Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.journals.elsevier.com/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

Nuclear cogeneration for cleaner desalination and power generation – A

feasibility study
Joachim M. Schmidt, Veera Gnaneswar Gude *
Richard A. Rula School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mississippi State University, MS, 39762, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Population growth, economic development, groundwater impairment due to salt water intrusion and local vul-
Cogeneration nerabilities caused by rising sea levels prompt immediate necessity for customized adaptation strategies for the
Desalination cities of Homestead and Miami in Florida. This paper presents a feasibility study of nuclear energy driven
Nuclear energy
cogeneration plant for water and power production in Homestead, FL. Miami-Dade and Homestead, Florida is
Power plant
Steam turbine
home to the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Facility. The focus of this study is to investigate the economic
Reverse osmosis feasibility of a seawater desalination facility on the site of an existing nuclear generating plant. While the cost of
seawater desalination is often too great to overcome, it is hypothesized that sharing the infrastructure and pro-
cesses with a power generating facility will lower the cost of producing freshwater. The analysis was completed
with the aid of the desalination modeling software, DEEP. First, we estimate the population growth and water
demands for Homestead, FL and then identify a suitable water desalination plant configuration based on fresh-
water and power production costs. We then compare cogeneration (water and power) schemes based on different
energy sources and desalination technologies. The energy sources considered are nuclear energy, oil and natural
gas for steam turbine and combined cycle power plants. In addition, we evaluate the water and power production
costs for hybrid desalination configurations. Finally, the freshwater costs through nuclear desalination were
assessed with other options and conventional ground water system costs. Environmental emissions saved through
nuclear desalination and the need for considering this option despite the high costs are discussed in detail. The
study concluded that reverse osmosis desalination plant powered by nuclear energy produced water at the lowest
cost which is still three times the cost of current water rates in Homestead, Florida.

1. Introduction available for human consumption (National Geographic). One promising

The United States of America is considered a water-rich country in
general. Once thought of by many populations as an expendable
resource, many communities in the United States are now worrying about
how to supply their citizens with clean water in the future (Gude 2016a).
Population growth, depletion of aquifers, and groundwater pollution are
a few of the many factors applying pressure to fresh water sources (Gude
2017). Because drinking water is undoubtedly one of the most important
resources for sustainable development, global and local communities
must work together to find innovative ways to preserve it (Gude 2018).
Although approximately 70 percent of the world is covered by “water”,
only 2.5 percent of it is freshwater (Chen et al., 2019). Even more stag-
gering, only 1 percent of freshwater in the world is easily accessible
(Gude VG, Nirmalakhandan. 2009). To put that in perspective, only
about 0.007 percent of the water that exists on the planet is currently
way to address drinking water shortages is via desalination which in-
volves reducing the salinity of saltwater to levels safe to drink (Gude
2011). Desalination technologies have been advancing in the past few
decades (Anand and Murugavelh 2020) and are becoming economically
feasible in many applications even with renewable energy utilization
such as solar energy (Gude et al., 2011; de la Calle et al., 2015; Gude and
Fthenakis, 2020). For example, Chen et al. (2019) have studied the
possibility of overcoming the freshwater scarcity in China via
solar-powered desalination. The study reviewed various options for
integrating different types of desalination processes with solar energy
resources. Many integrated processes (mainly desalination processes) are
also being evaluated for enhanced utilization of renewable energy
sources and reduction of non-renewable energy consumption (Tong
et al., 2020). Desalination of a saline water source is often achieved by
forcing the saline water through a membrane to separate the salt and

