtained in this system is in the form of low-grade heat as a function of a tem-
perature that is 70°C to 80°C [158°F to 176°F]. If the ambient temperature is at 20°C [68°F],
there will be considerable heat difference (STM 2017). The heat energy absorbed is found
with the sensible energy equation relating the mass, the specific heat, and the change in
temperature presented in earlier chapters. This equation will be restated in this chapter
as Equation 7.1:

Q ( kJ ) = mCp ∆T (7.1)

where
Q = heat energy (kJ)
m = mass of body of fluid (kg)
Cp = specific heat of fluid (kJ/kg°C)
ΔT = change in temperature (°C)

Example 7.1 shows the estimated thermal energy of a hectare of seawater with a given
depth as heated by the sun.

Example 7.1:  Total Daily Energy Absorbed by a Solar Pond

A hectare of pond with a depth of 5 meters [16.4 ft] is being heated by the sun. The aver-
age temperature of the pond has risen from 20°C to 28°C [68°F to 82.4°F] during a hot
day. Determine the amount of solar energy absorbed by this pond using the sensible
heat Equation 7.1. Assume the density of sea water to be 1,027 kg/m3 [64 lbs/ft3] and its
specific heat 3.93 kJ/kg°C [0.94 Btu/lb°F].

SOLUTION:
a. First, the mass of the body of water heated is calculated:

100 m × 100 m 3 m 1, 027 kg

m ( kg ) = 1 ha × × × = 30, 810, 000 kg
1 ha m3
2.2 lbs
m ( lbs ) = 30, 810, 000 kg × = 67, 782, 000 lbs
1 kg

b. The heat energy equation is used:

kJ
Q ( kJ ) = mCp ∆T = 30, 810, 000 kg × 3.93 × (( 28 − 20 ) °C ) = 968, 666, 400 kJ
kg °C
1, 000 J Btu
Q ( Btu) = 968, 666, 400 kJ × × = 918 Million Btu
1 kJ 1055 J

c. This is the energy absorbed by this vast area—more than 968 million kJ
[918 million Btu].

Wide-scale generation of power from the salinity gradient/solar pond is shown in Figure 7.2.
This system is similar to the El Paso solar pond facility in Texas. It was reported that the
maximum Carnot efficiency of the solar pond (by taking advantage of this temperature gra-
dient, usually at least 20°C [68°F] is around 17% [STM, 2017]). The Carnot Cycle efficiency
192 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

FIGURE 7.2
Typical salinity gradient/solar pond conversion system.

is given by Equation 7.2. The efficiency may be calculated using the difference in high- and
low-temperature regions. Example 7.2 shows how this calculation is made:

 W  T 
ηC ( % ) =   × 100% =  1 − C  × 100% (7.2)
 QH   TH 
where
W = work done by the system (kJ or KW)
QH = heat emitted by the system (kJ or kW)
TC = absolute temperature of the cold reservoir (K)
TH = absolute temperature of the hot reservoir (K)

Example 7.2:  Theoretical Carnot Cycle Efficiency

Calculate the theoretical Carnot Cycle efficiency of a solar pond which has a high-­
temperature reservoir of 80°C [176°F] and a low-temperature reservoir of 20°C [68°F].
If the net output or work done in the system is 150 kW [201 hp], at this theoretical effi-
ciency, how much heat was emitted by the system?

SOLUTION:
a. Equation 7.2 is simply used as follows:

 T  
ηC ( % ) =  1 − C  × 100% =  1 −
( 273.15 + 20) K  × 100% = 16.99%
 TH   ( 273.15 + 80) K 
Salinity Gradient 193

b. Using Equation 7.2, the heat emitted by the system is calculated as follows:

 W
ηC ( % ) =  × 100%
 QH 
 150 kW 
QH ( kW ) =  × 100% = 882.87 kW
 16.99% 
1, 000 W hp
QH = 882.87 kW × × = 1, 183.5 hp
1 kW 746 W

c. About 883 kW [1,184 hp] of power is transferred to the reservoir.

The largest operating solar pond for electricity generation was the Belt HaArava pond in
Israel, operated until 1988. It had an area of 210,000 square meters [688,800 ft2] and gave an
electrical output of 5 MW [0.00015 Quad/yr] (STM, 2017). India was the first Asian coun-
try to establish a solar pond facility in Bhuj in Gujarat. This facility supplies 80,000 liters
[21,136 gal] of hot water daily to the Gujarat Energy Development Agency and the Gujarat
Dairy Development Corporation, Ltd (STM, 2017). An earlier project in Israel was a 150 kW
[201 hp] solar pond built in 1980 (Mother Earth News, 1980).
The El Paso Solar Pond is a research, development, and demonstration project operated
by the University of Texas at El Paso and funded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and
the state of Texas. The project, located on the property of Bruce Foods, Inc., a food can-
ning company, was initiated in 1983. Since 1985, the El Paso Solar Pond has been operated
continuously for seven years. The pond had been reconstructed with a geosynthetic liber
(GCL) system, and operation resumed in the spring of 1995 (Lu and Swift, 2001). Current
projects being undertaken at the El Paso Solar Pond include a biomass waste-to-energy
project using heat from the pond, use of the pond for desalination and brine management,
and its industrial application of sodium sulfate mining.
There are numerous advantages and disadvantages to a solar pond or salinity gra-
dient facility. These are enumerated and discussed below.

