SSRN Id4163361

1 PROCESS ANALYSIS OF THE NOVEL FLASH-ME DESALINATION PROCESS DRIVEN BY LOW-
2 GRADE THERMAL ENERGY
ed
3
4 D.Barbaa, M. Capocellia
iew
5
6 a Research Unit of Process Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Rome "Campus Bio-
7 Medico", via Alvaro del Portillo 21, 00128 Rome, Italy
8 corresponding author ORCID Mauro Capocelli https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6167-336X
9
v
re
10 ABSTRACT
11 Low-grade thermal desalination can contribute to reduce the energy and carbon footprint of the
12 water sector since it can be coupled to both waste heat recovery and renewable (solar and geothermal)
er
13 energy harvesting. Recently, the attention of the scientific community has grown towards new thermal
14 and hybrid processes able to exploit the sensible heat of rejects and process streams.
pe
15 In this work we present a new process, called FlashME, that integrates MSF and MED in a
16 compact and innovative configuration able to obtain desalinated water from non-conventional sources
17 with the highest exergy efficiency (at very low top brine temperatures). The paper presents the overall
18 process scheme and the related simulation campaign carried in the Aspen Plus environment. The
ot
19 sensitive analysis is implemented to highlight the effect of main independent variables and operative
20 parameters (e.g. number of stages and temperature differences between stages) on the performances.
21 The results are compared with the most recent works on low-temperature MED and “boosted-
tn
22 MED” configurations showing better performances. In comparison with MED-based and boosted-
23 MED configurations, this system has the advantage to avoid additional flashing stages (in parallel)
24 and vapor injections with the advantage of less complexity as well as improved performance along
rin
25 with reduced energy consumption. In the lowest temperature range (65-70°C) the results show that
26 the FlashME production rate is increased by 20-28% compared to FB-MED and up to 70% relative
27 to conventional MED. Lastly, we also propose and apply new performance metrics showing that
ep
28 FlashME can achieve significant exergetic performances in the pathways of sustainable development.
29
30
Pr
31
32
This preprint research paper has not been peer reviewed. Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4163361
1 KEYWORDS
ed
2 Waste heat, Aspen Plus, MED, MSF, simulation, exergy
3
4
iew
5 NOMENCLATURE
6 h enthalpy of saturated water (kJ/kg)

7 hfg latent heat (kJ/kg)
v
8 𝑚 mass flow rate (kg/s)
re
9 𝑄 heat transfer rate (kW)
10 T temperature (°C)
11 V vapor flow rate (kg/h) er
12 W_ work transfer rate or power (kW)
13 X salinity (g/kg)
pe
14
15 Greek
16 Δ’ temperature drop of the flashing stage (°C)
17 Δh enthalpy difference (°C)
ot
18 ΔP pressure difference (Pa)

19 ΔT temperature difference (°C)
tn
20 ηpp reference power plant intrinsic efficiency (-)

