Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240

Developments in thermal desalination processes:

Design, energy, and costing aspects
Mohammad Al-Sahali, Hisham Ettouney*
Department of Chemical Engineering, Kuwait University, POB 5969, Safat 13060, Kuwait
Tel. +965 481 1188, Ext. 5619; Fax +965 483 9498, -481 1772; email: hisham@kuc01.kuniv.edu.kw

Received 29 May 2006; Accepted 31 August 2006

Abstract
Desalination provides a sustainable source of fresh water for countries with limited water resources. Progress in
the desalination technology made highly competitive to water transportation over long distances. Also, desalination
is less harmful to the environment than water dams, which results in severe environmental problems up and down
stream. At present the desalination industry is dominated by the reverse osmosis (RO) and the multistage flash
desalination (MSF) processes. Other thermal desalination processes, which include the multiple effect evaporation
(MED) and the mechanical vapor compression process (MVC) are found on a much limited scale. Features of the
three thermal desalination processes are discussed with focus on design, energy, and economic aspects. Design
features include performance ratio, specific heat transfer area, and system dimensions.

Keywords: Multistage flash desalination; Multiple effect evaporation; Mechanical vapor compression

1. Introduction
Since inception of the desalination industry in
the 1950s, rapid progress has taken place. This is
reflected in the unit production capacity, which
increased from small values of 500 m3/d up to the
massive scale MSF units with a capacity of
75,000 m3/d. Also, the capacity of the entire
desalination plants is considerably increased from
approximately 5,000 m3/d to reach values close to
*Corresponding author.
300,000 m3/d. In addition thermal desalination
processes, start of the RO process in the 1970s for
desalination of brackish and seawater proved to
be highly beneficial to the advancement of indus-
trial desalination. This is achieved through rapid
progress and developments of membrane tech-
nology. Currently, RO membranes have highly
selective separation properties, have high recov-
ery ratio, and have better mechanical and
chemical properties. The progress in the desali-
nation technologies and the reliable record of the