7.2.1 Advantages
The advantages of salinity gradient facilities are as follows:

a. No CO2 or other significant effluents or any global environmental effects

b. Completely renewable
c. Non-periodic (unlike wind or wave power)
d. Suitable for small- or large-scale plants (modular layout)

Solar ponds or salinity gradients should not contribute to global warming since no carbon
dioxide is produced. No effluents are generated, and some products from the pond could
be mined. This is a completely renewable energy technology with vast potential. It is not
periodic like solar and wind, although the solar pond still needs the sun. Fully dedicated
salinity gradients may not need the sun for their operation. There are small- and large-scale
projects being initiated. Hence, the only hurdle is finding an available site for the facility. At
the El Paso Solar Pond facility, the project halted because of a tear in its old, original XR-5
membrane liner. Newer and sturdier liners have since been developed (Lu and Swift, 2001).
194 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

7.2.2 Disadvantages
Overall drawbacks of salinity gradient facilities:

a. Plant equipment with the necessary efficiency has yet to be developed

b. High capital costs for plant construction, mostly of buildings and machinery
c. Energy cost is very sensitive to membrane cost and efficiency
d. Membranes used for plants are vulnerable to fouling

There are some minor drawbacks in the operation and management of salinity gradient
projects or solar ponds. These are enumerated below.
Drawbacks in operation and management of salinity gradient projects:

a. Marine life is affected during construction and operation.

b. There will be massive geological changes on the flora.
c. There is a need for durable materials as liners.
d. Any materials used must be highly resilient.
e. The overall efficiency of the system is quite low.

The overall conversion efficiencies of salinity gradient systems are much lower than the
typical efficiency of an internal combustion engine. However, newer dedicated salinity
gradient projects have shown very high conversion efficiencies, with theoretical values
reported at over 90% for the PRO system.
The current high cost of a plant is a hindrance in addition to the high cost of durable lin-
ers. Membranes used in salinity gradient systems are quite expensive, and this brings up
the initial capital cost of the system. The membranes used are the same as those used in
desalination plants, competing with that application.
Nevertheless, there are numerous valuable co-products generated. For example, the El
Paso plant mines sodium sulfate for industrial applications.

7.3  Energy of Sea Water for Desalination

The osmotic pressure π from salt water is given in Equation 7.3. Example 7.3 shows how
this equation is utilized to estimate the osmotic pressure as a function of molar concentra-
tions and temperature. Example 7.4 shows how much work is done against pressure, which
is also equal to the desalination work on salt water. Example 7.5 shows the sensible heat
absorbed by a given amount of liquid:

π = cRT (7.3)

where
c = molar concentration
R = universal gas constant = 0.082 L-bar/deg-mol
T = temperature in absolute scale (K)
Salinity Gradient 195

Example 7.3:  Osmotic Pressure Calculations

Determine the osmotic pressure in units of kg/cm2 [psi] for the following data.
Temperature is 30 K, the molar concentration of salt ions is equal to 1.128 mol/L, and the
universal gas constant is 0.082 L-bar/deg-mol.

SOLUTION:
a. Equation 7.1 is used directly to get the following:

mol L − bar kg
π = cRT = 1.128 × 0.082 × 300 K = 27.8 bar = 27.8 2
L degK − mol cm

b. The osmotic pressure is around 27.8 bars [403.2 psi].

Example 7.4:  Work Done in Osmotic Pressure Systems

Calculate the work done against pressure using the following data: pressure is equal to
27.8 kg/cm2 [403.2 psi], and 1 liter [0.264 gal] of water is pushed against an area of 1 cm2
[0.155 in2] over a distance of 10 meters [32.8 ft].

SOLUTION:
a. The work or energy is as follows (per liter of salt water):

27.8 kg N − s 2 9.8 m
W= 2
× 1 cm2 × 10 m = 278 kg − m × × 2 = 2, 724 Nm = 2.7 kJ
cm kg − m s

b. The minimum energy required to desalinate 1 liter [0.264 gal] of seawater is

about 2.7 kJ [2.582 Btu].

Example 7.5:  Energy Required to Boil Salt Water

Determine the amount of energy required to boil 1 kg of salt water from 25°C to 100°C
[77°F to 212°F]. Assume the specific heat of water to be 3.93 kJ/kg°C [0.9393 Btu/lb°F].

SOLUTION:
a. The heat energy equation is used:

kJ
Q ( kJ ) = mCp ∆T = 1 kg × 3.93 × (( 100 − 25 ) °C ) = 294.75 kJ
kg °C

b. The energy required to heat up 1 kg [2.2 lbs] of salt water is around 295 kJ
[279.62 Btu].

7.4  Pressure-Retarded Osmosis (PRO)

A pressure-retarded osmosis (PRO) system uses a membrane to separate a concentrated
salt solution (like seawater) from fresh water. The fresh water flows through a semi-­
permeable membrane toward the sea water, which increases the pressure within the
seawater chamber. A turbine is spun as the pressure is compensated, and electricity
196 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

is generated. The world’s first reported PRO plant was built by Statkraft, a Norwegian
utility company (Patel, 2014). They estimated that in Norway, up to 2.85 GW [0.09 Quad/yr]
of power would be available from this process. The plant, located in Oslo, opened in
November 2009. Initial studies were made several years prior to its inauguration. The goal
for this facility was to produce enough electrical power to provide light and heat energy to
a small town near the Oslo fjord within a few years. The initial output was rather small—
a 4 kW [5.36 hp] system (enough to heat a large electric kettle). As currently reported, the
plant aims to increase the output to up to 25 MW [0.00075 Quad/yr], enough to equal the
power-generating capacity of a small wind farm. The basic principle behind a PRO system
is schematically shown in Figure 7.3.
In this system, fresh water is separated from the seawater through a semi-permeable
membrane, creating a pressure differential that would be about 26 bars [2,600 kPa, or
377.1 psi]. This pressure is equivalent to a column of water with a hydraulic head of
around 270 meters [82.3 ft] high in ideal conditions. In actual operation, the working
pressure is only about half of this, or approximately 11 to 15 bars [1,100 to 1,500 kPa]
(Williams, 2018).
The output of a PRO system is proportional to the salinity of the seawater. In 2014,
researchers verified that 95% of a PRO system’s theoretical power output can be produced
with a membrane half the size needed for achieving 100% output. The system would
yield very salty brine. The initial vision was to use this system in a wastewater treatment
plant by mixing treated fresh water with seawater. However, for the size of a conventional
wastewater treatment facility, this would require a membrane with an area of around
2.5 million square meters [26.9 million ft2]. This would make the system quite expensive,