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: gude@cee.msstate.edu, gudevg@gmail.com (V.G. Gude).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100044
Received 28 July 2020; Received in revised form 30 November 2020; Accepted 27 January 2021
2666-7908/© 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude
water or heating the saline water until the freshwater is vaporized and
the salts are left behind (Gude et al., 2010). In the correct configurations,
these processes can easily meet drinking water standards, but essential
minerals that are present in groundwater may need to be added to the
final product.
This study seeks to investigate the feasibility of desalination as a water
supply alternative for Homestead, Miami-Dade County, Florida. The City
of Homestead, Florida, located in Miami-Dade County, is facing an
increasing pressure to find alternate and sustainable sources of drinking
water. Coastal communities with abundant access to saline water,
Homestead and Miami-Dade (a major city adjacent to Homestead) are
facing freshwater availability stress due to population growth, agricultural
needs, and saltwater intrusion. The populations of both Homestead and
Miami-Dade County have experienced steady, rapid growth in recent
years. The population growth and water demands for Homestead, FL
during the past eight years are shown in Fig. 1A. Estimated or projected
population and water demands for the next 50 years are shown in Fig. 1B.
Similar estimates were made by the South Florida Water District. Miami-
Dade County is also experiencing similar population growth and water
demand trends but the magnitude of these numbers is about 30–40 times
of Homestead. Over the next 50 years, their respective populations are
expected to double, and so will the water usage needs of the municipal-
ities. Homestead’s main source of industry is agriculture. While many
sustainable irrigation practices have been developed in recent years, a
product of agriculture is water demand. Homestead and Miami-Dade
County are two of several entities to be supplied with drinking water by
the Biscayne Aquifer. The Biscayne Aquifer has had its fresh water capacity
reduced due to saltwater intrusion similar to many other coastal water
resources (Colombani et al., 2016). It was known that the intensive
well-field withdrawals are the dominant cause for saltwater intrusion
which could be potentially compounded by sea level rise (Langevin and
Zygnerski, 2013). Depending on the rate of sea level rise trends, the
well-fields will not be able to support drinking water supply option as the
Fig. 1. Population growth trends (2010–2017) and population growth projec-
tion (2018–2070) for the city of Homestead, FL.
2
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044
standards may exceed 10–21 years earlier. For example, it has been
exported that salt water intrusion may affect (increase) the formation of
bromine-containing trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids during chlori-
nation of well waters (Ged and Boyer 2014). Both cities and the aquifer are
in the vicinity of nuclear power plant which uses cooling canals to cool the
water. The cooling canals at the Turkey Point Reactor site are unlined and
outdated. As hypersaline water is discharged into them, it has the ability to
seep into the Biscayne Aquifer and increase overall salinity (Hughes et al.,
2010). The water needs of Homestead, FL and Miami-Dade County are
intrinsically linked. Homestead is forced to purchase up to 3 million gal-
lons per day (MGD) of drinking water once it reaches its daily withdrawal
limit from the Biscayne Aquifer (SFWMD, 2018). In 2017, Homestead
bought $1.1 million of drinking water from Miami-Dade County
(MDWSD). An alternate source of water with a 50-year lifetime would
conservatively save Homestead, FL over 50 million dollars. Any opportu-
nity for Homestead to acquire drinking water from alternate sources would
lessen the pressure on the Biscayne Aquifer and benefit Miami-Dade
County and surrounding municipalities. In addition to the water needs,
Homestead was chosen as the site for this study because of the presence of
the Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. Turkey Point borders the Biscayne Bay and
supplies south Florida with power through both nuclear and fossil fuel
power generation. Though seawater desalination is often the most
expensive desalination configuration, combining desalination facilities on
the same site as a power plant has been shown to reduce the costs of
desalination. In addition, nuclear energy sources (Suman 2018) and those
processes that capitalize this energy (i.e., desalination) in an efficient
manner are receiving increasing interest around the world (Al-Othman
et al., 2019). Moreover, nuclear energy supported desalination alternative
can be more sustainable and environmentally friendly (WNA 2011). This is
because desalination technologies demand significant quantities of energy
both in the forms of heat and electricity depending on the process tech-
nology. Electricity production including upstream emissions results in
major air pollutants such as nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxides (SOx)
and particulate matter (Babee et al., 2020).
In this research, we first estimate the population growth and water
demands for Homestead, FL and then identify a suitable water desali-
nation plant based on freshwater and power production costs. We then
compare cogeneration (water and power) schemes based on different
energy sources and technologies. The energy sources considered are
nuclear energy, oil and natural gas for steam turbine and combined cycle
power plants. In addition, we evaluate the water and power production
costs for hybrid desalination configurations. Finally, the freshwater costs
through nuclear desalination were assessed with other options and
conventional ground water system costs. Environmental emissions saved
through nuclear desalination and the need for considering this option
despite the high costs are discussed in detail.
2. Methods and procedures
As stated previously, desalination is the process of removing or
reducing the salinity from water. The most commonly used methods for
large-scale desalination today include reverse osmosis (RO), multi-stage
flash distillation (MSF), and multi-effect distillation (MED) (Gude 2015).
Reverse osmosis passes pressurized saline water through a series of
semipermeable membranes to the low-pressure side of the system. Unlike
distillation-based desalination, reverse osmosis does not involve any
heating or phase change. Membranes for seawater are currently
comprised of cellulose acetate, polyamide, and thin-film composite
which are resistant to factors existing in seawater such as free chlorine,
free oxygen, bacteria, high temperature, and low pH (Al-Karaghouli,
n.d.). Multi-stage flash distillation, or MSF, heats the saline water to
separate the salt and water. The seawater typically passes through twenty
or more stages, with each stage producing fresh water through evapo-
ration. As the seawater passes through each stage, it gets increasingly
more saline until it is discharged as brine. Multi-effect distillation also
uses evaporation to separate brine from seawater (de la Calle et al.,
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044

2015). At the top of the configuration, seawater is sprayed on hot 2.2. Cogeneration schemes
condenser tubes causing evaporation. The water vapor and water pro-
duced in the condenser exit the chamber leaving the brine behind The economic feasibility of desalination in Homestead, Florida was
(Ghorbani et al., 2019). More details on individual processes, advantages modeled using the DEEP software created by the International Atomic
and limitations and operating characteristics and renewable energy ap- Energy Agency (IAEA) (DEEP, 2018). The DEEP program allows for the
plications can be found elsewhere (Gude 2016b). All of these configu- modeling of desalination output and water costs powered by various
rations were evaluated in this study for their economic feasibility. energy sources. The program provides a simple analysis based on a
number of process variables and configurations and it is effective in
evaluating the feasibility scenarios. Several trials were completed to
2.1. Proposed water supply and power options
compare the variance in factors affecting the proposed facility along with
the present configuration options. The trials were compared to determine
To cover the potable water needs of the citizens of Homestead, FL and
the most economically feasible configuration for the needs and charac-
alleviate the stress on the Biscayne Aquifer and Miami-Dade County, a
teristics of the proposed location.
desalination facility is to be built on the site of the Turkey Point Nuclear
A logical illustration of the process involved in the feasibility study is
Generating Facility. A geographical satellite view of the region high-
shown in Fig. 3. Population growth and water demand estimations are
lighting the locations of the City of Homestead (Fig. 2A) and Turkey Point
the first steps in estimating the nuclear cogeneration needs. The model
power plant (Fig. 2B) and the aquifer (Fig. 2C) is shown in Fig. 2. The
includes a simulation tool that combines the interactive effects of both
facility will be constructed in a configuration similar to the Tampa Day
nuclear power plant and desalination technology performances to derive
desalination plant (Tampa Bay Water, 2007). The cooling canals will be
an optimum nuclear cogeneration scheme. Among the power plant
decommissioned, which will ultimately stop the intrusion of highly saline
configurations, steam turbine and combined cycle power plant schemes
water from the canal into the Biscayne Aquifer. A pipeline will be
were considered. The three aforementioned predominant desalination
extended into the Biscayne Bay or Atlantic Ocean. The cooling needs of
technologies (RO, MED, and MSF) were considered. Natural gas and oil
the power plant will be met with salt water via this pipeline. To preserve
were considered as other energy sources. Sensitivity analyses were per-
the infrastructure of the facility, the water will undergo screening to
formed for all of these configurations and a comparative assessment is
remove suspended solids as it enters the facility. Roughly 10% of the
carried out to understand the advantages and disadvantages associated
cooling water will be diverted to a desalination plant. The desalination
with each option. Influencing factors such as water costs, power costs,
procedure will be determined by modeling the costs of reverse osmosis,
transport costs, fuel mix options, hybrid configurations, life cycle envi-
multi-stage flash distillation, multi-effect distillation, and a hybrid pro-
ronmental emissions, and the potential water resource related benefits
cess of reverse osmosis and distillation. The freshwater produced will be
are assessed. The following sections describe the process and economic
stored in a holding tank before it is distributed to the city water lines. The
parameters considered for the sensitivity analysis and discuss the outputs
brine will join the return flow of cooling water for the power plant.
from simulation studies in detail.
Because the brine will be less than 5 percent of the return flow, it will be
diluted to normal inflow salinity levels to reduce the environmental
3. Results and discussion
impact of the facility. The objective of this project is to make the cost of
desalination feasible by using the infrastructure of the power plant to
As the facility will be designed to provide the drinking water needs of
reduce startup costs. Additionally, the energy needs of the desalination
Homestead, FL up to 50 years, the design capacity of the plant is esti-
process will be provided by the power generated on site. The use of
mated around 20 million gallons per day (nearly 75,000 m3/d). Current
nuclear energy will support the sustainability of the project and ensure
water demands are around 10.75 million gallons per day (46,000 m3/d).
the cost of power remains consistent over the life of the project.