0011-9164/07/$– See front matter © 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.desal.2006.08.020
228 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240
desalination industry, have contributed to most of
the urban and industrial developments that taken
place in several countries across the world,
especially, the Gulf States. This record has made
industrial desalination to be viewed as the best
alternative for sustainable source of fresh water.
Thermal desalination processes remain to
dominate the desalination market in the Gulf
States [1]. On the other hand, the RO process is
dominant in the US, Spain, and Japan. Other
countries like Italy and the Caribbean Islands
have balanced production capacity among
thermal and membrane desalination. For the next
few decades, it is expected to have thermal desali-
nation in the Gulf States; however, accumulated
experience in design and operation seawater
reverse osmosis is resulting in adoption of larger
RO plants in most of these countries.
Current estimates for water costing of the
MSF, MED, and MVC stands at $0.5/m3 [2,3]. To
a large extent such low values depends on the site
characteristics. For example, if a single MED unit
is installed in existing desalination plant that may
have previous installations, i.e., MED, MSF, or
RO, then the costing of this unit will have
considerable benefits from the infrastructure of
the existing facility. This may include intake
system, brine discharge, workshop, store room,
administration offices, electric supply, and
control/operation room. Also, available experi-
ence in plant operation, maintenance, and provid-
ing chemical and other supplies will further
reduce the cost of operation. Another scenario
might involve construction of a large facility that
may include several units. In this case, increase in
the capacity of the desalination station would also
be beneficial and have strong impact on the unit
product cost.
The following sections discuss elements of
thermal desalination processes, which include
conventional systems (MSF, MED, and MVC).
The discussion includes brief process description,
modeling, system design, and costing.
2. Multistage flash desalination (MSF)
Success of MSF is mainly due to its simple
layout and reliable performance over the years.
Although, the MSF process as well as the MED
process consumes a larger amount of energy than
the RO process, about 18 kWh/m3 for MSF,
15 kWh for MED, and 5 kWh/m3 for RO, but the
reliable performance of the thermal desalination
processes MSF and MED made highly compe-
titive against the RO process. Recent reports on
unit product cost [2,3] show that the unit product
cost for the three processes is almost the same
with a value of $0.5/m3. In addition, previous
literature reports [4,5] show that the MSF plant
life has exceeded 20–30 years. Several old units
installed in the 1970s and 1980s remain in
operation and have been rehabilitated to continue
operational for the next 10–20 years. This fact
would reduce further the unit product cost, taking
into consideration that plant capital may account
for 30–40% of the unit product cost. At present
the large MSF units with production capacity that
ranges between 50,000–75,000 m3/d are being
installed in several countries, including Kuwait,
Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. The
large increase in unit capacity contributes further
to reduction in the unit product cost.
Examples for increase in the MSF cumulative
production capacity in Kuwait and Bahrain are
shown in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. The desali-
nation market in Kuwait is mainly MSF. Use of
RO is limited to periods of constructing power
plants prior to construction of the MSF units. The
desalination industry in Bahrain is unique among
the Gulf States. This is because of the stronger
role of the RO process in production of desali-
nated water. The desalination market in Bahrain
is dominated by the MSF process with a share of
63% and is followed by the RO process with a
share of 27%. The remaining share, about 9.7%,
is that for the MED process with thermal vapor
compression. Analysis of the RO plant data show
that production capacity is equally divided among
 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240
Fig. 1. Cumulative production capacity of MSF plants in
Kuwait.
Fig. 2. Variation in the cumulative capacity of MSF and
RO in Bahrain.
brackish and seawater. Fig. 2 shows the cumu-
lative production capacity of MSF, RO, and MED
in Bahrain.
Analysis of the MSF process can be made by
simple or detailed mathematical models [6–8].
Detailed models solve a large number of equa-
tions and generate much larger information on
system variables and properties [9–11]. However;
simple models always proved to efficient and
accurate in generating main design parameters of
229
the system. The following simple analysis is
adopted to calculate the main design features of
large scale MSF systems, which include the brine
recycle flow rate, the flow rate of cooling sea-
water, the stage length, and the stage height. The
following is a summary of the model equations.
The brine recycle flow rate is obtained form
the brine heater energy balance, where
Ms λs = MR Cp (Tbo!Tf 1) (1)
Division of Eq. (1) by the production capacity
(Md) gives
(MR/Md) = ((Ms/Md) λs)/Cph (Tbo!Tf1) (2)
In Eq. (2) the term (Md/Ms) gives the system per-
formance ratio (PR). Therefore, Eq. (2) is reduced
to the following form
(MR/Md) = (λs /PR)/Cp (Tbo!Tf1) (3)
The cooling water flow rate is obtained by per-
forming overall energy balance on the system
shown in Fig. 3. The balance is given by
Mcw = (Ms λs !Mf Cp (Tbn!Tcw))/(Cp (Tbn!Tcw))
(4)
Division of Eq. (4) by the production capacity
(Md) gives
(Mcw/Md) = (Ms/Md λs !(Mf /Md) Cp (Tbn !Tcw))
/(Cp (Tbn!Tcw)) (5)
In Eq. (5) the term (Md/Ms) gives the system per-
formance ratio (PR) and (Md/Mf) gives the con-
version ratio (CR). Therefore, Eq. (5) is reduced
to the following form:
(Mcw/Md) = ((λs/PR)!(1/CR) Cp (Tbn!Tcw))
/(Cp (Tbn!Tcw)) (6)
230 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240

Fig. 3. Heat and mass transfer in MSF brine

circulation plant.

In Eq. (5) the conversion ratio (CR) is ob- The stage height is obtained from the following
tained through a simple material balance, which relation:
is given by
Hst = Hb + Hpb +Ltb
CR = (Xbn!Xf) /Xbn (7)
The following illustration shows the use of the
Demister length is obtained from definition of the above simple model for analysis of large MSF
vapor velocity across the flashing stage. This system. The following parameters are defined to
gives the following relation solve the model equations: Number of flashing
stages, n = 24, plant capacity, Md = 655 kg/s
Lp = (D Vv)/(vv wst) (8) (56,600 m3/d), heating steam temperature Ts =
120EC, top brine temperature Tbo = 110EC,
The stage length is obtained from temperature of brine recycle entering the brine
heater, Tf1 = 102EC, temperature of brine blow
Lst= Lp + Ltb (9) down, Tbn = 37EC, intake seawater temperature,
Tcw = 30EC, salinity of feed seawater, Xf =
The tube bundle length is obtained as a function 40,000 ppm, salinity of brine blow down, Xbn =
of number of tubes, tube diameter, and the tube 70,000 ppm, outer diameter of condenser tubes,
spacing. The tube bundle length is obtained from dr = dj = 0.0312 m, specific heat at constant pres-
sure, Cp = 4.2 kJ/kg K, vapor velocity in demister
Ltb = nt1/2 dt St (10) in first stage, vv1 = 2 m/s, vapor velocity in
demister in last stage, vv24 = 12 m/s, stage width,
The number of tubes is obtained as a function of wst = 20 m, liquid density, ρ = 1000 kg/m3, tube
the stream flow rate and velocity. These equa- velocity of brine recycle stream, vR = 2 m/s, tube
tions are given by velocity of intake seawater, vcw = 2 m/s, height of
brine pool, Hb = 0.2 m, distance between demister
ntr = 4 MR/(ρ VR dr2 π) (11) and brine pool, Hpb = 2 m, performance ratio,
PR = 9.5, latent heat of heating steam at 120EC,
ntj = 4 (Mcw+Mf) /(ρ Vcw dj2 π) (12) λs = 2202.6 kJ/kg.
 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240 231