FIGURE 7.3
Basic PRO system schematic design.
Salinity Gradient 197

and many scientists are currently developing newer membranes, such as the rolled sys-
tem, which would not take up more space (Williams, 2018).
Studies in Norway showed that 12 TWh [0.041 Quad] of energy could be produced,
which should meet about 10% of Norway’s total demand for electricity. They have also
estimated that each year, around 1600 TWh [5.46 Quad] could be generated worldwide.

7.4.1  PRO Standalone Power Plants (Statkraft, Netherlands, 2006)

The PRO standalone power plant developed in the Netherlands uses 2,000 m2 [21,516.8 ft2]
of flat sheet membranes. The original technical production was estimated to be 10 kW
[13.4 hp], but the actual production was reported to be around 5 kW [6.7 hp]. The system
uses hollow-fiber membranes (funded by Japan, the United States, and the Netherlands).
A scaled-up design of a 2 MW [0.00006 Quad] power plant was envisioned in 2013 and
planned for construction, subject to financing.

7.4.2  Statkraft Prototype (Norway, Co.)

Statkraft also developed a similar system in Norway. This system uses a polyamide mem-
brane able to produce 1 W of power per square meter of surface area. This Statkraft plant
has a capacity of 4 kW [5.36 hp] and employs a new way to harness osmotic power that
would enable a 1 m2 (10.7 ft2) membrane to have the same 4 kW [5.36 hp] capacity as the
entire Statkraft plant. This performance was achieved using a 1 m2 [10.76 ft2] boron nano-
tube membrane capable of generating 30 MWh/yr [3.4 kW, or 4.6 hp]. The next sets of
studies included the development of boron nitride nanotubes. Example 7.6 shows the net
power of this system and the requirement needed for a typical household. The PRO system
envisions the use of these system types for communities near the shore. More recently, the
Statkraft facility announced its closure (Patel, 2014). Example 7.7 shows the area needed to
power a household if the performance is as recently reported. At present, these calcula-
tions may seem to be too good to be true.

Example 7.6:  Sizing Pressure-Retarded Osmosis (PRO) Systems

The PRO salinity gradient prototype has a net power density of 14 W/m2 [0.0017 hp/ft2].
Determine the size (in m2) of the polyamide membrane to power a household with a
monthly requirement of 900 kWh.

SOLUTION:
a. This is a simple energy and power calculation as follows:

900 kWh m2 1 mo 1 day 1, 000 W

( )
Area m2 =
mo
× × ×
14 W 30 days 24 hrs
×
kW
= 89 m2

b. About 89 m2 [957.5 ft2] of area is needed for this application.

Example 7.7:  Calculating Required Membrane Area for Household Applications

If the average household in the United States uses around 10,908 kWh of electricity per
year, how much membrane is needed to power 1 household if the yearly production of
this membrane is 30 MWh/yr/m2?
198 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

SOLUTION:
a. This is a simple ratio of output to input as follows:

10, 908 kWh m2 yr

( )
Area m2 =
yr
×
30, 000 kWh
= 0.36 m2

b. Thus, a nanotube with an area of 0.36 m2 [3.9 ft2] is needed. The value seems
too good to be true.

The power output of a PRO power plant depends on the salinity of the water bodies.
The most common will be the mix of seawater along the shore and fresh water from the
river along the deltas. These types of systems should generate around 25 bars [362.5 psi]
of pressure and a power output of 5 to 10 W/m2 [0.000623 to 0.00125 hp/ft2]. If the power
requirement is quite high, large volumes of water may be needed.
If the project calls for a much higher power output, perhaps in the range of 10 to 20 W/m2
[0.00125 to 0.00249 hp/ft2] a seawater source with extremely high salinity should be identified.
For example, according to these criteria, the water from the Dead Sea or water from the Salt
Lakes would qualify. In these systems, the power may be as high as 25 bars [362.5 psi]. The vol-
ume requirements for this system, despite the higher power output, may be significantly less.
Perhaps one option for many communities is a desalination treatment plant in the area.
Desalination systems generate large volumes of brine, a by-product of the treatment facility
and the nearby wastewater treatment plant. Brine has a pressure differential greater than
that of fresh water from the river and salt water from the ocean but still less than water with
extremely high salt content (like Dead Sea water). These systems could generate a pressure of
around 50 bars and a power output of 10 to 20 W/m2 [0.00125 to 0.00249 hp/ft2] (Williams, 2018).
Even if a desalination treatment facility is not available, a wastewater treatment facility
and seawater may also be used. In this case, one has to find a wastewater treatment plant
near the coastline. The wastewater treatment facility may save on electrical power if prop-
erly implemented. Engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) are envi-
sioning this concept. The concept is shown in Figure 7.4. In this system, a long rectangular
tank is built with a semi-permeable membrane in between the pressurized salty seawater
and waste water. Through osmosis, the membrane lets water through but separates the
salty water. Fresh water is drawn through the membrane to balance the saltier side. As the
fresh water enters the saltier side, it becomes pressurized while increasing the flow rate of
the stream on the salty side of the membrane. The pressurized mixture exits the tank, and
a turbine recovers energy from this flow. This was a conceptualized project of Leonardo
Banchik and John Lienhard at MIT; Abdul Latif Jameel, professor of water and food at
MIT; and Mostafa Sharqawy of King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals in Saudi
Arabia, reported in the Journal of Membrane Science (Chu, 2014).

