36 Feature

Filtration+Separation March/April 2010

SWRO pre-treatment:

Cost and
sustainability
n the third of a series of articles, Graeme Pearce looks at the
I issues involved in the selection of pre-treatment in seawater
reverse osmosis desalination applications.

Background of manufacture to environmental and social Although the energy cost of treatment is high
impact. Whereas some of these factors can be for desalination, the cost of transport is also
Selection of pre-treatment technology for quantified, others are given a nominal high, making desalination the best option for
desalination in seawater reverse osmosis weighting, the impact of which is applied resource development in some circumstances
(SWRO) applications tends to polarise subjectively in the overall evaluation. [2]. For example, California spends 70% of its
opinion. Conventional technology represents electricity on transferring water from the
the status quo while membrane filtration This article will examine the current status of
North of the State [1], which has provided the
adopts the role of the challenger, with a cost evaluation in SWRO pre-treatment, and
impetus to the development of desalination
rapidly developing track record. Two issues will consider the issues arising from the
projects in the urban areas of the South [3].
limit the wider adoption of membrane pre- sustainability assessment, and indicate how
treatment. Firstly it is considered expensive in different regions of the world are influenced Membrane filtration versus
terms of capital cost, though it does provide by these assessments.
conventional
operational cost savings. Secondly there are
misgivings about whether membrane filtration Desalination cost factors A Life Cycle Cost Comparison conducted in
alone provides sufficient pre-treatment, since The cost of water treatment can be 2006 found that the increased capital cost of
preparing a feed suitable for RO requires more evaluated from the materials used in membrane filtration was paid for by operating
than the removal of fine particulates. treatment equipment and the operating cost cost savings for three different feed types,
of the process. To this the transfer cost of namely a Pacific Ocean feed, an Eastern
This article is the third in a series which will
getting the source water to the treatment Mediterranean feed, and a Gulf feed [4]. In
examine the issues involved in the selection of
plant has to be added together with the the comparison, the Pacific Ocean feed had
pre-treatment technology for SWRO, and
energy cost distributing the treated water. In the lowest salinity at about 34,500 ppm Total
consider the case for conventional and
desalination treatment processes, pre- Dissolved Solids (TDS), while the Gulf had
membrane pre-treatment options. The
treatment costs are significant, and the highest at 46,500 ppm.
previous articles examined the issue of the
treated water quality for the RO feed and historically, pre-treatment by membrane For a medium scale plant with a 19 mld (5
integrity, while this article will cover cost and filtration has been perceived as being MGD) RO output, membrane filtration added
sustainability, focusing on the comparison expensive. However, if the Life Cycle Cost about 4% to capital cost (capex), as shown in
between pre-treatment technologies. (LCC) is evaluated over 20 years, it turns Figure 1 (reflected in amortisation). However, if
out that operating costs are much more the RO is operated at the same conditions for
The issues of cost and sustainability are linked. significant than the difference in capital
For example, a low energy process will have both pre-treatment methods, savings in energy,
cost due to the pre-treatment method, and chemicals, and RO replacement from the
low operating costs combined with a low that the dominant operating cost is energy.
carbon footprint from greenhouse gas membrane pre-treatment option counter the
emissions. Such a process will be considered in According to Global Water Intelligence increased capex. The figure shows an alternative
a positive light in a sustainability assessment (GWI) [1], 2-3% of the world’s energy is option in which the RO post membrane pre-
as well as being low in cost. However, many currently used for the treatment and transport treatment is driven harder (since feed quality is
other issues in the cost and sustainability of water. With the development of better), saving capex, but at the expense of
assessment are in conflict, with attempts to desalination and wastewater reuse, the use of increased energy use. Both alternatives provide
improve sustainability often adding expense energy in the water sector is expected to the same overall Total Water Cost (TWC) as
and increasing the water cost. Furthermore, become a much more significant proportion of the conventional pre-treatment.
although cost factors can normally be precisely total energy use in the future. The problem In the review, membrane pre-treatment did
specified, the evaluation of sustainability is will be exacerbated by the increasing energy better for Gulf feeds, due to the chemical
more subjective. A sustainability assessment use of water transfer to arid regions and the cleaning savings offered by membrane pre-
includes a very large number of factors ranging general demand for better treated water treatment, giving a reduction in TWC of about
from embedded carbon footprint in materials quality from all sources. 4% compared to conventional pre-treatment.
 Feature 37
Filtration+Separation March/April 2010