21 ηII second law or exergetic efficiency (-)
rin
22
23 Subscripts & Symbols
24 0 ambient conditions
ep
25 av available
26 BR brine
27 D distillate
Pr
28 in inlet
29 F feed
30 FB vapor from brine flashing (kg/h)
1 HS relative to hot source
2 i relative to the i-th effect
ed
3 NCG non-condensable gas
4 out outlet
iew
5 PR performance ratio
6 SH sensible heat
7 SW relative to seawater
8 TBT top brine temperature (°C)
v
9 WH waste heat
re
10
11
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
1
ed
2 1. INTRODUCTION
3
4 The demand for water, energy and food is exponentially increasing because of the intrinsic nexus
iew
5 between these fundamental resources and the population growth with its expanding needs. The
6 mismatch between demand and availability of freshwater, together with the pollution of existing
7 water supplies, has become a worldwide issue. In this critical context, the climate crisis challenges
8 the resources’ availability and increases inequalities on a global scale [1]. Additionally, actual
v
9 industrial processes are water-intensive and ineffective from the point of view of the “circularity of
re
10 resources” [2,3].
11 All the cited elements create the modern vicious circle that puts the relationship between economy
12 and environment in crisis [1-4]. According to several scientific and economic journals, clean water
13
14
er
demand will exceed the availability in 2050 if nothing will be done and the water resource is posed
to be the oil of the XXI century. People living under conditions of “water scarcity” will exceed the
15 half of the world population in 2025 [2-5].
pe
16 Water scarcity foreshadows a strong increase in “artificial” water obtained from non-
17 conventional sources (as wastewaters or seawater) such as Desalination & Water Reuse Technologies,
18 expected to be the fastest growing sector [2-5].
19 In desalination technologies, around 30-50% of the desalinated water cost is related to the energy
ot
20 consumption [4-6]. Moreover, only the 1% of desalination plants exploit renewable energy [6]; the
21 remaining 99% contributes to roughly 3-5 kgCO2 per cubic meter of water product, by assuming that,
tn
22 on a global scale, a very small percentage of the used grid electricity comes from carbon-free sources.
23 From the thermodynamic point of view, there is the need to improve the efficiency of thermal
24 desalination processes to make these technologies more viable from the environmental and financial
rin
25 point of view. Low-grade thermal desalination can contribute to drastically reduce the energy and
26 carbon footprint and can be coupled to both waste heat recovery and solar energy harvesting [5-10].
27 Recent publications considering the quality of the energy used in desalination, proof that low-
ep
28 temperature thermal desalination could overcome the performances of the state of the art [9-12]. In
29 fact, exploiting low-temperature heat (“low quality” energy) increases the II-law efficiency of the
30 separation process; moreover, it reduces the carbon footprint of the technologies assuming that
Pr
31 renewable or waste energy do not contribute to greenhouse gas emissions of the process [9-14].
32 Industrial waste heat is a by-product of several processes and is available in the “enthalpy
33 content” of exhausted streams and thermal fluid rejects (e.g. exhaust gas, flaring gas, low-quality
1 steam, cooling air, cooling water). The amount of waste heat as a fraction of energy consumption
2 greatly varies among the various industrial sectors, but it can be asserted that it is of the order of
ed
3 magnitude of 104 TWh / year [15,16]. The temperature at which the heat is available varies within a
4 very wide range, from about 50 °C up to even 1000 °C or higher, depending on the industrial sector
5 and the process [15-16]. The fraction of interest for this work is confined below 90°C and is in the
iew
6 form of sensible heat (variable temperature sources), the context where any recovery/reuse process
7 show very low efficiency and efficacy.
8 Thermal desalination uses heat to separate freshwater from saline solutions and is commonly
9 realized by commercial processes (fully developed with many large-scale industrial plants) as Multi-
v
10 Effect Distillation (MED), Multi-Stage Flash (MSF) and MED-based Thermal and Mechanical Vapor
re
11 Compression [6,9-11,17]. More recently, many literature works are focused on innovative
12 configurations (available at lower TRL with very few commercial installation) based on
13 Humidification-Dehumidification, Membrane Distillation and other hybrid processes [6-9,11-14,18].
14 In this field, engineering teams coordinated by Prof. D. Barba have been contributing to the
15
er
development of processes know-how (MSF, MED, HDH) since the 70s [19-23]. Early, they selected
16 the MSF as the best option for large scale desalination plant (often coupled to electricity production
pe
17 in dual purpose plants) starting from the realization of the first large scale desalination plant in Porto
18 Torres (Sardinia, Italy) followed by many others in the Gulf area (Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi,
19 etc.), with capacities of the 10000 m3/day order of magnitude [19-23].
20 With reference to the low-temperature desalination, a MED-based process seems to be the best
ot
21 option since latent heat exchange is predominant, enabling a balanced distribution of temperature
22 pinch differences [7,9,11,17,18,19]. Some improvements of the basic MED architecture including the
tn
23 combination of brine flashing and evaporation have been presented and patented [24-28].
24 Izumi proposed the combination (in parallel) of multiple effects and multiple flash stages to
25 distillate the water [25]. Multiple stage vertical tube evaporator (VTE), where the stages are arranged
rin
26 vertically one below the other, combined with MSF arranged laterally alongside the VTE (with plate
27 type heat exchangers) has been patented and constructed at pilot scale [26,27].
28 More recently, the additions of a series of flashing chambers or booster modules, supplementing
ep
29 an additional vapour production to the primary MED evaporators, has been patented and disclosed in
30 many publications by an R&D group of the University of Western Australia [28-31]. This group
31 tested the technology at different scales showing very good performances in terms of thermodynamic
Pr
32 efficiency and final water cost [32,33]. A similar attempt is reported by Dahdaha and Mitsos who
33 investigated MED–TVC-MSF system configurations to find the optimal hybrid structure through
34 Amulti-objective structural optimization [34].
1 In the present paper, we move a step forward into the MED-MSF integration and disclose a novel
2 thermal process ideated by the authors and recently patented by the innovative start-up BWE Patents
ed
3 srl [35]. The so-called FlashME (flash-augmented Multiple Effect) architecture, of which the first
4 prototype pilot plant is under design, is “virtually tested” for low-temperature heat recovery in this
5 work by means of a calibrated simulation model to demonstrate that a significant improvement to the
iew
6 freshwater yield compared to conventional and innovative processes is possible. Moreover, we
7 proposed a novel thermodynamic methodology to address the energetic performance of low-grade
8 heat desalination. This approach, inspired by the cited works of the MIT research group [9,11,12,36]
9 is briefly explained and applied to FlashME to evaluate its performances in the light of the sustainable
v
10 roadmap of desalination processes.
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
1 2. PROCESS DESCRIPTION
ed
2 The FlashME process combines the MED and MSF processes into a unique apparatus with a
3 novel geometry for distilling fresh water from hot saline water. Figure 1 depicts the alternatives for
4 coupling the proposed process to sensible heat recovery. It can be used to recover and store the waste
iew
5 heat in the form of freshwater and can be profitably coupled to solar and geothermal energy as well.
6 In the optimal configuration, the saline water is preheated by recovering the heat from a “hot stream”
7 rejected by the industrial process or circulating into the cooling system (Figure 1, option a). It is
8 noteworthy that in the FlashME process the saline water can be also the cooling heat transfer fluid
v
9 (HTF) itself (Figure 1, option b). The additional advantage in adopting these strategies is to avoid the
10 rejection of heat into the environment (thermal pollution).
re
11
er
pe
ot
12
13 Figure 1. How to couple the FlashME process to waste heat recovery
14
tn
15 The schematic of the FlashME process is depicted in figure 2. The “preheated” seawater is fed
16 to a first flashing stage to produce a stream of vapor (“motor” steam) and a liquid (brine). The latter
17 is fed to the adjoin stages where the brine forms vapor and liquid components at decreasing
rin
18 temperatures and pressures (in analogy with the MSF configuration). The process is realized by an
19 innovative geometrical arrangement disclosed by our patent and object of engineering activities under
20 development to realize the first FlashME pilot plant [34]. In similarity with conventional MED
ep
21 configurations the vapor is sent from each stage to the tube bundles of the adjoining stage where it
22 condenses, therefore releasing the heat to produce additional vapor though evaporation of the liquid
23 falling film. The falling film is realized by spraying a portion of the feed over the tube bundles. Each
Pr
24 stage is the combination of flashing chambers and horizontal falling film evaporators; therefore the
25 vapor production is the consequence of the synergistic combination of both the flashing and the
26 evaporation over the tube bundles. The brine is collected at the final stage. It can be partially
1 recirculated with the feedwater to increase the recovery ratio (this alternative is not included in the
2 following simulation). The cooling medium in the final condenser can be the feed seawater as well
ed
3 as another external stream at ambient temperature. The inert gases are transferred into the stages
4 through a proper design apparatus and can be removed by a conventional ejection system at the final
5 stage.
iew
6
Heat Recovery
v
N 2 1
re
Reject
Condenser er
pe
Saline
water Distillate
Concentrate
7
8 Figure 2. Schematic design of the novel FlashME process.
ot
9
10
tn
11 With respect to the conventional thermal desalination processes, this architecture allows to:
12  operate with saturated feed sent to each effect;