7.5  Reverse Electro-Dialysis (RED)

Reverse electro-dialysis (RED) is also called reverse dialysis. RED uses the transport of salt
ions through membranes. It consists of a stack of alternating cathode and anode exchang-
ing perm-selective membranes. The compartments between the membranes are alternately
filled with seawater and fresh water. The salinity gradient difference is the driving force in
transporting ions, resulting in an electric potential that is then converted into electricity.
Salinity Gradient 199

FIGURE 7.4
A simplified PRO system designed and envisioned by MIT engineers in the United States (Chu, 2014).

The RED technology is still quite new, even though the principles have been laid out since
the 1950s. The main difference is the use of brackish water and seawater instead of fresh
water. The important components of the RED system, as opposed to the PRO system, are
electrodes and electrolytes—similar to fuel cell technology. Of course, the membrane is as
important as these additional components. The spacers are also important such that the elec-
trodes and the cathodes perform to their fullest. The basic premise from a reported study
mixes 1 cubic meter of salt water and 1 cubic meter of fresh water while assuming a salin-
ity gradient of 1:50 to generate energy of 1.4 MJ [1,327 Btu]. Using this assumption, numer-
ous water bodies of known salinity gradient, when mixed with nearby brackish or fresh
water, generate several MW of electrical power (IRENA, 2014). Example 7.7 illustrates these
assumptions. The basic equation needed for calculation is the Nernst equation (Equation 7.4):

RT  high concentration  (7.4)

V (Volts ) = ln
zF low concentration

where
V = cell potential (volts)
R = universal gas constant = 8.314 J/mol-K
T = absolute temperature (K)
z = number of valence electrons per ion passed through a membrane (NaCl = 1)
F = Faraday’s constant = 96,485 C/mol
200 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

Example 7.8:  Voltage Generation and Theoretical Power Calculations

The San Lorenzo River in California has an average annual discharge of 205 to 755 m3/s
[3.5 to 11.96 million gpm]. The salinity at this location was measured at 0.593 mol/L
[0.157 mol/gal]. The nearby fresh water salinity was 0.0033 mol/L [0.000872 mol/gal];
the salinity ratio was reported at 1:180. Use the Nernst equation (Equation 7.4) to cal-
culate the voltage generated. Calculate also the theoretical power that may be gener-
ated from this facility if the amount of energy produced is on the order of 1.4 MJ/m3
[5 Btu/gal] of flow. If the overall efficiency is 1%, determine the estimated power output
from this system.

SOLUTION:
a. The voltage is calculated from Equation 7.4 as follows:

J  mol 

8.314
mol K
× 298.15 K  0.593 L 
V (Volts ) = × ln = 0.1334 Volts
96, 485  mol 
1× 0.0033
mol  L 

b. The power is estimated using the following relationship:

205 m3 1.4 MJ MJ
Pt ( MW ) = × = 287 = 287 MW
s m3 s
755 m3 1.4 MJ MJ
Pt ( MW ) = × = 1, 057 = 1, 057 MW
s m3 s

c. The actual power, using 1% conversion efficiency, will be as follows:

Pa ( MW ) = 287 MW × 0.01 = 2.87 MW

Pa ( MW ) = 1, 057 MW × 0.01 = 10.6 MW

There are RED pilot plants that have been installed since 2005. The European Salt
Company has a 5 kW [6.7 hp] RED pilot project initiated jointly by REDStack and Fuji
Films. REDStack and Fuji Films started a follow-up project for a 50 kW [67 hp] pilot situ-
ated on a sea-defense site and major causeway called the “Afsluitdijk.” This facility sepa-
rates relatively clean fresh water on one side from relatively clean seawater present in the
Wadden Sea/North Sea. Work on the 50 kW [67 hp] plant was completed in October 2013.
A 200 MW facility is being planned for 2020 (Williams, 2018). Another innovation of the
RED system is the improvement of the RED stack, employing the plug-flow tortuous flow
path. This is called reverse electro-dialysis with a tortuous path flow spacer. By creat-
ing a unique path for fresh and salt water, the effectivity of the membrane is presumed
enhanced, producing more power output or a higher pressure difference. Note that these
systems rely on electro-dialysis and that voltage is generated without the use of turbines
or moving parts. The beauty is in the combination of fuel cell–type systems and at the
same time taking advantage of differences in osmotic pressure. Membrane use is still
necessary, and again, its cost becomes an issue when commercialized. By increasing the
membrane efficiency, the overall cost may be reduced. However, because of the addi-
tional necessity of electrodes and novel metals in the electrodes, another cost component
Salinity Gradient 201