Table 1
Illustration results

Design parameter Symbol Value Units

Brine recycle flow rate MR 4519.7 kg/s
Cooling seawater flow rate Mcw 3637.09 kg/s
Conversion ratio CR 0.429
Performance ratio PR 9.5
Specific heat transfer area sA 253.4 m2/(kg/s)
Demister length in first stage Lp1 0.826 m
Vapor specific volume in first stage vv1 1.21 m3/kg
Demister length in last stage Lpn 2.56 m
Vapor specific volume in last stage Vvn 22.74 m3/kg
Number of tubes in heat recovery section ntr 2956
Number of tubes in heat rejection section ntj 3378
Length of tube bundle in heat recovery section Ltbr 2.54 m
Length of tube bundle in heat rejection section Ltbj 2.72 m
Length of heat recovery stage Lstr 5.13 M
Length of rejection stage Lstj 5.31 M
Height of heat recovery stage Hstr 4.74 M
Height of heat rejection stage Hstj 4.92 M

Table 2
Costing parameters of the MSF system

Parameter Value Parameter Value

3
Capacity 68,333 (m /d) Electric power consumption 5 kWh/m3
Plant factor 90% Number of employees 4
Annual production 22,447,390 m3/yr Average annual salary $36,000/person
Interest rate 5% Chemicals cost $0.06/m3
Plant life 20 years Spare parts (% of capital cost) 1%
Capital cost $60×106 Loss of electric power 10 kWh/m3
Amortization factor 0.080243 yr!1 Unit cost of power loss $0.03/kWh
Electric power cost $0.05/kWh