13  fully exploit the brine flashing phenomenon;
rin
14  operate with flexible degree of vaporization over the horizontal tubes;

15  operate with flexible recovery ratio by modulating the brine recirculation;
16  utilize the saline water feed directly as heat transfer fluids (HTF) in the cooling system.
ep
17 Moreover, this process avoids the latent heat – sensible heat coupling, a considerable limit in the
18 MED-based processes for waste-heat recovery. Figure 3 shows how the FlashME system, if applied
Pr
19 for sensible heat recovery, allows to recover a higher fraction of the thermal power rejected into the
20 environment, while conventional MED-based processes brings the loss of a consistent portion of the
1 heat. All these aspects result into a higher distillate production per unit of thermal power input, as
2 will be demonstrated in the following chapters.
ed
3
Wasted thermal energy
in conventional MED
iew
T [°C] T [°C]
v
re
Q [kWth]
er Q [kWth]
Coupling by FlashME Coupling by MED-based

4 processes
pe
5 Figure 3. Coupling between thermal desalination and sensible-heat recovery for a fixed flow-
6 rate of “hot reject”: simplified comparison though T-Q diagram
7
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
1 3. PROCESS MODELLING
ed
2 The process simulation has been realized by creating an “in-silico” FlashME process in the Aspen
3 Plus environment including ad hoc block units to simulate flashing units, evaporators and valves for
4 pressure drops as depicted in Figure 4. The process simulation methodology consisting into the
iew
5 application of in-series heat & material balances as discussed in many cited papers and already
6 validated in Aspen Plus environment for several thermal desalination processes [38-41]. This latter
7 is a commercial software for the simulation of industrial plants, including chemical reactions, physical
8 separations, distillation and other chemical and physical processes. The process flow diagram
v
9 (conceptual of the simulation) including the main units and symbols is depicted in Figure 4a with the
10 corresponding translation in Aspen “language” (flowsheet) available in the screenshot of Figure 4b.
re
11 Figure 4a highlights the unit operations included in a single stage and the related main streams: Fi is
12 the saline water fed to each effect, BRi is the brine flowing at the bottom of each effect, Vi is the
13 vapour produced from falling film evaporation, FBi is the additional vapor produced by brine flasing
er
14 and Di is the distillate (for the i-th stage). The main assumptions considered in the Aspen model are
15 reported below:
pe
16 1. steady-state operation;
17 2. electrolyte-NRTL model available in the Aspen Plus database adopted for water solutions
18 (seawater, brine and distillate) and Steam table model adopted for free-water phase properties;
ot
19 3. produced distillate considered to be free of salts;