is introduced. These components offset the cost for the turbines in PRO systems. More
research is being directed toward using cheaper electrodes while maintaining overall
system efficiency. The development of flat sheet membranes for RED systems is gaining
traction. The power density of flat sheet membranes for RED systems is said to be lower,
but they hold greater pressure (IRENA, 2014). These are different from the hollow fiber
membranes being developed for the PRO system. Hollow fiber membranes are supposed
to be of higher power density and have a reported range of 4.4 to 16 W/m 2 [0.00055 to
0.002 hp/ft2] (Kurihara, 2012; Kurihara and Hanakawa, 2013; and Han and Chung, 2014).
The estimated current price of these membranes ranges from $10.7/m2 to $32.1/m2 [€10/m2
to €30/m2] [$1/ft2 to $3/ft2]. The ideal values should be $2.14/m2 to $5.35/m2 [€2/m2 to
€5/m2] [$0.20/ft2 to $0.50/ft2]. The current capital cost for a RED power plant is around
$7.84 million­/50 kW [$116,973/hp], which is quite expensive by renewable energy stan-
dards, and this technology requires many years of research improvements. The bottom
line is that salinity gradient power is viable and is a neat example of energy technology.
Example 7.9 shows how much it would cost to build a 200 MW [0.006 Quad/yr] salinity
power plant being planned in the Netherlands.

Example 7.9:  Total Capital Cost Calculations for RED Systems

Determine the total capital cost for a 200 MW [0.006 Quad/yr] RED salinity gradi-
ent power plant if the reported unit cost is $7.84 million/50 kW. Hack (2011) reported
that the practical cost for a salinity gradient power plant is around $3 million/MW.
Determine the capital cost if this is the new estimate.

SOLUTION:
a. The unit cost in MW is simply calculated as follows:

Cost ( $ ) $7.84 M 1, 000 kW $156.8 M

= × =
MW 50 kW MW MW

b. The cost for a 200 MW system is as follows:

$156.8 M
Cost ( $ ) = 200 MW × = $31, 360 M
MW

c. This is quite high, and the more practical value for a 200 MW plant is $600 mil-
lion instead of $31.36 billion.

7.6  Specific Applications or Locations

Numerous countries with vast ocean resources are embarking on aggressive osmotic
power projects. Canada, leading in osmotic power, has identified at least 10 osmotic power
projects along the St. Lawrence River based on preliminary resource assessments. These
power plant outputs range from as low of 5 MW [0.00015 Quad/yr] to as high as 589 MW
[0.0176 Quad/yr] (Laflamme, 2012). The total expected power potential along this river is
around 805 MW [0.0024 Quad/yr].
202 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

The major areas with potential for salinity power are as follows:

a. Standalone plants in estuaries where fresh water runs into the sea
b. Energy generation processes recovering energy from high-salinity water streams
(e.g., brine from salt mining or from desalination plants)
c. Industrial wastewater treatment plants with marked salt gradients of components
d. Land-based salt water lakes or other types of salt water reserves

Some research reports estimate the worldwide potential for salinity gradient at 3.1 TW
(Stenzel, 2012). This value is obviously a small fraction of the world’s power consumption
of 17.7 TW (US EIA, 2017). There are also saline lakes and other saline water bodies inland
where the same principle may be applied. In addition, there are underground reserves
or aquifers that have various salinity gradients. These areas have not been included in
the estimate for salinity gradient resource potential. Likewise, the estimates also exclude
numerous sources of brine water from hundreds of desalination plants around the world.
In this case, the overall potential estimate is likely to be conservative. Salinity gradi-
ent energy is perhaps the renewable resource that has the most potential over the other
renewable energy sources already discussed in this book. It is also the one most consid-
ered as having no carbon footprint. The estimates may also expand to those areas that
are very far from land and not currently included in estimates because of the long trans-
mission lines required for power. At some point, these areas may become economical
because of voltage drop losses. As some countries expand their sea fronts, there will be
communities that are developed offshore, especially those with minimal land areas but
vast ocean fronts.

7.7  Limitations and Factors Affecting Performance and Feasibility

Because salinity gradient is considered to be the renewable energy resource that will gen-
erate the most potential, success lies in research that will eliminate barriers against its
adoption. Foremost are the expensive membranes as well as the balance of systems. This
section discusses the limitations and factors affecting its feasibility:

a. Large-scale production of cheap membranes

b. Necessary location near sea areas where no human activities are present
c. Material durability (resistance to salt water)
d. Movement of large quantities of salt water
e. Salt water solids accumulation
f. Fouling of membranes
g. Water pretreatment when necessary

First of these issues is the selection of the proper membrane to use. The consistency of salt
concentration at a given site as well as the purity of fresh water being used (or consistency
of wastewater properties) must also be addressed. The higher the salt content, the better,
though it calls for the proper selection of materials for the balance of systems—pumps and
Salinity Gradient 203

conveying devices to transport either salt water, brackish water, or fresh water. Each type
of liquid has a different resistance to flowing through conveying parts.
Vast tracks of land may be needed, and the country planning for large-scale salinity gra-
dient facilities should take this into account. Large ponds expectedly have large pumping
requirements.