Fig. 2. (A) A geographical map showing Miami-Dade County, FL, (1) the City of Homestead under study and (2) location of the existing nuclear power plant at Turkey
Point; (B) an aerial view of Turkey Point nuclear power plant; and (C) Cooling canal system at the nuclear power plant.

3
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044

Fig. 3. A logical illustration of the techno-economic and process simulation methods and tools used in this study.

Fig. 4. Sensitivity analysis and comparison of the desalination plant operations: (A–D) the effect of water production capacity on water cost ($/m3) for different
desalination and power plant configurations; (E–H) the effect of maximum brine temperature on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and power plant con-
figurations; and (I–L) the effect of maximum brine temperature on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and power plant configurations. A-E-I show a com-
parison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Combined Cycle – Nuclear cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; B–F-J show a comparison of Steam
Turbine – Oil and Combined Cycle – Gas cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; C-G-K show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and
Steam Turbine – Oil cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; and D-H-L show a comparison of Combined Cycle – Nuclear and Combined Cycle –
Natural Gas cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes.

4
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044

A reference thermal output of 1800 MW (th) is set for all simulations for
the power plant and the plant availability is taken as 90% for both
desalination and power plant. For all simulations, an interest rate of 5%
and a discount rate of 5% and fuel escalation rate of 3% were used.
Sensitivity analysis includes a
35% range to study the impact of each
variable.
3.1. Water cost analysis of different energy source and desalination
configurations
The Turkey Point Generating Facility currently supplies power
through two nuclear reactors and a combined cycle gas generator. Nu-
clear energy is more sustainable than fossil fuels, and DEEP can be used to
determine which source generates power and supplies water at the
lowest cost. As shown in the results, nuclear powered desalination was
modeled to produce water at a lower cost than combined cycle fossil fuel.
Additionally, the ranking of desalination configuration from lowest to
highest water cost was the same for nuclear and combined cycle fossil
fuels. The desalination configurations ranked lowest to high water cost
are as follows: reverse osmosis, multi-effect distillation, hybrid reverse
osmosis and multi-effect distillation, and multi-stage flash distillation.
With all other variables held consistent, reverse osmosis desalination
powered by nuclear energy produced water at the lowest cost. To meet
the energy needs of the area, desalination may need to be powered by a
combination of nuclear energy and fossil fuels. Interpolation can be
carried out to model the cost of power and water supplied by a combi-
nation of both nuclear and fossil fuels. Fig. 4A, E and 4I show a com-
parison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Combined Cycle – Nuclear
cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes in terms of
the effects of water production capacity (m3/d), maximum brine tem-
perature and condensing temperatures on water costs ($/m3). A sensi-
tivity analysis was performed with water production capacities
(desalination plant) between 42,000 m3/d and 102,000 m3/d. Similarly,
Fig. 4B, F and 4J show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Oil and Com-
bined Cycle – Gas cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO
processes for similar effects. Fig. 4C, G and 4K show a comparison of
Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Steam Turbine – Oil cogeneration config-
urations for MED, MSF and RO processes and finally Fig. 4D, H and 4L
show a comparison of Combined Cycle – Nuclear and Combined Cycle –
Natural gas cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes.
3.2. Sensitivity analysis of power plant characteristics on water costs
The effect of power plant costs on water costs were evaluated for the
four different power plant configurations using nuclear, oil and natural
gas energy sources. Fig. 5 shows a comparison of water production costs
for all configurations. Nuclear power plant costs were varied between
$2600 and $ 5400 per kW for both steam turbine and combined cycle
configurations. The water costs were $0.97-$1.18, $1.33-$1.76, and
$0.75-$0.84 per m3 for MED, MSF and RO processes, respectively for
steam turbine configuration (Fig. 5A) The water costs were $0.96-$1.16,
$1.31-$1.72, $0.74-$0.83 per m3 for MED, MSF and RO processes,
respectively for combined cycle configuration (Fig. 5B). Power plant
costs for oil based steam turbine configuration were varied between
$1495 and $3211 per kW and the water costs were $1.98-$2.12, $3.53-
$3.83, and $1.29-$1.36 per m3 for MED, MSF and RO processes,

Fig. 5. Sensitivity analysis and comparison of power plant operations: (A–D) the effect of power plant specific costs on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and
power plant configurations; (E–H) the effect of specific fuel cost on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and power plant configurations; and (I–L) the effect of
fuel escalation rate on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and power plant configurations. A-E-I show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Combined
Cycle – Nuclear cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; B–F-J show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Oil and Combined Cycle – Natural Gas
cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; C-G-K show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Steam Turbine – Oil cogeneration config-
urations for MED, MSF and RO processes; and D-H-L show a comparison of Combined Cycle – Nuclear and Combined Cycle – Natural Gas cogeneration configurations
for MED, MSF and RO processes.