20 4. no heat losses to the environment (adiabatic components);
21 5. negligible effects of non-condensable gases.
tn
22 The simulations were carried out by fixing the independent variables resulting from the analysis
23 of the degrees of freedom, as reported in Table 1. The top brine temperature (TBT), i.e. the highest
rin
24 temperature the seawater can reach in the system (typically in the first effect) can be imposed by
25 either the heat source temperature or corrosion/scaling limitations. The cold sink temperature is the
26 lowest temperature in the system or in the environment and, in our simulations, corresponds to the
ep
27 seawater temperature TSW. The selection of “external parameters” and (primarily) the design
28 temperature difference ΔT over each effect (chosen to limit the heat transfer surface), affect the
29 maximum number of effects. After fixing the bottom and top temperature limit, to minimize the
Pr
30 design temperature difference is the only way to increase the number of effect and consequently the
31 process performances. This parameter is adjusted by fixing the temperature approach ΔT [°C].
1 Because the ΔT reduction is associated with increased heat exchanger size and costs, this factor should
2 be assumed as independent parameter and is commonly the object of economic optimization.
ed
3
4 Table 1. Global assumptions of independent variables for Aspen Plus simulations.
Assumed
iew
Variable Symbol
values
Seawater temperature TSW [°C] 28
Temperature of the cooling medium at final condenser Tcond,in / Tcond,out [°C] 28-38
Heat source flow rate 𝑚ℎ𝑠 [kg/s] 100
Heat source temperature Tmax [°C] 65-90
Top-brine-temperature Tmax [°C] 65-90
v
Falling film heat exchanger approach temperature ΔT [°C] 3.0
Liquid-liquid heat exchanger approach temperature ΔT [°C] 3.0
Maximum top brine temperature TBT (_C) 60-80
re
1st Flashing temperature difference Δ’ [°C] 3-25
Feed salinity XF [ppm] 35,000
Degree of vaporization Falling film evaporation vapor V/F [%] 0.25-0.35
Pressure drop ΔPi (Pa) 500
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
DTOT
D0 D1 D2 D3 D4 D5
F5 VV2
V5
F4 VV4
d
V4
F3
F2 VV2
V3
VV3
w e FB5
ie
V2 FB4
FLASHB5
v
F1 VV1 BRout
V1 BR5
FB3
e
FLASHB4
r
V0
VB2 BR4
r
FLASHB3
e
VB1
BR3
FEED FLASHB2
FLASHB1
BR2
p e
t
FBR
BR1 STAGE 2
n o a)
ir nt
ep
P r
b)
Figure 4. 5-stage FlashME representation for process simulation (a) and equivalent flowsheet simulation in Aspen Plus Environment (b).
6 The conventional performance parameters described by Equations 1 and 2 can be used for literature
7 comparison. The performance ratio for waste heat recover (PRWH) comes from the modification of
ed
8 the general benchmark (performance ratio PR) to address sensible (waste) heat sources [28-31].
iew
𝑚𝑑 ∆ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓 𝑚𝑑 ∆ℎ𝑟𝑒𝑓 (1)
𝑃𝑅𝑊𝐻 = =
𝑚ℎ𝑠 ∙ ∆ℎ𝑎𝑣 𝑚ℎ𝑠 ∙ (ℎℎ𝑠,𝑖𝑛 ‒ ℎℎ𝑠,𝑜𝑢𝑡)
𝑚𝑑 (2)
𝑅𝑅 =
𝑚𝑓
10
v
11 where 𝑚𝑑 being is the mass flowrate of the heating medium, 𝑚ℎ𝑠 is the mass flow rate of the hot
re
12 source, 𝑚𝑓 is the mass flow rate of the feed, Δhav is the (maximum exploitable) energy content of the
13 heat source. This is evaluated with respect to the lowest available temperature, in this case the
14 seawater intake temperature. The benchmark for evaluating PR in Eq. 1 is the latent heat Δhref of 2336
er
15 kJ/kg [31].
16 To promote sustainable desalination with the final aim is the minimization of primary energy
pe
17 consumption, fuel consumption and/or carbon emission, recent thermodynamic approaches
18 established alternative performance metrics calculated in “dual purpose water energy” production
19 systems and implementing II-law based calculations. The research groups of Prof. Lienhard at MIT
20 [6,8,11,35] and NG Choon [9,12] well described this kind of approaches to evaluate “more rigours”
ot
21 and “universal” performances. Following the works of the MIT group [35,36], the resulting second-
22 law efficiency of Equation 4 accounts for the “actual amount” of additional energy that must be
23 provided to the power plant in order to generate the required amount of heat and work to power the
tn
24 separation process (Eq. 3). These calculations are based to the comparison of the minimum work of
25 separation 𝑊𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡 and the actual amount of equivalent work required to carry the process, function of
26 the required mechanical power 𝑊𝑠𝑒𝑝 and thermal power 𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝. This last, accounting for a constant-
rin
27 temperature heat source in the cited papers, should be modified by introducing the sensible heat
28 effectiveness 𝜂𝑆𝐻
𝑆𝐻 of Eq. 4 to account for the exergy destruction during the recovery of sensible heat
ep
29 [13,36].
30
𝑊𝑙𝑒𝑎𝑠𝑡
𝜂𝐼𝐼 =
Pr
𝑊𝑠𝑒𝑝
𝜂𝑝𝑝 ( )
+ 𝑄𝑠𝑒𝑝 1 ‒
𝑇0
𝑇𝑠
𝑇𝑆
𝜂𝑆𝐻
(3)
𝑇𝐻
Q𝐻·𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑣𝑢𝑠𝑒𝑓𝑢𝑙
∫ 𝑇c
𝑚 ∙ c𝑝·𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑣(𝑇) ∙ 𝑑𝑇
[𝑇𝐻 ‒ 𝑇c(1 ‒ ln (𝑇𝐻 𝑇𝑐))]
ed
𝜂𝑆𝐻
𝐼𝐼 = = = (4)
Q𝐻·𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑣 𝑇𝐻
(𝑇𝐻 ‒ 𝑇0) (1 ‒ 𝑇0 𝑇𝐻)
∫ 𝑇0
𝑚 ∙ c𝑝·𝜂𝑟𝑒𝑣 ∙ 𝑑𝑇
31
iew
32 Figure 5 depicts the exergy destruction in the enthalpy-temperature graph. This refers to the heat
33 exchanger that couples a sensible heat source to the FlashME feed that recovers the sensible heat of
34 a hot stream from TH to Tc. During the cooling of the heat source, the “availability” decreases due to
35 the entropy generation. According to the Eq. 4, the 𝜂𝑆𝐻 considers the exergy variation during the heat
v
36 transfer from a sensible heat source with respect to the maximum value represented by the Carnot
re
37 limit. Figure 5 shows the values of 𝜂𝑆𝐻 by varying the temperature approach Δ and the maxim heat
38 source temperature in the range of our calculations; the tight part of the figure shows a representation
39 of the change in exergy of a current of value in the case study examined of transfer of sensitive heat,