In addition to the operating cost savings,

membrane filtration was noted to have a
significantly lower footprint than
conventional pre-treatment, which can
translate to a useful cost advantage especially
where space is at a premium. Also membrane
pre-treatment provides better on-stream time
due to savings in downtime cleaning, and the
ability to provide an absolute barrier during
poor feed quality episodes. Footprint and
downtime benefits were not given full benefit
in the analysis, indicating that at the time of
this evaluation there was an argument for
membrane pre-treatment already developing
even though the TWC advantage was limited.
Indeed, the rapid expansion of membrane pre-
treatment can be dated back to 2005/6, as will
be discussed in the next article, confirming
the market acceptance of this type of analysis.
Figure 1: Total water cost of SWRO for a Pacific Ocean feed.
Evolution of membrane filtration
costs Sustainability needs periodic replacement, which confers a
sustainability burden. A lot of the membrane
Membrane filtration has become established A sustainability assessment takes account of system components are plastic, which are also
in the water industry during the last 15 the total impact of a desalination plant. oil-derived.
years. Initially, membrane prices were too This includes consideration of materials
high for widespread adoption, but since used and their embedded carbon footprint, With regard to environmental impact, the
2000 rapidly increasing take-up combined the environmental impact of operations, and high public profile issues are based on the
with increased competition has driven the social or community impact. The latter intake and outfall from the plant and their
membrane prices down. Figure 2 shows the category is difficult to quantify, but materials effect on the marine environment. The other
replacement prices for Siemens-Memcor and operations can be determined with environmental impact is in operation due to
reasonable precision (though the analysis energy use, chemical addition, and membrane
membranes during this period, based on data
may become very involved as account is replacement. The most important single factor
from an AWWA webinar [5], updated for
taken of knock-on impacts). in a sustainability assessment will be to do
2009 with recent market feedback. The
with energy efficiency.
trend is typical all of the UF/MF For conventional pre-treatment, the
manufacturers, and shows a steady decline of embedded carbon footprint of concrete is very Membrane pre-treatment enables the option of
membrane price to a level of just less than high, and the footprint of the system is running the RO at higher fluxes due to the
half the value a decade before. It should be considerable, both of which weigh against improvement in feed quality. Costs may be
noted that to compare prices between sustainability. On the other hand, the media minimised by high flux operation, since this
manufacturers, account needs to be taken of used in conventional pre-treatment is reduces system size and capex at the expense of
format and permeability differences, with inexpensive and not subjected to significant higher energy use, but this type of operation will
processing, though it incurs a high transport rate poorly from a sustainability viewpoint.
design differences potentially affecting both
debit due to its weight. Figure 2 showed that this had a similar cost
capital and operating costs. The important
optimisation to the larger plant run at lower
take-away from the figure is therefore the Membrane pre-treatment has low footprint energy. For a positive sustainability assessment, it
rate of change for an example manufacturer and generally uses less material, but the would be much better to opt for the gentler
rather than the absolute values. membrane is an oil-derived product and it operating conditions, since Green House Gas
The rate of decline is now beginning to
level off, but the consequence of a further
steady decrease in price between 2006 and
2009 is that the cost review discussed in the
last section is now even more likely to
favour membrane pre-treatment.
Unsurprisingly, membrane manufacturers
have been quick to confirm the cost
effectiveness of UF/MF (for example [6]).
However, this has now been confirmed by
independents [7]. For example, Robert
Huehmer of CH2M Hill has pointed out
that membrane pre-treatment has benefited
not only from lower membrane prices, but
reduced system cost by use of polypropylene
headers. In contrast, conventional filtration
has increased in cost due to higher materials
costs. Membrane pre-treatment therefore
needs to be seriously considered for each
pre-treatment prospect. Figure 2: Membrane module replacement price for Siemens – Memcor.
38 Feature
Filtration+Separation March/April 2010