5
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044

respectively for this option (Fig. 5C). Power plant costs for natural gas
based combined cycle configuration were varied between $552.5 and
$1148 per kW and the water costs were $1.17-$1.21, $1.80-$1.89, and
$0.87-$0.89 per m3 for MED, MSF and RO processes, respectively for this
option (Fig. 5D). Among all these options, nuclear energy powered RO
process has yielded lowest desalinated water costs.
Specific fuel costs were considered as 3.86–8.29 $/MWh, 2.95–6.34
$/MWh, 79–164.4 $/MWh and 33.3–69.3 $/MWh for nuclear, oil and
natural gas energy sources. The water costs were 1.05–1.11; 1.45–1.61;
and 0.78–0.81 for steam turbine (Figs. 5E), 1.04–1.08; 1.48–1.55;
0.78–0.80 for combined cycle nuclear (Figs. 5F), 1.66–2.44; 2.84–4.51;
1.12–1.52 for steam turbine oil power plant (Figs. 5G) and 1.05–1.34;
1.54–2.15; 0.81–0.96 for combined cycle natural gas power plants
(Fig. 5H) for MED, MSF, and RO processes, respectively. Finally, fuel
escalation rates were varied between 1.95% and 4.05%. The water costs
were $1.05-$1.10; $1.51-$1.61; and $0.78-$0.81 for steam turbine nu-
clear plant (Fig. 5I), $1.05-$1.07; $1.50-$1.54; and $0.78-$0.79 for
combined cycle nuclear plant (Fig. 5J), $1.86-$2.28; $3.28-$4.16; and
$1.23-$1.44 for steam turbine oil power plant (Fig. 5K), and $1.14-$1.25;
$1.74-$1.97; $0.86-$0.91 for combined cycle natural gas power plant
(Fig. 5L) for MED, MSF, and RO desalination processes. All these analyses
show that regardless of the energy source and power plant configuration,
the RO process is most economical and MED process is preferable in a
thermal desalination configuration over MSF process as the water costs
for MSF process are the highest even in a cogeneration scheme.
3.3. Sensitivity analysis of cogeneration scheme finances on water costs
The model was used to evaluate the financial factors including in the
construction and operation of desalination facilities. While financial vari-
ables are often highly complex and sometimes unique to specific projects,
this model gives the ability to model them at a wide range that could apply
to a broad range of applications. Financing a project is frequently one of
the greatest hurdles to overcome, and the interest rate for project con-
struction is unknown. The effects of interest rates on the costs of water and
power, different desalination and the plant configurations are studied and
the results are shown in Fig. 6. Two terms that are commonly used in
economic analysis are discount rate and interest rate. Depending upon the
context, the discount rate has two different definitions and usages. First,
the discount rate refers to the interest rate charged to the commercial
banks and other financial institutions for the loans they take from the
Federal Reserve Bank through the discount window loan process, and
second, the discount rate refers to the interest rate used in discounted cash
flow analysis to determine the present value of future cash flows. An in-
terest rate is also used to understand the present worth of the project for a
loan taken. As shown in Fig. 6A through Fig. 6D in a comparison of steam
turbine and combined cycle nuclear power plant configurations, the water
costs increase with discount rates. The discount rates were varied between
3 and 7 percent. The water costs ranges are $1.026/m3 - 1.083/m3, $1.51/
m3 - 1.59/m3, and $0.78/m3 – 0.8/m3, for MED, MSF, and RO processes,
respectively for steam turbine nuclear plant. The water costs ranges are

Fig. 6. Sensitivity analysis and comparison of cogeneration scheme finances: (A–D) the effect of discount rate on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and
power plant configurations; (E–H) the effect of interest rate on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and power plant configurations; and (I–L) the effect of
carbon tax on water cost ($/m3) for different desalination and power plant configurations. A-E-I show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Combined Cycle –
Nuclear cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; B–F-J show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Oil and Combined Cycle – Gas cogeneration
configurations for MED, MSF and RO processes; C-G-K show a comparison of Steam Turbine – Nuclear and Steam Turbine – Oil cogeneration configurations for MED,
MSF and RO processes; and D-H-L show a comparison of Combined Cycle – Nuclear and Combined Cycle – Gas cogeneration configurations for MED, MSF and
RO processes.