er
40 therefore with a linear temperature profile.
pe
ot
tn
41
42 Figure 5. Explanation of the “II-law based” efficiency for sensible-heat driven showing:
rin
43 parametric analysis of the 𝜂𝑆𝐻 for different heat source temperature (leftt) and simplified enthalpy-
44 temperature graph to calculate the availability of the sensible-heat source (right).
45
ep
46
Pr
47 4. RESULTS & DISCUSSION
ed
48 The first set of results shows the combined effect of the main performance parameters: the top
49 brine temperature TBT and the 1st flashing temperature Tflash. While the former is an “external type”
50 parameter and depends on the waste heat recovery, the second can be varied by regulating the 1st
iew
51 Flashing temperature difference Δ’ [°C] 3-25 and therefore the flashing pressure. This will define the
52 rate of motor steam and brine and therefore the process behaviour. By decreasing the pressure of the
53 first chamber, the flashing temperature decreases by a chosen Δ’= TBT-Tflash: the greater the flashing
54 temperature difference Δ’ the greater the steam and therefore a MED-like behaviour; the lower the
v
55 Δ’, the higher the brine flow rate and the MSF-like behaviour. The simulations were carried out at a
56 fixed number of stages (4) and five values of TBT (in the range 60-80°C). Since the purpose of this
re
57 first set of simulations is a first phenomenological insight, the assumptions made do not results into
58 an optimal process configuration. Figures 6 and 7 show respectively the performance ratio PRWH and
59 the recovery ratio RR obtained in this first set of simulations. The trends are almost linear; some slight
er
60 deviations from the linearity derive due to the selection of a constant number of stages with variable
61 motor jumps at different Tflash. Globally, at higher TBT, both recovery ratio and performance ratio
pe
62 increases, as expected. This because the process is basically sustained by the feed enthalpy. On the
63 other hand, Tflash bring a decreasing linear effect. By decreasing the flashing temperature (increasing
64 the 1st stage pressure drop) the generation of motor vapor is increased and more distillate with related
65 benefit to PR and RR.
ot
66
tn
rin
ep
Pr
ed
v iew
re
er
67
pe
68 Figure 6. Effect of the flashing temperature at fixed TBT on the PRWH. Nstage = 4, Tcond =43°C.
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
69
70 Figure 7. Effect of the flashing temperature at fixed TBT on the RR. Nstage = 4, Tcond =43°C.
71
72 The motor vapor produced in the 1st flashing stage grows linearly with the temperature differences
73 Δ’=TBT - Tflash, therefore increasing the “MED effect” compared to the “MSF effect”. A simple
ed
74 correlation is given by eq. 5.
75
𝑐𝑝,𝑙 (𝑇𝑖 ‒ 1 ‒ 𝑇𝑖) 𝑐𝑝,𝑙 ∙ Δ' (5)
iew
𝐹𝐵𝑖 = 𝐵𝑖 ‒ 1 = 𝐵𝑖 ‒ 1
𝜆(𝑇𝑖) 𝜆(𝑇𝑖)
76
77 It is therefore necessary to analyse the effect of the Δ' (regardless of the temperature of the feed)
78 on these performance parameters. For the same simulations, the efficiency as a function of the Δ' is
v
79 reported in Figure 8. The higher the Δ’ the higher the efficiency calculated as PRWH. On the other
re
80 hand, the increase in motor steam is paid with a reduced available ΔT (LMTD) to place the following
81 FlashME effects with a consequent increase in the exchange surfaces at a fixed number of stages.
82 Figure 8 shows this correlation by reporting, for the same values of Δ’, the calculated average
83 temperature difference in the evaporators ΔTav. The lower the Δ’ values the lower the ΔTav: this
84
er
results into the classical dichotomy between operative costs (proportional to the energy demand) and
85 investment costs (proportional to the surface area of the effects and inversely proportional to the
pe
86 average DT) in designing this kind of thermal processes.
9 6
TBT=80°C
8
TBT=75°C 5.5
ot
7 TBT=70°C
TBT 80 PR 5
6
tn
TBT 75 PR
5 TBT 70 PR 4.5
PRWH
ΔTav
4 4
rin
3
3.5
2
ep
3
1
0 2.5
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Pr
Δ'
87
88 Figure 8. Effect of the flashing temperature difference Δ’ at fixed TBT on the PRWH. Nstage = 4,
89 Tcond =43°C
90 To better illustrate the advantages of this process, the simulations are extended to higher number
91 of effects and compared to the results obtained for a conventional MED, a boosted-MED and a flash-
ed
92 boosted MED, as illustrated in Rahimi et al. [14], under the assumptions reported in the Table 2. For
93 purposes of clarity, in these set of simulations we are investigating the applications of a low
94 temperature desalination which recovers heat from a cooling fluid: heat rejection of an industrial
iew
95 process (e.g. cooling circuits) as depicted by the option A of Figure 1 according to the configuration
96 adopted in the reference study [14]; water was taken as the heat source medium and its flow rate was
97 fixed at 100 kg/s in all simulations. This clarification is necessary because the FlashME process
98 (which do not need to produce the motor steam in the first effect), is able to reach even higher
v
99 productivity in the option B of direct heat transfer in the process. The inlet seawater temperature at
re
100 the condenser was set as 28°C and the salinity of the seawater was set as 35000 ppm. The minimum
101 LMTD is set at 3°C. Top-brine temperature is set at 70°C. The additional configuration FlashME-II
102 is realized to investigate the potential limit of the technology operating in the option B configuration.
103 In FlashME-II the heat recovery is by increasing the number of effects from 7 to 9 TBT and the TBT
104
er
is not limited to 70°C but is limited by the hot stream outlet-cold stream inlet temperature approach
105 of 3° in the “brine heater”.
pe
106
107 Table 2 Main assumptions and range values of parameters for FlashME vs. Conventional, Boosted
108 and Flash Boosted MED processes.
Heat source inlet
65 70 75 80
temperature [°C]
ot
Heat source flow rate