Results of the above illustration are shown in
Table 1. As is shown, the demister length in the
first stage is smaller than that in the last stage.
This is because of the increase in the vapor
specific volume. Irrespective of this, other design
characteristics of the heat rejection and heat
recovery stages are quiet similar. This includes
the stage height and length.
The costing calculations given in this study
are based on previous analysis presented by
Ettouney et al. [12]. Tables 2 and 3 show the
costing parameters and the unit product cost for a
68,000 m3/d MSF unit, which is equivalent to
15 MIGD. As is shown, the plant life is assumed
equal to 20 years. However, recent reports from
old desalination and power plants in the Gulf
232 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240
Table 3
Unit product cost of MSF
Parameter $/m3
Amortization 0.214
Steam cost 0.300
Electric power 0.350
Chemicals 0.060
Labor 0.006
Spare parts 0.027
Unit product cost 0.958
States show that many of the thermal desalination
units as well as the associated power plants are
being refurbished and their life is extended by at
least 10 years. It should be noted that the loss of
electric power, which is used to generate the
required heating steam, is set at 10 kWh/m3. This
value is much lower than those previously
reported in literature [13,14]; however, recent
reports have used much smaller values of
4.5 kWh/m3 [2]. Unfortunately, proper evaluation
of this parameter would require an update for
predictions of mathematical models against field
measurements. The unit product cost shown in
Table 3 is more than 100% higher than those
currently reported in literature [2]. As discussed
before, this is caused by the higher cost of the lost
electric power.
3. Multiple effect evaporation (MED)
The first multiple effect desalination unit was
installed in 1960. The main feature of the MED
process is that it operates at low top brine
temperature between 60–70EC. The unit capacity
of the MED system remains to be much smaller
than the MSF process. Recent MED installations
in UAE include the Umm al Nar MED plant with
a unit capacity of 15,911 m3/d and the Sharjah
plant with a unit capacity of 22,730 m3/d. Ano-
ther MED unit with a capacity of 17,500 m3/d
was commission in 2000 in Las Palmas, Spain.
The study by Ophir and Lokiec [3] show avail-
ability of MED unit capacity up to 40,000 m3/d.
Most of the large MED units are based on the
horizontal falling film configuration. Fig. 4 shows
a schematic of the horizontal falling film.
Although existing MED plants operate at low
temperatures, the horizontal falling film configu-
ration provides very high heat transfer coefficient
[15]. This is because vapor condensation occurs
on the tube side and a thin film of saturated water
is formed on the outside surface of the tubes. The
system is designed to have saturated feed
seawater for all effects. The entire flow diagram
for the system is shown in Fig. 5. As is shown,
heating steam is fed to the first effect. This would
result in formation of a small amount of water
vapor, which is used to heat the second effect.
The vapor would release its latent heat and
condensate. The released latent heat would result
in formation a smaller amount of vapor in the
second effect. This process is repeated in sub-
sequent effects, until the vapor temperature
becomes close to the feed seawater temperature.
It is necessary to increase the feed temperature to
saturation temperature of each effect. This is
necessary to maintain high heat transfer coeffi-
cient and to limit the heat transfer process to
release of latent heat from the heating vapor and
latent heat gain from the formed vapor. This is
made through the use of the saturated brine
achieved through the use of the saturated brine
stream leaving the low temperature effects. This
is scheme is applied in most of commercial
installation because the increase in the brine
salinity, especially, at low temperature effect is
small because of the small amounts of the formed
vapor.
The following simple MED model gives
simple and quick estimates for the main design
features, which include the effect dimensions,
heat transfer area, performance ratio, and profiles
of effect temperatures and stream flow rates of
various streams. The model is based on assump-
tions and analysis given by Geankoplis [16]. The
 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240 233

Fig. 4. Horizontal falling film MED.

Fig. 5. Flow diagram of MED.

model includes some modifications that have Similarly, the temperature drop in effects 2-n is
resulted in sequential solution rather than iterative obtained by
procedure. The main feature of the model is the
equality of the heat transfer area in each effect. ΔTi = ΔT1 U1/Ui (15)
The main modification in the model is made in
definition of the temperature drop across all Brine temperature in the first effect is obtained
effects is obtained from the following relation from the relation

ΔTt = Ts!(n!1) ΔTA!Tbn (13) Tb1 = Ts!ΔT1 (16)

The temperature drop in the first effect is Brine temperature in effects 2 to n:

obtained by
Tbi = Tbi!1!ΔT1 U1/Ui!ΔTA (17)
ΔTt
ΔT1 = n
(14)
1
U1 ∑ Distillate flow rate in the first effect:
i =1 U i
234 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240

D1 = Md/(λv1(1/λv1 + 1/λv2 + …... Table 4

Design parameters of the MED system
+ 1/λvn!1 + 1/λvn)) (18)
Parameter Value Parameter Value
Distillate flow rate in effects 2 to n:
ne 6 Tf (EC) 35
Di = D1 λv1/λvi (19) Md m3/d 20,000 Tcw (EC) 25
(kg/s) (232)
Xf (ppm) 42,000 Cp (kJ/kg) 4.2
Brine flow rate in effects 1 to n
ΔTA (EC) 2 Uc (kW/m2 K) 2
Ts (EC) 75 dt (m) 0.03
Bi = Xcw Di /(Xbi!Xcw) (20) Tbn (EC) 40 Lt (m) 10