6
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude
$1.4/m3 - 1.8/m3, $1.5/m3 - 1.54/m3, and $0.78/m3 – 0.79/m3, for MED,
MSF, and RO processes, respectively for combined cycle nuclear power
plant. Similarly, as shown in Fig. 6A through Fig. 6D in a comparison of
steam turbine powered by oil and combined cycle powered by natural gas
power plant configurations, the water costs ranges are $2.03/m3 – 2.07/
m3, $3.64/m3 – 3.7/m3, and $1.31/m3 – 1.33/m3 for MED, MSF, and RO
processes, respectively for steam turbine powered by oil power plant. The
water costs ranges are $1.17/m3 - 1.2/m3, $1.83/m3 - 1.86/m3, and
$0.88/m3 – 0.89/m3, for MED, MSF, and RO processes, respectively for
combined cycle natural gas power plant. Similar observations and differ-
ences can be found in the comparisons made between steam turbine
powered with nuclear and oil sources and the comparisons made between
combined cycle nuclear and natural gas power plants.
Similarly, Fig. 6E through Fig. 6H show four different comparisons of
cost scenarios by varying interest rates between 3 and 7 percent. It can be
noted that water costs by MSF process are more sensitive to the interest
rates across all comparisons. The water costs ranges are $1.33/m3 - 1.81/
m3, $1.31/m3 - 1.74/m3, and $3.63/m3 – 3.73/m3 and $1.78/m3 - 1.92/
m3 for MSF process across the four energy and power plant configura-
tions. Finally, the impact of carbon tax is studied and compared in Fig. 6I
through Fig. 6L.
The carbon tax was varied between $12/ton and $27/ton to evaluate
the water costs. A carbon tax is a fee enforced on carbon based fuel
consumption such as coal, oil, and gas. It is enforced in some countries
7
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044
around the world in efforts to reduce and discourage the use of non-
renewable energy sources. Carbon tax is applied at the fuel extraction
stage from the source before they are into mainstream of commerce
including imports. As shown in Fig. 6J and K, the impact of carbon tax on
the water costs is higher for MSF and oil based power plant configuration.
Similarly, combined cycle oil-fired power plant has higher sensitivity to
carbon tax as shown in Fig. 6L. This analysis suggests that energy effi-
ciency is better justified in cogeneration schemes and that further use of
renewable or cleaner energy source would reduce the environmental
burdens and regulatory stipulations imposed in the form of carbon tax.
3.4. Sensitivity analysis of cogeneration schemes on power costs
Further analysis focused on sensitivity of power costs to the type of
power plant configuration and the source of fuel. As shown in Fig. 7A and
as mentioned before, plant specific costs of 2600–5400 $/kW were
considered for steam turbine and combined cycle nuclear power plants.
For oil-fired power plants, these values were between $1495 and $3211
steam turbine oil and those for combined cycle natural gas fired power
plant are between $552.5 and $1148 per kW. The corresponding power
cost ranges were $0.052-$0.084, $0.049-$0.081, $0.094-$0.10 and
$0.24-$0.26 per kW for nuclear driven steam turbine and combined cycle
power plants, combined cycle natural gas power plant and oil-fired steam
turbine plants, respectively.
Fig. 7. Sensitivity analysis and comparison of
cogeneration schemes: (A) the effect of power
plant specific cost on power cost ($/kWh) for
different power plant configurations; (B) the ef-
fect of specific fuel cost on power cost ($/kWh)
for different power plant configurations; (C) the
effect of fuel escalation rate on power cost
($/kWh) for different power plant configurations;
(D) the effect of carbon tax on power cost
($/kWh) for different power plant configurations;
(E) the effect of maximum brine temperature on
power cost ($/kWh) for different desalination and
power plant configurations; and (F) the effect of
condensing temperature on power cost ($/kWh)
for different desalination and power plant
configurations.
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude
Specific fuel costs were considered as mentioned before and the re-
sults are shown in Fig. 7B. The corresponding power cost ranges were
$0.069-$0.073, $0.063-$0.068, $0.072-$0.12 and $0.18-$0.32 per kW
for nuclear driven steam turbine and combined cycle power plants,
combined cycle natural gas power plant and oil-fired steam turbine
plants, respectively. Fuel escalation rate was varied between 1.95% and
4.05% and the carbon tax effect was also studied. As observed before, oil-
fired power plant has higher sensitivity to fuel price escalation (Fig. 7C
and D). This analysis has shown that the power costs are sensitive to the
fuel type and their costs and not the power plant configuration.
Thermal utilization efficiency (TUE) was evaluated for cogeneration
schemes with thermal desalination processes (Fig. 7E). This depends on
the maximum brine temperature in the desalination plant which is only
applicable to MED and MSF processes. The maximum brine temperatures
considered for MED process were between 45.5 and 95  C and for MSF
processes these were between 71.5 and 148  C. The following TUEs were
calculated:
 0.60–0.30 and 0.45–0.31 for steam turbine nuclear MED and MSF
processes, respectively
 0.81–0.51 and 0.67–0.53 for combined cycle nuclear MED and MSF
processes, respectively
 0.61–0.30 and 0.46–0.32 for oil-fired steam turbine MED and MSF
processes, respectively
 0.82–0.52 and 0.67–0.53 for combined cycle natural gas MED and
MSF processes, respectively
Similarly, the effect of condensing temperature (16.25–34.25  C) was
studied and the following TUEs were calculated (Fig. 7F):
 0.34–0.38, 0.35–0.36, and 0.26–0.24 for steam turbine nuclear MED,
MSF and RO processes, respectively
 0.54–0.59, 0.56–0.57, 0.47–0.46 for combined cycle nuclear MED,
MSF and RO processes, respectively
 0.34–0.38, 0.35–0.36, and 0.26–0.24 for oil-fired steam turbine MED,
MSF and RO processes, respectively
 0.55–0.60, 0.56–0.58, and 0.47–0.46 for combined cycle natural gas
MED, MSF and RO processes, respectively
The above analysis shows that MED process has higher TUE and thus
is more efficient thermodynamically when compared to both MSF and
RO processes in all configurations regardless of the fuel source.
3.5. Cogeneration schemes – techno-economic considerations
Cogeneration (simultaneous water and power production) schemes
should consider the factors such as water to power (W–P) ratio, energy
requirements for desalination plant, specific fuel consumption and the
effect of seasonal loads. The water to power ratio is defined as the ratio of
the total water production capacity (m3/d) to one unit of power pro-
duced, i.e., MWe. The W–P ratios vary with the type of power plant
configuration. Steam turbine MED and MSF configurations have W–P
ratios in the range of 570–1140 and 400–800, respectively while reverse
osmosis using electricity only has a range of 2700–5000. Fig. 8 shows the
effect of W–P ratios on water costs. W–P ratios were calculated for
Nuclear-MED and Nuclear-RO processes which are the low-cost desali-
nation options. Higher W–P ratios are economical for both power plant
efficiency and water costs. However, for the MED process, the water costs
increase after a certain range as thermal efficiency enhancement becomes
a challenge. For the RO process, there is a better scope for W–P ratio as it
does not depend on thermal efficiency but the water costs do not
significantly decline beyond a certain W–P ratio. However, the water
production capacity is available which may not be the case for nuclear-
MED process. From the present case study context, lower W–P ratios