100
[kg/s]
Inlet seawater temperature
28
[°C]
tn
Outlet seawater
38
temperature [°C]
Inlet seawater salinity
35000
[ppm]
rin
Min effect LMTD [°C] 3

Maximum TBT [°C] 70°C
conventional MED, Neff 5 6 8 9
5 + 5 auxiliary 6 + 6 auxiliary 6 + 6 auxiliary 7 + 6 auxiliary
Boosted MED
stages stages stages stages
ep
5 + 3 auxiliary 6 + 4 auxiliary 8 + 6 auxiliary 9 + 7 auxiliary

Flash Boosted MED
stages stages stages stages
FlashME 5 6 7 7
FlashME II - - 9 9
Pr
ed
v iew
re
er
pe
109
110 Figure 9. Effect of the flashing temperature at fixed Tfeed on the PR. Nstage = 4, Tcond =28°C
ot
111
112 Simulation results are reported in Figure 9. The present invention shows improvement over
113 conventional MED systems as high as 200% and overcome the performances of the innovative
tn
114 apparatus presented by Rahimi et al. [27,28]. Moreover, compared to the “boosted-MED”-type
115 processes, FlashME proposes a simpler and more flexible configuration that is realized in the novel
116 geometrical configuration under patenting [35]. This simplicity could also lead to a reduced pumping
rin
117 power and therefore lower electricity consumption, estimated around 1 kWh/m3 (depending on the
118 applications) including saline water, distillate extraction and brine blow down pumps as well as NCG
119 extraction vacuum pump (or pressurized steam for ejectors). Moreover, these results have been
ep
120 obtained with a lower number of stages that will most likely result into lower capex.
121 The thermodynamic superiority of this process is analyzed by evaluating the modified
122 performance ratio PRWH (Eq. 8) and the the generalized efficiency of II law (Eq. 10). These results
Pr
123 are available in Figures 10 and 11.

124
4
ed
3.5
iew
2.5
PRWH
v
1.5
re
1
MED BOOSTED
Flash-boosted MED Flash-ME
0.5
FlashMEII
er
0
60 70 80 90
heat source temperature [°C]
pe
125
126 Figure 10. Performance ratio of FlashME compared to Conventional, Boosted and Flash
127 Boosted MED processes (assumptions in Table 2).
128
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr
10%
ed
9%
8%
iew
7%
ηII
6%
v
re
5%
4%
3%
MED
er
Flash-boosted MED
Boosted MED
Flash-ME
FlashMEII
pe
2%
60 65 70 75 80 85
heat source temperature [°C]
129
130 Figure 11. II-law efficiency of FlashME compared to Conventional, Boosted and Flash Boosted
ot
131 MED processes (assumptions in Table 2).

132
tn
133 The values obtained by the FlashME process (for both performance indices) are higher than the
134 processes taken into consideration. There is an increase of at least one point in terms of PR and one
135 percentage point in terms of ηII with the minimum separation work calculated for sea water was taken
rin
136 as a reference to obtain a standard. The highest ameliorative effects are obtained at low temperatures,
137 showing how this process is ideal for the enhancement of heat with zero exergetic value. As the inlet
138 temperature increases, the performance of the FlashME tends to be comparable with that of a flash-
ep
139 boosted MED because of the maximum value of 7 stages assumed for FlashME simulations. This
140 choice allows to have always higher average LMTD and to reduce investment costs. To increase
141 performances at high temperatures it is advisable to use the configuration presented as FLashME II
Pr
142 which, in fact, shows better results above 70 ° C.