7.8  Performance and Costs

Different types of salinity gradient technology provide different performance values
and initial capital costs. Performance reports vary in unit use. Usually, power density is
reported in W/m2, and the current maximum net power density maximum is reported at
2.7 W/m2 [0.000336 hp/ft2]. The current laboratory value is 14.4 W/m2 [0.00179 hp/ft2] for a
PRO process. Higher net power density may be achieved by changing cell design (i.e., the
membrane resistance, cell length, and use of nanotubes). Cell design change could bring net
power to as high as 20 W/m2 [0.0025 hp/ft2]. Some research reports energy density in units
of MJ/m2. In one earlier example, we observed an energy density of 4.1 kJ/L [14.7 Btu/gal] of
fresh water. Some reports place this number to around 2.2 kJ/L [7.9 Btu/gal] (IRENA, 2017)
The capital costs are also reported in various units. One data set shows the number
between $65 and $125/MWh for the PRO system and around $90/MWh for the RED design.
The cost may also be reported in what is called levelized electricity cost. For the PRO sys-
tem, this is reported at around $0.15 to 0.30/kWh for the PRO and $0.11 to 0.20/kWh for the
RED (IRENA, 2014). Note that these values are simply estimates at this time and hardly
reliable for commercial-scale systems. There are various uncertainties in these numbers,
and therefore they should be treated appropriately (Vermaas, 2014).
As previously mentioned, the membrane is the crucial cost component. Some reports
claimed that membrane cost comprised about 80% of the total capital cost of the salinity
gradient system. The remaining 20% went toward the balance of power (mostly for water
pretreatment). Regular membranes are two to three times less costly. These regular mem-
branes are used in many desalination plants to minimize power production. The goal
of a desalination plant is in contrast with the goal of a salinity gradient plant, that is, to
increase the pressure difference between membranes. The added costs are due to having
to make the membranes sturdier. The balance of power costs are comprised of costs of the
installation, pumping energy, pressure vessels, and turbines or electrodes for the RED
system (IRENA, 2014).
The operation and maintenance costs are made up primarily of the cost of energy uti-
lized to pump the water bodies, both fresh water and seawater, as well as the brine that is
produced.
The initial capital costs reported in literature also vary, and the widely accepted num-
ber is around $3 million /MW. The demonstration costs are sometimes reported in the
amount of billions per MW, but those quotes are impractical and are only true for research
and demonstration systems. A complication occurs when energy cost is reported in units
of cost per unit of energy, for example, $65 to $125/MWh. When converted into the usual
$/kWh unit, the values would make more sense. As such, electricity production costs
are reported to be between $0.06 and $0.125/kWh, which lies within the range of most
utility costs in the United States (IRENA, 2014). Example 7.10 shows the simple payback
period example using some reported initial capital costs for salinity gradient power plant
204 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

sizes. The cost for selling electricity when using hybrid systems is said to be lower. Hybrid
systems combine various designs with other renewable energy resources, such as hydro
power or even solar and wind power.

Example 7.10:  Payback Period Calculations for Salinity Gradient Facility

Make a rough estimate of the payback period in years for a 200 MW salinity gradient
facility that costs $600 million. The main revenue will come from selling electricity at
$0.10/kWh. Assume that the payback period is simply based on the ratio of the initial
capital cost and the initial capital investment. Assume also that the facility will operate
for 365 days in a year with 24 hours in a day.

SOLUTION:

a. The number of kWh of electrical power produced in a year is calculated as

follows:

kWh 365 days 24 hrs 1, 000 kW kWh

= 200 MW × × × = 1, 752, 000, 000
yr yr day MW yr

b. The revenue from the sale of electricity is calculated from the product of energy
output and the rate as shown below:

 $ kWh $0.10
Revenue   = 1, 752, 000, 000 × = $175, 200, 000
 yr  yr kWh

c. The simple payback period is the ratio of capital cost and revenue as shown
below:

yr
Pay Back Period ( yrs ) = $600, 000, 000 × = 3.42 years
$175, 200, 000

d. Hence, the payback period is less than five years. Of course, this could be
greater if one considers the operating cost per year in the calculations.

7.9  Potential Energy and Barriers to Large-Scale Development

There are many estimates made on potential energy that may be derived from the salin-
ity gradient. Alvarez-Silva, et al. (2016) estimated the practical potential to be around
625 TWh/acre based on factors such as suitability, sustainability, and reliability of
exploitations. The article mentioned reports of theoretical calculations that reports the
value to be around 15,102 TWh/a. The main economic barrier is the membrane cost,
which accounts for 50% to 80% of the total capital cost. The current reported capital cost
is roughly $3 million/MW as reported by the same article.
A summary of the theoretical and technical potential in many parts of the world is shown
in Table 7.1. In this table, Asia and South America have the highest reported theoretical
and technical potential with over 8,000 TWh/yr of energy and over 1,500 TWh/yr or tech-
nical potential. North America follows with 4,195 TWh/yr and 785 TWh/yr, respectively.
Salinity Gradient 205

TABLE 7.1
Theoretical and Technical Potential of Salinity Gradient
Theoretical Potential Technical Potential
Continent [GWh gross] [TWh gross/yr] [GWhe] [TWhe/yr]
Europe 241 2,109 49 395
Africa 307 2,690 63 503
Asia 1,015 8,890 208 1,663
North America 479 4,195 98 785
South America 969 8,492 199 1,589
Australia* 147 1,291 30 242
World 3,158 27,667 647 5,177
*Including Oceana.
Source: Stensel (2012).

Considerable research is still required to realize the economic and technical potential of
numerous demonstration plants in development worldwide. Each country near the coast
has the potential to generate enormous power from such systems, but the limited number
of research resources hinders further development. Numerous other projects in some coun-
tries are still in the modeling stage. Newer technology will be developed, as with the surge
of the newest capacitive method and the development of nanotubes, particularly the boron
nitride version and other similarly novel materials. The use of some ideal thermodynamic
cycles is also a welcome addition to the endless possibilities available for salinity gradient-
related technologies. Both open-cycle and closed-cycle (using absorption refrigeration sys-
tems) technologies are projected to come into play in the near future. Solar ponds should
also be maintained as an option and pursued as backup power systems in case major salin-
ity gradient technology fails at some point. The thermal energy coming from the sun is
constant and continuous. In the future, we will also see hybrid systems that combine solar
energy, wind energy, and tidal power to amplify the effectiveness of existing systems.