are suitable for Homestead, FL community but at higher water costs. As
the water production capacity increases, water costs decrease especially
8
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044
Fig. 8. Effect of Water-Power ratio on water costs. W–P ratios were calculated
for the lowest water desalination options, MED and RO processes. W–P ratio also
indicates the relationship between size of the desalination plant with respect to
the power plant. Larger desalination plant (W–P ratio) is suitable for Miami-
Dade County while lower W–P ratios are suitable for Homestead, FL city but
at a higher water cost.
in the 10,000 m3/d to 100,000 m3/d range. The water costs continue to
decline to a certain value in both cases indicating the possibility of
considering a large-scale desalination plant (200,000 m3/d – 500,000
m3/d) which is proven to be more suitable for nuclear power plants
(WNA). Some of the water needs for Miami-Dade County can be met with
the desalinated water produced from this plant. Fig. 9A shows a com-
parison of power costs ($/MWh) and thermal utilization efficiencies (%)
for different cogeneration options. It can be noted that the power costs
are not affected by the desalination technology combination for nuclear
power plants; however, power costs are sensitive to other energy sources
and desalination technology. Within the nuclear energy power plants,
combined cycle power plant is more beneficial than steam turbine power
plant in terms of power costs. Thermal utilization efficiencies are also
higher for combined cycle power plants both with MED desalination
technology. Thermal utilization efficiency is the lowest for cogeneration
schemes where reverse osmosis is the primary desalination technology as
thermal energy is not put to use.
3.6. Potential for environmental emissions savings
Nuclear energy is considered a cleaner energy source when compared
with conventional (Oil – 547–935 tons CO2e/GWh and natural gas –
362–891 tons CO2e/GWh) and even other renewable energy sources such
as solar-PV (13–731 tons CO2e/GWh) in terms of life cycle greenhouse
gas (GHG) emission intensity. Nuclear energy has a life cycle GHG
emission intensity of 2–130 tons CO2e/GWh (WNA 2011). Fig. 9B shows
a comparison of life cycle GHG emissions for the three nuclear powered
desalination processes and combined cycle gas power plant, all repre-
senting low cost options for the processes. It can be noted that the nuclear
energy source has less life cycle GHG emissions intensity expressed as
Mton/yr. Fig. 9B also shows the potential for GHG savings by considering
the nuclear energy source.
3.7. Water resource benefits due to nuclear cogeneration
Fig. 9C shows the locations of groundwater wells in the Miami-Dade
County and the chloride concentrations in the groundwater near Bis-
cayne Aquifer. The inland extent of saltwater intrusion in the Biscayne
Aquifer is defined by the location of the 1000 mg/L isochlor. As a
reference concentration, the South Florida Water Management District
(SFWMD, 2018) defines seawater as having a chloride concentration
greater than 19,000 mg/L, and saline water as having a chloride con-
centrations greater than 250 mg/L surface water with chloride concen-
trations greater than 1500 mg/L are classified as marine waters, and
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude
Fig. 9. Comparison of (A) power costs, thermal utilization efficiencies, (B) life cycle environmental emissions and those saved for different nuclear power plant –
desalination configurations; (C) locations of groundwater wells and chloride concentration levels in Biscayne Bay aquifer due to salt water intrusion.
surface waters with chloride concentrations less than 1500 mg/L are
classified as freshwaters (F.A.C.62–302.200). The landward extent of the
saltwater interface (i.e., the 1000 mg/L isochlor) varies naturally in
response to a variety of factors, such as seasonal variations of ground-
water recharge and variations in rates at which groundwater is pumped
from the aquifer. For example, prolonged droughts or excessive water
usage inland that reduce water-table elevations can cause increased
salinity intrusion. The groundwater underlying the Turkey Point site was
naturally saline due to the proximity of the site to the coast. Since the
water-table gradient towards the coast is typically very low, and with the
location of the salt water interface being partially controlled by those
gradients, even slight reductions of the fresh water piezometric-head
gradient can cause substantial landward movement of the saltwater
interface. The occurrence of landward gradients during the dry season
promotes inland movement of saline groundwater.
Desalination facility for freshwater supplies will address these con-
cerns by not having to pump groundwater that could cause saltwater
intrusion over the time. On another note, increasing salinity of ground-
water due to salt water intrusion will warrant installation of inland
groundwater or coastal desalination plants. Currently, to address the
water table issues and to create a barrier for salt water intrusion, Miami-
Dade County water utilities department has water reuse projects that are
aimed to reduce groundwater extraction and promote groundwater
recharge. However, this option is also cost- and energy-intensive and may
ultimately compromise the quality of groundwater in the aquifers.
Another major environmental concern related to global warming and
climate change that particularly impacts Miami-Dade County region is
the elevating sea levels. By 2050, the sea level rise will put nearly a
trillion dollars’ worth of coastal assets to damage. Although currently it is
9
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044
not an issue for Miami-Dade County and the Biscayne Aquifer across the
region, a neighboring county will receive a greater impact from rising sea
levels. The impact due to the salt water intrusion may accrue $40 million
(with seven groundwater wells needing replacement) in a very favorable
scenario (high precipitation and high groundwater recharge) whereas
the costs could reach $250 million (with 43 groundwater wells needing
replacement) under least favorable scenario (high sea level rise, low
precipitation and high salt water intrusion). Finally, by considering a
desalination plant, the availability of groundwater source can be
enhanced for more critical needs and for future purposes.
3.8. Water cost scenario
It is expected that the water costs will be higher for desalination
plants. Fig. 10 shows a comparison of different water supply options
including nuclear energy, oil and natural gas sources. The average rate
for residential water use in Homestead is 88 cents per 1000 gallons which
is equivalent to 23 cents per cubic meters of water within a consumption
range of 0–11,355 L. Water charges depend on the quantity of water
usage. The city charges 32 cents per cubic meter of water within a con-
sumption range of 11,355–34,065 L. The charges are increased to 45
cents per cubic meter and 60 cents per cubic meter within the con-
sumption range of 34,065–52,990 and > 52,990, respectively. These
ranges also suggest possible uses at domestic, commercial and industrial
scales. As a comparison, the desalinated water costs are $0.80, $1.08 and
$1.56 for RO, MED, and MSF processes powered by steam turbine nuclear
power plant. These values are 1.33–3.48 fold, 1.8–4.7 fold, and 2.6–6.8
fold higher than conventional water supply option for RO, MED and MSF
processes, respectively. Similarly, for a combined cycle plant driven by
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044