143
144 By increasing the concentration of the incoming water and/or using recirculation schemes, the
145 energetic performances do not vary and is possible to obtain higher RR and higher II-law efficiency
ed
146 since the minimum work of separation is higher at higher saline concentration; this analysis was not
147 taken into consideration in this paper.
148
iew
149 5. CONCLUSIONS
150 This work proposed a new desalination process coupled with the recovery of waste heat in the
151 form of sensible heat from hot streams. The process, called FlashME, avoids the irreversibilities
v
152 characteristic of the latent heat-sensible heat coupling and combines the advantages of MED and MSF
re
153 conceptual in a single, simple and compact device.
154 Here we propose a sensitivity analysis carried out through simulations with commercial Aspen
155 Plus software to investigate the effects of the main process parameters. A comparative analysis was
er
156 carried out by also conducted with the published study investigating the performances of boosted-
157 MED in similar applications. In comparison with MED-based and boosted-MED configurations, this
158 system has the advantage to avoid additional flashing stages (in parallel) and vapor injections with
pe
159 the advantage of less complexity as well as improved performance along with reduced energy
160 consumption. In the lowest temperature range (65-70°C) the results show that the FlashME
161 production rate is increased by 20-28% compared to FB-MED and up to 70% relative to conventional
ot
162 MED. At higher temperatures, the performances can be increased by changing the FlashME
163 configuration and +13 and +50% improvement can be found in comparison with FBMED and MED
164 respectively, at 90°C of heat source temperature.
tn
165 Further works will concern the use with recirculation in the case of low-saline waste water
166 recovery. Moreover, the novel geometrical configuration is under design to couple the FlashME with
167 the closed-cycle cooling water systems.
rin
168
169
ep
Pr
170
ed
171 REFERENCE
172 [1] N.R. Bond, R.M. Burrows, M.J. Kennard, S.E. Bunn. Water Scarcity as a Driver of Multiple
iew
173 Stressor Effects. Multiple Stressors in River Ecosystems (2019), 111–129. doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-
174 811713-2.00006-6.
175 [2] G. Mancuso, S. Lavrnić, A. Toscano, Chapter Three - Reclaimed water to face agricultural
176 water scarcity in the Mediterranean area: An overview using Sustainable Development Goals
177 preliminary data, Editor(s): P Verlicchi, Advances in Chemical Pollution, Environmental
v
178 Management and Protection, Elsevier, 5 (2020) Pages 113-143. ISSN 2468-9289, ISBN
re
179 9780128201701, https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.apmp.2020.07.007.
180 [3] L.S. Pereira, E. Duarte, R. Fragoso. Water Use: Recycling and Desalination for Agriculture.
181 Encyclopedia of Agriculture and Food Systems (2014) 407–424. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-52512-
er
182 3.00084-x
183 [4] M. Capocelli, M. Prisciandaro, V. Piemonte, D. Barba. A technical-economical approach to
184 promote the water treatment & reuse processes. Journal of Cleaner Production 207 (2019) 85-96.
pe
185 [5] M. Qadir, B.R. Sharma, A. Bruggeman, R. Choukr-Allah, F. Karajeh, Non-conventional water
186 resources and opportunities for water augmentation to achieve food security in water scarce countries,
187 Agricultural Water Management 87 (2007) Pages 2-22, ISSN 0378-3774,
ot
188 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2006.03.018.
189 [6] J.H. Lienhard, G.P. Thiel, D.M. Warsinger, L.D. Banchik. Low Carbon Desalination: Status
190 and Research, Development, and Demonstration Needs, Report of a workshop conducted at the
tn
191 Massachusetts Institute of Technology in association with the Global Clean Water Desalination
192 Alliance. MIT Abdul Latif Jameel World Water and Food Security Lab, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
193 (2016).
rin
194 [7] X. Wang, A. Christ, K. Regenauer-Lieb, K. Hooman, H.T. Chua, Low grade heat driven multi-
195 effect distillation technology, International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer 54 (2011) Pages 5497-
196 5503, ISSN 0017-9310, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheatmasstransfer.2011.07.041.
ep
197 [8] G.P. Narayan, J.H. Lienhard V. Humidification dehumidification desalination. In J. Kucera,
198 editor, Desalination: Water from Water, Chapter 9, pages 425–472. Wiley-Scrivener, Salem, MA,
199 2014. ÐSBN 9781118208526.
Pr
200 [9] M.W. Shahzad, M. Burhan, D. Ybyraiymkul, K.C. Ng. Desalination Processes’ Efficiency
201 and Future Roadmap Entropy 21 (2019) doi:10.3390/e21010084
202 [10] P. Bandelier, F. Pelascini, J. d’Hurlaborde, A. Maisse, B. Boillot & Jordan Laugier (2016):
203 MED seawater desalination using a low-grade solar heat source, Desalination and Water Treatment,
ed
204 DOI:10.1080/19443994.2016.1148220
205 [11] J.H. Lienhard. Energy Savings in Desalination Technologies: Reducing Entropy Generation
206 by Transport Processes. Journal of Heat Transfer 141 (2019): 072001 © 2019 ASME
iew
207 [12] M.W. Shahzad, M. Burhan, H. Soo Son, S. Jin Oh, K.C. Ng. Desalination processes
208 evaluation at common platform: A universal performance ratio (UPR) method Applied Thermal
209 Engineering 134 (2018) 62–67.
210 [13] M. Capocelli, E. Moliterni, V. Piemonte, M. De Falco. Reuse of Waste Geothermal Brine:
v
211 Process, Thermodynamic and Economic Analysis Water 12 (2020), 316
re
212 [14] A. Christ, B. Rahimi, K. Regenauer-Lieb, H. T. Chua. Techno-economic analysis of
213 geothermal desalination using Hot Sedimentary Aquifers: A pre-feasibility study for Western
214 Australia Desalination 404 (2017) 167–181.
215 [15] I.K. Formann, R. Muritala, B. Pardemann, B. Meyer. Estimating the global waste heat
216
er
potential. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 57 (2016)1568–1579.
217 [16] M. Papapetrou, G. Kosmadakis, A. Cipollina, U. La Commare, G. Micale. Industrial waste
pe
218 heat: Estimation of the technically available resource in the EU per industrial sector, temperature
219 level and country. Applied Thermal Engineering 138 (2018) 207–216.
220 [17] L. Cioccolanti, A. Savoretti, M. Renzi, F. Caresana, G. Comodi. Design and test of a single
221 effect thermal desalination plant using waste heat from m-CHP units. Applied Thermal Engineering
ot
222 82 (2015) 18-29.