s Sustainable assessments include a wide

range of issues included embedded carbon
footprint and environmental impact from
energy and chemical use; a review by a
German academic group indicated a 30%
lower impact for membrane filtration
compared to conventional pre-treatment.
s Most Australian SWRO plants have
opted for membrane pre-treatment as a
result of a rigorous sustainability and cost
assessment; the majority of SWRO plants
planned for California are also expected
to use membrane pre-treatment due to
cost competitiveness and lower
environmental impact.
s Care needs to be taken in conducting
sustainability assessments since a
complete review includes soft issues
which are subjective in their evaluation;
Figure 3: Environmental impact of conventional versus UF/MF Pre-treatment for SWRO.
assessments therefore need to be carried
out on a case by case basis with a focus
on the real issues of concern for a
(GHG) emissions will be more significant of SWRO with conventional and membrane
than the embedded material and footprint pre-treatment [8]. The study reviews the particular plant.
saving of a smaller plant. whole life cycle of the product and process References
from raw material, to operating costs and
The effect of the desalination plant on the
distribution. The analysis takes account of 1. Water Technology Markets 2010; Key
marine environment is more difficult to
raw materials used for production, as well as Opportunities & Emerging Trends, Global
quantify, though public perception would view
energy, waste, and other emissions. A Water Intelligence, Section 2.1, 12-14, 2009.
this as probably the most important issue in
similar approach is now being taken by
sustainability and acceptability of the plant. 2. UF/MF pre-treatment to RO in Seawater
consulting firms to advise the water industry
Most plants take considerable effort to design and Wastewater Reuse Applications: A
of the lowest environmental impact
intakes and outfalls which minimise impact, Comparison of Energy Costs, Pearce, G K,
solutions.
adding considerable cost to the project. For Desalination, 222 (2008) 66-73.
example, some Californian projects have up to Figure 3 shows the comparison between the
twice the Total Water Cost of others with two pre-treatment options for a typical RO 3. Import or Desalinate, Water Desalination
similar feed salinity due to efforts to desalination scheme. The study shows that for Report, p2-3, 25th June 2007.
ameliorate marine effects. An unintended this example, membrane pre-treatment 4. Improving Total Water Cost of Desalination
consequence of this may be to significantly reduces the environmental impact by about
by Membrane Pre-treatment, Pearce, G K,
increase embedded carbon footprint. 33%. Important factors which weigh against
Wilf, M, Bartels, C, IDA Conf Proceedings,
conventional pre-treatment are high concrete
A further environmental impact can be due to Gran Canaria, Oct 2007.
use, large footprint, high embedded energy
the use of chemicals and disposal of sludges. use, and high chemical use. However, it 5. Membranes in Wastewater Treatment,
Membrane pre-treatment normally uses much should be noted that sustainability assessments AWWA Webinar, 2nd Oct 2007.
less chemical than conventional pre- can yield variable results due to the subjective
treatment. If coagulants are used, nature of some of the inputs. Assessments 6. Novel Trends in Dual Membrane Systems for
concentrations are typically one-third or less. therefore need to be conducted on a case by Seawater Desalination: Minimum Primary
In consequence, cost and carbon footprint of case basis, focusing on the real issues of Treatment and Low Environmental Impact
dosing chemicals are much reduced. sustainability for the plant in question. This Schemes, Busch, M, Chu, R, Rosenberg, S, IDA
Potentially of even greater impact in some will always include energy, and may include Conf Proceedings, Dubai, DB09-019 (2009).
locations, sludge disposal may be much issues such as concrete use, transport impact, 7. MF/UF Pre-treatment in Seawater
reduced. Indeed, in the assessment of discharge concerns, use of chemicals, and Desalination: Applications and Trends,
Australian projects, this has been a key factor disposal of chemical sludge.
which has favoured membrane pre-treatment, Huehmer, R P, IDA Conf Proceedings, Dubai,
with membranes being selected so far for all DB09-253 (2009).
Conclusions
bar one of a procession of projects. 8. Comparative Life Cycle Assessment Study
s Membrane pre-treatment for SWRO has of Pre-treatment Alternatives for RO,
In the Gulf region, the key environmental been considered expensive, but a Life
impact is caused by saline and chemical waste Fritzmann, C et al, IDA Conf Proceedings,
Cycle Cost assessment based on 2006 data
discharges into the sea. Though this has been showed that operating cost savings in
Gran Canaria, MP07-091, Oct 2007. s
accepted previously, the number of plants now in energy, chemicals and reduced RO Contact:
use or under construction is having a significant replacement rates paid for the increased Dr Graeme K Pearce,
marine impact, which will provide an important capital cost. Membrane Consultancy Associates
driver for low chemical use operation made E-mail: gpearce@membraneconsultancy.com
possible by membrane pre-treatment. s A reduction in membrane filtration www.membraneconsultancy.com
prices since then has now made The author has contributed the sections on
Environmental impact assessment membrane pre-treatment competitive membrane filtration in ‘The Guidebook to
with conventional processes for many Membrane Desalination Technology’ and ‘The
A German academic group has carried out a projects and potentially significantly Guidebook to Membranes in Wastewater
study to compare the environmental impact lower in Total Water Cost. Reclamation’