Fig. 10. Comparison of current water costs (groundwater treated by conventional processes) and desalinated water costs for different cogeneration (power plant –
desalination) configurations. The comparison is made in terms of –fold increase over the current costs for each option.

natural gas, the desalinated water costs are $0.89, $1.2 and $1.85 for RO,
MED, and MSF processes, respectively. These values are 1.48–3.87 fold,
2–5.22 fold, and 4.1–8 fold higher than conventional water supply option
for RO, MED and MSF processes, respectively. It can be noted that low
cost ratios are applicable for large number of consumers which is more
suitable for industrial use. This may also suggest that water costs would
be more favorable for a large-scale desalination plant with large number
of users with high water consumption rates.
The cost of freshwater from nuclear driven desalination plants is still
higher due to the fact that the capital costs for these plants are signifi-
cantly higher than conventional water treatment plants and even other
cogeneration plants. However, the cost of electricity produced by nuclear
plants is much cheaper than other conventional and renewable energy
sources. This is because of the high capacity factor, high plant avail-
ability, high fuel efficiency, and thermal efficiency when compared to
other similar technologies. The cost of nuclear plants is definitely a major
constraint to consider a cogeneration plant in this location. Despite this
fact, the aforementioned groundwater quality, resource insecurity, vul-
nerabilities due to projected sea level rises prompt the decision makers in
this region to contemplate nuclear driven cogeneration schemes for
securing both water and power supplies.
As many of the countries similar to United States are marching toward
“deep decarbonization” of energy (electric) sector, the possibility of nu-
clear cogeneration plants becomes more tangible. With increasing
awareness of nuclear energy benefits, more communities will consider
nuclear plants which may lead to lower equipment and reactor costs.
Design of modular units and high-efficiency process components would
help reduce the capital costs up front which turn the nuclear power plants
to be more attractive to investors.

Fig. 11. Trends of water (A) and power (B) costs at different energy mix scenarios for power plants, natural gas is considered as other source of energy. Water (C) and
Power (D) for different power plant combinations including a hybrid desalination plant (MED þ RO). Note: S–N: Steam Turbine – Nuclear; CC-G: Combined Cycle-Gas;
S–O: Steam Turbine – Oil; CC-N: Combined Cycle – Nuclear power plant.