Feed flow rate in effects 1 to n

mance ratio (PR) is 5.87. The specific heat trans-
Fi = Di + Bi (21) fer area of the system (sA) is 265 m2/(kg/s),
which is typical of thermal desalination systems.
Heat transfer area in the first effect Other system parameters include a conversion
ratio (CR) of 0.34 and specific flow rate of
D1λv1
A1 = cooling water equal to 6.5. The effect height is
( )
(22)
U1 Ts − Tb1 2.77 m and the length of the tube bundle is 0.77
m. The model results presented her are well
Heat transfer area in effects 2 to n within known field values.
Tables 7 and 8 show the costing parameters
Di λi
Ai = and the unit product cost. As is shown, the plant
( )
(23)
U i Tvi −1 − Tbi life is assumed equal to 20 years. It should be
noted that the loss of electric power, which is
Heating steam flow rate, Ms used to generate the required heating steam, is set
at 10 kWh/m3. This value is much lower than
Ms = D1 λv1/ λs (24) those reported in literature [17] where recent
reports used much smaller values of 4.5 kWh/m3
Heat transfer area of the condenser [2,3]. Validation of this parameter would require
expensive field testing in addition to careful theo-
Dn λvn retical analysis. The unit product cost shown in
Ac = (25) Table 8 is 70% higher than those currently
U c ( LMTD )c reported in the literature [2,3]. As discussed
before, this is caused by the higher cost of the lost
Flow rate of cooling seawater (Mcw) electric power.

Dn λvn = (Mf + Mcw) Cp (Tf!Tcw) (26)

Tables 4–6 show the design data, the calcu-
lated profiles, and the design results for a 6 effect
MED system with a production capacity of
20,000 m3/d. As is shown, the system perfor-
4. Mechanical vapor compression (MVC)
The MVC process remains to be attractive and
competitive for production capacities less than
5000 m3/d [1]. MVC inception dates back to the
early 1980s [18–20]. Growth and expansion of
 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240 235

Table 5
Profiles of the MED system

Effect 1 2 3 4 5 6
2
U (kW/m K) 2.6 2.522 2.44634 2.37295 2.301761 2.232708
ΔT (EC) 3.86 3.98 4.10 4.22 4.36 4.49
Tb (EC) 71.14 65.17 59.07 52.85 46.49 40
Tv (EC) 69.14 63.17 57.07 50.85 44.49 38
λv (kJ/kg) 2335.92 2350.60 2365.46 2380.51 2395.77 2411.28
D (kg/s) 39.28 39.03 38.79 38.54 38.30 38.05
A (m2) 9152.22 9152.22 9152.22 9152.22 9152.22 9152.22
B (kg/s) 74.99 74.52 74.05 73.58 73.12 72.65
F (kg/s) 114.27 113.56 112.84 112.13 111.41 110.70
Xb (ppm) 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000 64,000

Table 6
Design results of MED system

Parameter Value Parameter Value Parameter Value

Ms (kg/s) 39.52 Mcw (kg/s) 1509.74 Mf (kg/s) 674.91
nt 9710 Ltb (m) 0.77 He (m) 2.77
CR 0.34 sMcw 6.5 sA (m2/(kg/s) 265.69
PR 5.87

Table 7
Costing parameters of the MED system

Parameter Value Parameter Value

3
Capacity 20,000 (m /) Electric power consumption 2.5 kWh/m3
Plant factor 90% Number of employees 4
Annual production 6,570,000 m3/yr Average annual salary $36,000/person
Interest rate 5% Chemicals cost $0.06/m3
Plant life 20 years Spare parts (% of capital cost) 1%
Capital cost $22×106 Loss of electric power 10 kWh/m3
Amortization factor 0.080243 yr!1 Unit cost of power loss $0.03/kWh
Electric power cost $0.05/kWh

the MVC process remained limited; in 1994, only
200 MVC units with very small unit capacity are
reported by Zimmerman [21]. The most attractive
feature of the MVC system is it requires only
electric power for operation; however, need for
diesel engine is necessary for startup. Field data
show that the MVC consumes about 10–14
kWh/m3 [22–24]. Most of the MVC unit capacity
is limited to 500 m3/d; however, Kronenberg and
Lokiec [25] reported on the performance of large
of MVC units with a capacity of 3000 m3/d. The
report shows specific power consumption of
236 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240