7.10  Environmental and Ecological Barriers

There are obvious environmental and ecological barriers in the development of fully dedi-
cated salinity gradient projects and solar ponds. The major ones are listed below:

a. Bio-fouling of membrane
b. Effect on nearby estuaries and rivers
c. Neither fresh water nor salt water is used up in the process
d. Some underground locations need to be built, which would require considerable
amounts of digging

The main advantages are limited noise and minimal CO, CO2, and NOx emissions.
Marine life will be affected when large-scale salinity gradient ponds are developed.
Aquatic species are either salt water tolerant or fresh water tolerant but not both. This
forces an ecological adjustment upon some freshwater and marine species. The major
206 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

waste product of a salinity gradient project is brackish water. When this wastewater is
dumped in an area with a different salt concentration, there will be an ecological imbal-
ance. The areas where these projects are located are not ideal grounds for aquatic animals
or plants to thrive. One way to avoid this issue is to transport brackish waters into the deep
ocean or to areas with larger tolerance to changes in salt water concentration. Of course,
this would require a considerable amount of conveying pipes and transport devices.
Due to unpredictable surges in water caused by earthquakes, heavy storms, or typhoons,
there is always the possibility of tearing the expensive membranes. The fouling of mem-
branes is also an issue and may affect the aquatic environment. The mouths of rivers and
sea fronts will have to be altered to give way to large tanks that will contain the membranes.
Perhaps the only major advantages to the salinity gradient technology are its relatively quiet
operation and the minimal amount of exhaust gases emitted. The development of new mate-
rials, which when disposed of are not harmful to the environment, is a crucial pursuit.

7.11 Conclusions
Salinity power is one of the largest sources of renewable energy that has not been fully
exploited. The potential worldwide output is estimated to be 2,000 TWh annually (IRENA,
2014). However, the salinity gradient concept is not yet widely known. A considerable
amount of technological development is necessary to fully utilize this renewable energy
resource. The most important component of these systems, the impermeable membranes,
are too costly at present. Also important is considering the harsh salt environment and
the lack of efficient and suitable plant component parts. While the potential cost of energy
from salinity gradient sources is higher than most traditional hydro power, it is compara-
ble to other forms of renewable energy that are already being produced in full-scale plants.
There are numerous applications around the world for fully dedicated salinity gradient
power plants. However, the combination of salinity gradient and solar power technology
is still a practical application that takes advantage of combined energy from the sun and
the pressure difference between fresh and salt water. Numerous wastewater treatment
plants around the world close to areas with access to salt water as well as deltas where the
river ends and the sea begins are ideal applications.
Future research on salinity gradient involves lowering the costs of membranes as well as
improvement in overall efficiency of conversions, particularly power densities. The reader
is warned that many costs and numbers reported in this chapter come from research
undertaking. Only commercial undertaking based on actual situations will yield truly
representative estimates on overall costs of salinity gradient systems for power generation.

7.12 Problems
7.12.1  Sensible Heat from Solar Pond
P7.1 Half a hectare [1.235 acres] of pond with a depth of 6.1 meters [20 ft] is heated
by the sun. The average temperature of the pond has risen from 25°C to 30°C
Salinity Gradient 207

[77°F to 86°F] on a hot day. Determine the amount of solar energy absorbed
by this pond using the sensible heat Equation 7.1. Assume the density of sea
water to be 1,027 kg/m3 [8.56 lbs/gal] and its specific heat equal to 3.93 kJ/kg°C
[0.94 Btu/lb°F].

7.12.2  Theoretical Carnot Cycle Efficiency

P7.2 Calculate the theoretical Carnot Cycle efficiency of a solar pond which has a
high reservoir temperature of 90°C [194°F] and a low reservoir temperature of
25°C [77°F]. If the net output or work done in the system is 200 kW [268 hp], at
this theoretical efficiency, how much heat is put out of the system?

7.12.3  Osmotic Pressure Calculations

P7.3 Determine the osmotic pressure in units of kg/cm 2 [psi] for the following data.
The temperature is 650 K, the molar concentration of salt ions is equal to
1.128 mol/L, and the universal gas constant is 0.82 L-bar/deg-mol.

7.12.4  Work Done against Pressure

P7.4 Calculate the work done against pressure using the following data: pressure
equal to 60 kg/cm 2 [851.6 lbs/in 2]; 1 liter of water pushed against an area of
2 cm 2 [0.31 in] over a distance of 20 meters [65.6 ft].

7.12.5  Energy Required to Boil Seawater

P7.5 Determine the amount of energy required to boil a kg of salt water from 30°C
to 100°C [86°F to 212°F]. Assume the specific heat of water to be 3.93 kJ/kg°C
[0.939 Btu/lb°F]

7.12.6  Size of PRO Unit to Generate Given Power

P7.6 The PRO salinity gradient prototype has a net power density of 15 W/m2
[0.00187 hp/ft2]. Determine the size (in m2) of the polyamide membrane needed
to power a household with a monthly requirement of 1,000 kWh.

7.12.7  Amount of Membrane to Use to Generate Power for a Household

P7.7 If the average household in the United States uses around 12,000 kWh of elec-
tricity per year, how much membrane is needed to power 1 household if the
yearly production of this membrane is 30 MWh/yr per m2?