10
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude
3.9. Energy source diversity and process combinations
Due to the high capital costs for nuclear cogeneration plants and to
enhance flexibility, it may be possible to consider a number of power
plants powered by different energy sources, for example, nuclear and
other non-renewable energy sources. Fig. 11 shows the trends of water
(Fig. 11A) and power (Fig. 11B) costs at different energy mix scenarios
for power plants. Natural gas was considered as alternate energy source
for non-nuclear power plants and RO process was considered as the
desalination technology due to its lowest water costs. It can be noted that
with reference to the nuclear plant which has the lowest water and power
costs, energy mix scenarios offer better water and power cost options
when compared to non-renewable fuel based power plants. Figs. 11C and
D show water and power costs for hybrid power plant configurations
with different desalination technologies. It is clear that the water and
power costs can be improved with nuclear energy mix while enhancing
flexibility in the process both in terms of efficiency and fuel diversity.
3.10. Transport cost
For the desalination plant to be put into practice, a pipeline must be
extended into the Biscayne Bay or Atlantic Ocean to supply the cooling
system and desalination plant with saline water. Once water is treated, it
must be transported to the distribution infrastructure for the city of
Homestead. The following trial was used to model the different desali-
nation configurations and power sources with water transport costs
included. Because the objective of the trial was to observe the impact of
the configurations and power sources, the transport distance was kept
constant at 30 km. Like the previous trial, reverse osmosis produced the
lowest water cost followed by MED, hybrid, and MSF configurations
respectively. Interestingly, nuclear power remained the more economical
power source but the gap between nuclear and fossil fuels was consid-
erably decreased.
Although it is known that water will need to be transported over some
distance in the proposed desalination plant, the distance that it must
travel is unknown. While it would be easier to pump water into the fa-
cility from the nearby Biscayne Bay, environmental regulations may
prohibit this. Pumping from the Atlantic Ocean would result in a longer
pipeline, but it would likely have a lesser environmental impact. Because
the distance of this pipeline is unknown, the following trial was carried
out to model the effect of transport distance on water cost. Because
reverse osmosis desalination powered by nuclear energy was previously
determined to be the most economical configuration, it was held constant
as the transport distance changed for each data point. As expected, the
water cost increased as transport distance increased (Fig. 12). The rela-
tionship between transport distance and water cost was linear. For every
10 km, the water cost increased by two cents per cubic meter. This
relationship would certainly have to be considered when designing the
pipeline to supply the facility with saline water.
In the proposed system, the primary purpose of the influent water is
for cooling medium of the condensers in nuclear power plants. The
temperature of the influent temperature affects the cost of power, and the
distillation-based desalination methods are temperature dependent pro-
cesses. South Florida has a relatively warm, mild climate, but there is a
significant water temperature change between the winter and summer
months. The Biscayne Bay reaches 31.2  C in August and drops to 21.7  C
in February. Each desalination configuration was modeled with the high
and low sea temperatures. The trials were powered by nuclear energy to
exhibit how the temperature changes effect the power cost. Through
DEEP analysis, changes in influent water temperature did not have a
significant effect on water cost for reverse osmosis and multi-stage flash
distillation. For MED process, the 9.5  C increase in temperature
decreased the cost of water by twelve cents per cubic meter. For each
configuration the cost to produce nuclear power increased from 66.8
$/MWh at the coldest temperature to 68.7 $/MWh at the warmest
temperature.
11
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044
Fig. 12. Effect of water transport distance for distribution on water costs
(reverse osmosis with steam turbine nuclear power plant).
4. Conclusions
Solving the water crisis facing the world in the face of exponential
population growth, exhausted resources, and pollution requires creative,
complex solutions. While the Biscayne Bay aquifer that supplies Home-
stead, FL and much of Miami-Dade County and the Lower East Coast
Planning Area is not yet at crisis levels, it is a blossoming issue that needs
attention in near future. As desalination technology advances, the ability
to access the vast source of saline water that covers the earth for drinking
water is made possible. Seawater has been one of the more expensive
desalination procedures, but combining seawater desalination facilities
with power plants allows for the two processes to share infrastructure
and costs while complimenting each other. Additionally, co-location of
desalination and power generation allows for the hypersaline desalina-
tion discharge to be diluted by the cooling discharge of the power
generating facility. The hypersaline discharge is one of the major envi-
ronmental issues that seawater desalination plants must address. In the
case of the Turkey Point Nuclear Generating Station, desalination pro-
vides for the opportunity to address multiple issues faced by the site.
Using a seawater desalination plant to supply Homestead, FL would
alleviate stress on the Biscayne Aquifer benefitting all of Miami-Dade
County and the LEC Planning Area while saving Homestead the costs
of water purchase from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department.
By replacing the cooling canals with seawater for cooling and desalina-
tion, the saltwater intrusion into the Biscayne Aquifer would be greatly
reduced.
From the technoeconomic analysis, it was shown that the desalination
option has become more favorable with the size of the plant. Large-scale
desalination plants have lower freshwater costs. When compared with
the conventional water supply option, freshwater costs from nuclear
desalination plant are still several folds higher. For example, the desali-
nated water costs are $0.8, $1.08 and $1.56 for RO, MED, and MSF
processes powered by steam turbine nuclear power plant. These values
are up to 3.5, 4.7 and 6.8 fold higher than conventional water supply
option. In addition, seasonal water temperatures have a significant effect
on the freshwater and power costs. For example, for MED process, the
9.5  C increase in temperature decreased the cost of water by twelve
cents per cubic meter. For each configuration the cost to produce nuclear
power increased from 66.8 $/MWh at the coldest temperature to 68.7
$/MWh at the warmest temperature. However, the nuclear and other
non-renewable energy combination analysis has shown that the water
and power costs can be more favorable while enhancing flexibility in the
process.
While the environmental and sustainable benefits of seawater desa-
lination are evident for Homestead, FL, the economic feasibility of the
process will always be one of the deciding factors. The average rate for
residential water use in Homestead is 88 cents per 1000 gallons
(MDSWD, 2017). When converted to cubic meters, that equates to
roughly 25 cents per cubic meters of water. The ideal set of conditions
modeled by DEEP project a desalination water cost of over three times
that of the current water cost. Although the comparison is discouraging,
J.M. Schmidt, V.G. Gude
government subsidies and grants could improve the economic feasibility
of seawater desalination. Additionally, improvements in technology and
increased pressure on the Biscayne Aquifer could bridge the gap between
the cost of traditional water production costs and nuclear-powered
seawater desalination.
The implementation of a nuclear-desalination plant in Homestead, FL
is highly complex, especially with multiple entities involved. It would
require the alignment and coordination of the owner of the power gen-
eration facility, the Florida Power and Light Company, the distributor of
drinking water, the South Florida Water Management District, and the
local, state, and federal government amongst others. Each entity has their
independent goals and objectives, but an impending water crisis could be
the motivation to align each party. Ensuring access to clean water is a
responsibility of the various levels of government, so government offi-
cials must be the mediators in bringing the power and water producers
together. Although limitations exist in the DEEP software, it provides the
ability to make a simple analysis of desalination feasibility. The costs of
nuclear-powered desalination are not yet equal to the cost of producing
drinking water traditionally, but renewably powered seawater desali-
nation is a legitimate solution to the environmental issues and water
needs of highly populated coastal areas.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgements
Dr. Gude acknowledges the support received from the Kelly Gene
Cook, Sr. Endowed Chair in the Richard A. Rula School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Bagley College of Engineering at Mississippi
State University.
References
Al-Karaghouli, Ali (n.d.). Economic and Technical Analysis of a Reverse-Osmosis Water
Desalination Plant Using DEEP-3.2 Software. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Golden, Colorado.
Al-Othman, A., Darwish, N.N., Qasim, M., Tawalbeh, M., Darwish, N.A., Hilal, N., 2019.
Nuclear desalination: a state-of-the-art review. Desalination 457, 39–61.
Anand, B., Murugavelh, S., 2020. Performance analysis of a novel augmented desalination
and cooling system using modified vapor compression refrigeration integrated with
humidification-dehumidification desalination. J. Clean. Prod. 255, 120224.
Babaee, S., Loughlin, D.H., Kaplan, P.O., 2020. Incorporating upstream emissions into
electric sector nitrogen oxide reduction targets. Clean. Eng. Technol. 1 (1), 100017.
12
Cleaner Engineering and Technology 2 (2021) 100044
Chen, C., Jiang, Y., Ye, Z., Yang, Y., Hou, L.A., 2019. Sustainably integrating desalination
with solar power to overcome future freshwater scarcity in China. Global Energy
Interconnection 2 (2), 98–113.
Colombani, N., Osti, A., Volta, G., Mastrocicco, M., 2016. Impact of climate change on
salinization of coastal water resources. Water Resour. Manag. 30 (7), 2483–2496.
de la Calle, A., Bonilla, J., Roca, L., Palenzuela, P., 2015. Dynamic modeling and
simulation of a solar-assisted multi-effect distillation plant. Desalination 357, 65–76.
Desalination Economic Evaluation Program, 2018. International atomic energy agency
(IAEA). Retrieved from. https://www.iaea.org/topics/non-electric-applications
/nuclear-desalination.
Freshwater crisis. National geographic (n.d.). https://www.nationalgeographic.com/en
vironment/freshwater/freshwater-crisis/.
Ged, E.C., Boyer, T.H., 2014. Effect of seawater intrusion on formation of bromine-
containing trihalomethanes and haloacetic acids during chlorination. Desalination
345, 85–93.
Ghorbani, B., Mehrpooya, M., Mousavi, S.A., 2019. Hybrid molten carbonate fuel cell
power plant and multiple-effect desalination system. J. Clean. Prod. 220, 1039–1051.
Gude, V.G., Fthenakis, V, 2020. Energy efficiency and renewable energy utilization in
desalination systems. Progr. Energy 2 (2), 022003. https://doi.org/10.1088/2516-
1083/ab7bf6.
Gude, V.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., 2009. Desalination at low temperatures and low
pressures. Desalination 244 (1–3), 239–247.
Gude, V.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., Deng, S., 2010. Renewable and sustainable approaches
for desalination. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14 (9), 2641–2654.
Gude, V.G., Nirmalakhandan, N., Deng, S., 2011. Sustainable low temperature
desalination: a case for renewable energy. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 3 (4), 043108.
Gude, V.G., 2016a. Desalination and sustainability–an appraisal and current perspective.
Water Res. 89, 87–106.
Gude, V.G., 2017. Desalination and water reuse to address global water scarcity. Rev.
Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 16 (4), 591–609.
Gude, V.G., 2018. Desalination of deep groundwater aquifers for freshwater
supplies–Challenges and strategies. Groundwater for Sustainable Development 6,
87–92.
Gude, V.G., 2011. Energy consumption and recovery in reverse osmosis. Desalination and
water treatment 36 (1–3), 239–260.
Gude, V.G., 2015. Energy storage for desalination processes powered by renewable
energy and waste heat sources. Appl. Energy 137, 877–898.
Gude, V.G., 2016b. Geothermal source potential for water desalination–Current status
and future perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 57, 1038–1065.
Hughes, J.D., Langevin, C.D., Brakefield-Goswami, L., 2010. Effect of hypersaline cooling
canals on aquifer salinization. Hydrogeol. J. 18 (1), 25–38.
Langevin, C.D., Zygnerski, M., 2013 Sep. Effect of Sea-Level rise on salt water intrusion
near a coastal well field in southeastern Florida. Groundwater 51 (5), 781–803.
Mdswd, 2017. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Miami Dade Water and Sewer
Department (MDSWD), Miami-Dade County, Florida.
SFWMD, 2018. Miami may Be underwater by the year 2100. accessed on June 8, 2020,
SFWMD 2018. Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan Update. South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD). http://itsagtv.com/2015/12/miami-may-be-unde
rwater-by-the-year-2100/. (Accessed 31 December 2015).
Suman, S., 2018. Hybrid nuclear-renewable energy systems: a review. J. Clean. Prod. 181,
166–177.
Tampa Bay Seawater Desalination Plant, 2007. Tampa Bay water. Tampa, Florida.
Retrieved from. https://www.tampabaywater.org/tampa-bay-seawater-desalinat
ion-plant.
Tong, X., Liu, S., Chen, Y., Crittenden, J., 2020. Thermodynamic analysis of a solar
thermal facilitated membrane seawater desalination process. May 20 J. Clean. Prod.
256, 120398.
Wna, 2011. World Nuclear Association, World Nuclear Association. Comparison of
Lifecycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources. WNA
Report, London. 2011 Sep.