Table 8 The evaporator energy equation balances the

Unit product cost of MED sum of the sensible heat for heating the feed
stream and the latent heat for distillate evapo-
Parameter $/m3
ration. This sum is set equal to the sum of the
Amortization 0.27 latent heat of condensation of the compressed
Steam cost 0.3 vapor and sensible heat of superheating.
Electric power 0.18
Chemicals 0.06 Mf Cpf (Tb!Tf) + Md λvp = Md λd + Md Cpv (Ts!Td)
Labor 0.022
Spare parts 0.033 (29)
Unit product cost 0.86 The work done by the vapor compressor is given
by
γ ⎛ ⎛ γ −1 ⎞
⎞
v v ⎜ ( Ps / Pv )⎝
8.1 kWh/m3, which includes the pumping and ⎜ ⎟
W= PV γ ⎠ −1
⎟ (30)
compressor power. (η (γ −1) ) ⎝ ⎠
Fig. 6 shows a schematic for the MVC system.
As is shown, the system constitutes the con-
The evaporator heat transfer area can be obtained
denser/evaporator tubes, which are connected to
in terms of the sensible and latent heat of the
the vapor compressor. The inlet feed seawater
condensing vapor. This relation is given by
recovers close to 90% of the sensible heat in the
brine and distillate stream leaving the evaporator.
This feature enhances considerably the process M d λd + M d C pv ( Ts − Td )
Ae = (31)
efficiency. The vapor formed on the shell side of U e ( Td − Tb )
the evaporator is withdrawn by the compressor,
where its temperature and pressure are increased.
The heat transfer area of the feed/distillate
The compressed vapor then flows on the tube side
preheater is obtained in terms of the sensible heat
and releases its latent heat to the falling film of
of the distillate stream.
the feed seawater. This results in evaporation of
a small amount of fresh water vapor.
The model equations for the MVC are simple M d C p ( Td − To )
Adh = (32)
because the system contains only one evaporation U dh ( LMTD )dh
effect [26–28]. The evaporator mass and salt
balances, which are given by
The heat transfer area of the brine/feed preheater
is expressed in terms of the brine sensible heat.
Mf = Md + Mb (26)

Mb = Mf Xf /Xb (27)
The preheater energy equation balances the
sensible heat of the feed seawater against the
sensible heat of the distillate and brine streams.
Mf Cpf (Tf!Tcw) = Md Cpd (Td!To) + Mb Cpb (Tb!To)
(28)
M bC p ( Tb − To )
Abh = (33)
U bh ( LMTD )bh
A single-effect mechanical vapor-compression
system is to be designed at the following condi-
tions: the distillate flow rate, Md = 500 m3/d, the
intake seawater temperature, Tcw = 35°C, the
saturation temperature of compressed vapor, Td =
 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240 237

Fig. 6. Single effect mechanical vapor compression (MVC).

Table 9
Design results of the MVC system

Design parameter Value Design parameter Value Design parameter Value

Mf (kg/s) 19.3 Ts (EC) 91 W (kWh/m3) 11.8
Mb (kg/s) 13.5 Ae (m2) 2027 ne 2582
Tf (EC) 68 Ab (m2) 174 DSe 1.67
To (EC) 36 Ad (m2) 63 wp 0.5

72EC, the evaporation temperature, Tb = 70EC,
the feed seawater salinity, Xf = 42,000 ppm, the
salinity of the rejected brine, Xb = 60,000 ppm,
the compressor efficiency, η = 60%, the outer
diameter of the evaporator tubes, de = 0.025 m,
the length of evaporator tubes, Le = 10 m, the
overall heat transfer coefficient, Ue = 3.375 kW/
m2 K, and the vapor velocity in demister, vp =
6 m/s. The design results, which are obtained by
solution of the above model equations are given
in Table 9. As is shown, the system specific
power consumption is equal to 11.8 kWh/m3.
Also, the shell diameter is equal to 1.67 m, which
is typical of small MVC units. The width of the
demister is 0.5 m, which will provide the required
vapor velocity and degree of separation of brine
droplets.
Tables 10 and 11 show the costing parameters
and the unit product cost for the MVC system. As
is shown, the plant life is assumed equal to
20 years. The specific power consumption for the
system is set at 7 kWh/m3 [29,30]. The man
power is set at 0.1 because of the small capacity
of the unit. In reality such unit might exist in a
station or a location that several other units and
applications. It should be noted that unit cost is
similar to the values calculated previously for the
MSF and MED systems. However, if the system
238 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240

Table 10
Costing parameters of the MVC system

Parameter Value Parameter Value

3
Capacity 500 (m /d) Electric power cost $0.05/kWh
Plant factor 90% Electric power consumption 8 kWh/m3
Annual production 164,250 m3/yr Number of employees 0.1
Interest rate 5% Average annual salary $36,000/person
Plant life 20 years Chemicals cost $0.06/m3
Capital cost $5×105 Spare parts (% of capital cost) 1%
Amortization factor 0.080243 yr!1