7.12.8  RED Salinity Gradient System

P7.8 The San Lorenzo River in California has an average annual discharge of
480 m3/s [7.6 million gpm]. The average salinity at this location is 0.6 mol/L
[2.271 mol/gal]. The nearby fresh water salinity is 0.003 mol/L [0.0114 mol/gal];
the salinity ratio is reported at 1:200. The average temperature is 25°C [77°F].
Use the Nernst equation (Equation 7.4) to calculate the voltage generated.
208 Introduction to Renewable Energy Conversions

Calculate the theoretical power that may be generated from this facility if the
amount of energy produced is 0.74 MJ/m3 [2.66 Btu/gal] of flow instead of the
erroneously reported 1.4 MJ/m3 [5.03 Btu/gal]. If the overall efficiency is 1%,
determine the estimated power output from this system.

7.12.9  Cost of RED Power Plants

P7.9 Determine the total capital cost of a 500 MW RED salinity gradient power plant
if the reported unit cost is $7.84/50 kW. Hack (2011) reported that the practical
cost of salinity gradient plant is around $3 million/MW. Determine the capital
cost if this is the new estimate.

7.12.10  Simple Payback Period for Salinity Gradient Power Plant

P7.10 Make a rough estimate of the payback period in years for a 125 MW salinity
gradient facility that costs $375 million. The main revenue will come from sell-
ing electricity at $0.08/kWh. Assume the payback period is simply based on
the ratio of the initial capital cost to the initial capital investment. Assume also
that operation will be for 365 days in a year and 24 hours in a day.

References
Alvarez-Silva, O. A., A. F. Osorio and C. Winter. 2016. Practical global salinity gradient energy
potential. Renewable and Sustainable energy Reviews 60 (2016): 1387–1395.
Banchik, L. D., M. H. Sharqawy and J. H. Lienhard. 2014. Limits of power production due to finite
membrane area in pressure retarded osmosis. Journal of Membrane Science 468: 81–89. dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.memsci.2014.05.021.
Chu, J. 2014. The power of salt—power generation from the meeting of river water and sea water.
Nanowerk Newsletter Email Digest. August 24. Available at: https://www.nanowerk.com/
news2/green/newsid=37007.php. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Han, G. and T. S. Chung. 2014. Robust and high performance pressure retarded osmosis hollow fiber
membranes for osmotic power generation. AIChE Journal 60, no. 3: 1107–1119.
IRENA. 2014. Salinity gradient technology brief. International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA):
Ocean Energy Technology Brief 2. June 2014. Available at: https://www.dutchmarineenergy.
com/about-us/downloads/8%20-%20Salinity%20Gradient%20Energy_IRENA.pdf. Accessed
April 23, 2018.
Kurihara, M. 2012. Toray Industries: Paper presented at the Fifth International Desalination
Workshop, Jeju Island, 31 October 2012.
Kurihara, M. and M. Hanakawa. 2013. Mega-ton water system: Japanese National Research and
Development Project on Seawater Desalination and Wastewater Reclamation. Desalination
308: 131–137.
Laflamme, C. 2012. Development of a salinity gradient power resource analysis by INES. International
Workshop on Salinity Gradient Energy, 4–6 September 2012, Milan, Italy. Available at: www.
energy-workshop.unimib.it/index.php?index=5. Accessed June 27, 2019.
Lu, H. and A. H. P. Swift. 2001. El Paso solar pond. Journal of Solar Energy Engineering 123: 178–180.
Mother Earth News. 1980. Israel’s 150 kW solar pond. Mother Earth News: The Original Guide
to Living Wisely. May/June. Available at: https://www.motherearthnews.com/renewable-
energy/solar-pond-zmaz80mjzraw. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Salinity Gradient 209

Patel, S. 2014. Statkraft shelves osmotic power project. Power Magazine. March 1. Business &
Technology for the Global Generation Industry. Available at: http://www.powermag.com/
statkraft-shelves-osmotic-power-project/. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Pattle, R. E. 1954. Production of electric power by mixing fresh and salt water in the hydroelec-
tric pile. Nature 174 (1954): 660. doi:10.1038/174660a0. Available at: https://www.nature.com/
articles/174660a0. Accessed April 25, 2018.
Post, J. 2009. Blue energy: Electricity production from salinity gradients by reverse electrodialysis.
PhD Thesis, November 2009, Environmental Technology Department, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
Stenzel, P. and H. J. Wagner. 2010. Osmotic power plants: Potential analysis and site criteria. Paper
presented at the 3rd International Conference on Ocean Energy, 6 October 2010, Bilbao, Spain.
STM. 2017. Solar thermal power and clean energy technology. Solar Thermal Magazine. Available
at: https://solarthermalmagazine.com/learn-more/the-solar-pond/. Accessed April 23, 2018.
US EIA. 2017. International Energy Outlook 2017. #EIO2017. U.S. Energy Information Administration,
Washington, DC. September 14. Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ieo/
pdf/0484(2017).pdf. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Vermaas, D. A. 2014. Energy generation from mixing salt water and fresh water, smart flow strat-
egies for reverse electrodialysis. PhD Thesis, University of Twente. Available at: https://
www.­waddenacademie.nl/fileadmin/inhoud/pdf/06-wadweten/Proefschriften/thesis_D_
Vermaas.pdf. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Weintraub, B. 2001. Sidney Loeb. Bulletin of the Israel Chemical Society 8: 8–9. Available at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpgY6dd0Qtb4M6xnNXhutP4pMxidq_jqG962VzWt_
W7-hssGnSxSzjTY8RvW/edit. Accessed April 23, 2018.
Williams, A. 2018. Norway’s osmotic power a salty solution to the world’s energy needs? Water
and Wastewater International Magazine. Available at: http://www.waterworld.com/articles/
wwi/print/volume-28/issue-2/regional-spotlight-europe/norway-s-osmotic-power-a-salty
.html. Accessed April 23, 2018.