Table 11 gress and developments over the years have

Unit product cost of MVC improved considerably the performance of the
MED and MVC processes. Future outlook
Parameter $/m3
definitely indicates continued growth of their
Amortization 0.24427 market shares. However, this growth would be
Electric power 0.56 subject to further increase in the unit capacity,
Chemicals 0.06 adoption of efficient heat pumps, use of inexpen-
Labor 0.021918 sive construction materials, and use of compact
Spare parts 0.030441 type evaporators. Such developments should
Unit product cost 0.916629 result in considerable cost reduction, which
would make the process highly competitive
against the MSF or the RO process.
capacity is increased to higher values the MVC
system should provide a highly competitive unit
product cost.
6. Symbols
A — Area, m2
5. Conclusions
B — Brine flow rate from each evapora-
The MSF process remains to have a sizeable tion effect, kg/s
share in the desalination market. This is expected Cp — Specific heat at constant pressure,
to be the case during the first half of this century. kJ/kg EC
To maintain this large market share further devel- CR — Conversion ratio, CR = Md/Mf,
opments should be achieved. Such developments dimensionless
may include further increase in the unit pro- d — Tube diameter, m
duction capacity, use of more efficient and less D — Amount of vapor formed in each
expensive construction materials, adoption of flashing stage or evaporation effect,
high temperature heat pumps, construction of kg/s
hybrid systems with MED, RO, or solar desali- DS — Shell diameter, m
nation, use of renewable energy, and use of more F — Feed flow rate to each evaporation
efficient cogeneration power plants. effect, kg/s
The MED and MVC systems would remain an H — Height, m
attractive process for thermal desalination. Pro- L — Length or thickness, m
 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240 239

LMTD — Logarithmic mean temperature dif- e — Evaporator

ference, EC f — Feed
M — Mass flow rate, kg/s h — Brine heater
n — Number of tubes, flashing stages, or j — Heat rejection section in MSF
evaporation effects o — Outer diameter or outlet temperature
P — Pressure, kPa n — Last flashing stage or last evapo-
PR — Performance ratio, PR = Md/Ms, ration effect
dimensionless p — Demister
sA — Specific heat transfer area, m2/(kg/s) pb — Distance between brine surface and
sMcw — Specific flow rate of cooling sea- demister
water, sMcw = Mcw/Md, dimension- r — Heat recovery section in MSF
less R — Brine recycle
S — Factor for tube spacing, dimension- s — Heating steam or superheated com-
less pressed vapor
T — Temperature, EC st — Flashing stage
ΔT — Temperature drop, EC t — Tube
ΔTA — Temperature losses in each evapora- tb — Tube bundle
tion effect, EC v — Vapor
U — Overall heat transfer coefficient,
kW/m2 EC
v — Velocity, m/s References
V — Specific volume, m3/kg
w — Width of flashing stage, m [1] K. Wagnick, Worldwide Desalting Plants Inventory,
IDA, Gnarrenburg, K., Report No. 17, December,
W — Specific power consumption,
2002.
kWh/m3
[2] R. Borsani and R. Rebagliati, Fundamentals and
X — Salinity, ppm costing of MSF desalination plants and comparison
with other technologies, Desalination, 182 (2005)
Greek 29–37.
[3] A. Ophir and F. Lokiec, Advanced MED process for
η — Efficiency of the vapor compressor, most economical sea water. Desalination, 182 (2005)
dimensionless 181–192.
γ — Compressibility factor, dimension- [4] C. Thirumeni, Deutsche Babcock rehabilitation and
less uprating of Ras Abu Fontas MSF, desalination units:
λ — Latent heat for evaporation, kJ/kg process optimisation and life extension, Desalination,
ρ — Density, kg/m3 182 (2005) 63–67.
[5] A.M. Helal, Uprating of Umm Al Nar East 4-6 MSF
desalination plants, Desalination, 159 (2003) 43–60.
Subscripts [6] M.A. Soliman, A mathematical model for multi-
stage, flash desalination plants, J. Eng. Sci., Univer-
b — Brine
sity of Riyadh, 7 (1981) 2–10.
bh — Brine/feed preheater [7] M.A. Darwish, Thermal analyis of multi stage flash
c — Condenser or condensate desalination systems, Desalination, 85 (1991) 59–79.
cw — Intake seawater [8] H.T. El-Dessouky, I. Alatiqi and H.M. Ettouney,
d — Distillate Process synthesis: The multi-stage flash desalination
dh — Distillate/feed preheater system, Desalination, 115 (1998) 155–179.
240 M. Al-Sahali, H. Ettouney / Desalination 214 (2007) 227–240
[9] A.M. Omar, Simulation of M.S.F. desalination
plants, Desalination, 45 (1983) 65–76.
[10] A.M. Helal, M.S. Medani, M.A. Soliman and J.R.
Flower, Tridiagonal matrix model for multi-stage
flash desalination plants, Comp. Chem. Engin., 10
(1986) 327–342.
[11] H.M. Ettouney, H.T. El-Dessouky and F. Al-
Juwayhel, Performance of the once through multi-
stage flash desalination, Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part
A, Power and Energy, 216 (2002) 229–242.
[12] H.M. Ettouney, H.T. El-Dessouky, R.S. Faibish and
P. Gowin, Evaluating the economics of desalination,
Chem. Eng. Prog., 98 (2002) 32–39.
[13] G.P. Maheshwari, M. Al-Ramadhan and M. Al-
Abdulhadi, Energy requirement of water production
in dual-purpose plants, Desalination, 101 (1995)
133–140.
[14] M.A. Darwish, F.A. Yousef and N.M. Al-Najem,
Energy consumption and costs with a multi-stage
flashing (MSF) desalting system, Desalination, 109
(1997) 285–302.
[15] H.M. Ettouney, H.T. El-Dessouky and I. Alatiqi,
Understand thermal desalination, Chemical Eng.
Prog., 95 (1999) 43–54.
[16] C.J. Geankoplis, Transport Processes and Separation
Process Principles, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, NJ, 2003.
[17] A.M. El-Nashar, Cogeneration for power and
desalination — state of the art review. Desalination,
134 (2001) 7–28.
[18] R. Matz and U. Fisher, A comparison of the relative
economics of sea water desalination by vapor com-
pression and reverse osmosis for small to medium
capacity plants, Desalination, 36 (1981) 137–151.
[19] M. Lucas and B. Tabourier, The mechanical vapour
compression process applied to seawater desali-
nation: A 1500 ton/day unit installed in the nuclear
power plant of Flamanville, France, Desalination, 52
(1985) 123–133.
[20] R. Matz and Z. Zimerman, Low-temperature vapour
compression and multi-effect distillation of seawater.
Effects of design on operation and economics.
Desalination, 52 (1985) 201–216.
[21] Z. Zimerman, Development of large capacity high
efficiency mechanical vapor compression (MVC)
units, Desalination, 96 (1994) 51–58.
[22] J.M. Veza, Mechanical vapour compression desali-
nation plants — A case study, Desalination, 101
(1995) 1–10.
[23] F. Al-Juwayhel, H. El-Dessouky and H. Ettouney,
Analysis of single-effect evaporator desalination
systems combined with vapor compression heat
pumps, Desalination, 114 (1997) 253–275.
[24] M.A. Darwish, Thermal analysis of vapor com-
pression desalination system, Desalination, 69 (1988)
275–295.
[25] G. Kronenberg and F. Lokiec, Low-temperature
distillation processes in single- and dual-purpose
plants, Desalination, 136 (2001) 189–197.
[26] H.M. Ettouney, H.T. El-Dessouky and Y. Al-Roumi,
Analysis of mechanical vapor compression desalina-
tion process, Int. J. Energy Res., 23 (1999) 431–451.
[27] H.S. Aybar, Analysis of a mechanical vapor com-
pression desalination system, Desalination, 142
(2002) 181–186.
[28] M.A. Darwish, Thermal analysis of vapor com-
pression desalination system, Desalination, 69 (1988)
275–295.
[29] N.H. Aly and A.K. El-Fiqi, Mechanical vapor
compression desalination systems — case study,
Desalination, 158 (2003) 143–150.
[30] A. Karameldin, A. Lotfy and S. Mekhemar, The Red
Sea area wind-driven mechanical vapor compression
desalination system, Desalination, 153 (2003) 47–53.