223 [18] Y. Ammar, H. Li, C. Walsh, P. Thornley, V. Sharifi, A. P. Roskilly. Reprint of “Desalination
tn
224 using low grade heat in the process industry: Challenges and perspectives” Applied Thermal
225 Engineering 53 (2013) 234-245.
226 [19] D. Barba, D. Bogazzi, A. Germanà, G. Tagliaferri. Analysis of large desalination plants.
rin
227 Desalination (33) 1980. Volume 33, Issue 1, April 1980, Pages 1-10.
228 [20] Barba, Engineering and process experience deriving from various solutions in the design of
229 MSF evaporators. Desalination (33) 1980. Volume 31, Issues 1–3, October 1979, Page 171
ep
230 [21] Capocelli, M., Moliterni, E., Bello, A., Piemonte, V., Di Paola, L., De Falco, M. Waste heat
231 recovery from ship diesel generators for water-energy dual purpose plants (2017) Desalination and
232 Water Treatment 69, 322-327
Pr
233 [22] D. Barba, A. Germana, G. Liuzzo, G. Tagliaferri, G. Spizzichino. Multistage flash

234 evaporator for producing soft water from a saline water (1974) US3933597A
235 [23] D. Barba, A. Germana, G. Liuzzo, G. Tagliaferri, Apparatus for desalting saline water 1975
236 US4030985A.
ed
237 [24] Tawfiq H. Dahdaha, Alexander Mitsos. Structural optimization of seawater desalination: II
238 novel MED–MSF–TVC configurations. Desalination 344 (2014) 219–227.
239 [25] K. Izumi. Multiple-Effect Multi-Stage Flash Evaporation Process and Apparatus for
iew
240 Demineralizing water Hitachi, Ltd., Tokyo, Japan 1974 Appl. No.: 497,624
241 [26] G. E. D. Nasser Apparatus for the distillation of fresh water from sea water Puchheim, Fed.
242 Rep. of Germany. Appl. No.: 586,662 Filed: Mar. 6, 1984
243 [27] G. E. D. Nasser Process for the distillation of fresh water from sea water Appl. No.: 786,167
v
244 Filed: Oct. 9, 1985
re
245 [28] B. Rahimi, H.T. Chua, A. Christ, System and method for desalination PCT/AU2015/050156.
246 [29] A. Christ, K. Regenauer-Lieb, H.T. Chua. Thermodynamic optimisation of multi effect
247 distillation driven by sensible heat sources. Desalination 336 (2014) 160–167
248 [30] B. Rahimi, J. May, A. Christ, K. Regenauer-Lieb, H.T. Chua. Thermo-economic analysis of
249
er
two novel low grade sensible heat driven desalination processes. Desalination 365 (2015) 316–328
250 [31] B. Rahimi, A. Christ, K. Regenauer-Lieb, H.T. Chua. A novel process for low grade heat
pe
251 driven desalination. Desalination 351 (2014) 202–212
252 [32] H. R. Datsgerdi, H.T. Chua. Thermo-economic analysis of low-grade heat driven multi-
253 effect distillation based desalination processes. Desalination 448 (2018) 36–48
254 [33] B. Rahimi, Z. Marvi, A. A. Alamolhoda, M. Abbaspour, H.T. Chua. An industrial
ot
255 application of low-grade sensible waste heat driven seawater desalination: A case study, Desalination,
256 470, 2019.
tn
257 [34] T. H. Dahdaha, A. Mitsos .Structural optimization of seawater desalination: II novel MED–
258 MSF–TVC configurations. Desalination 344 (2014) 219–227.
259 [35] D. Barba, M. Capocelli. Apparato di Distillazione Italian Patent Domanda di Brevetto per
rin
260 Invenzione Industriale numero: 102021000005216 (2021).

261 [36] K.H. Mistry, J.H. Lienhard. Generalized Least Energy of Separation for Desalination and
262 Other Chemical Separation Processes. Entropy (2013) 15, 2046–2080.
ep
263 [37] M. Capocelli, M. De Falco. Generalized least penalties Int J Energy Res. 2021;1–17.
264 [38] Z. Ma, S. Huo, M. Su. Simulation with Aspen Plus and Performance Analysis of LT-MED
265 Seawater Desalination System Applied Mechanics and Materials Vols. 397-400 (2013) pp 948-956
Pr
266 Online available since 2013/Sep/03 at www.scientific.net. © (2013) Trans Tech Publications,
267 Switzerland. doi:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.397-400.948
268 [39] A. Liponi, C Wieland, A. Baccioli. Multi-effect distillation plants for small-scale seawater
269 desalination: thermodynamic and economic improvement Energy Conversion and Management 205
ed
270 (2020) 112337
271 [40] B. Maha, A.S. Ammar. Minimizing the Total Annualized Cost of “SIDEM” seawater
272 desalination unit Modeling and simulation of multi-effect desalination plant (SIDEM unit). Int Conf
iew
273 Green Energy Convers Syst (GECS) 2017.
274 [41] ASPEN PLUS User Guide. Version 10.2, Aspen Tech Inc.
275
v
re
er
pe
ot
tn
rin
ep
Pr

SSRN Id4163361

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SSRN Id4163361

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1 PROCESS ANALYSIS OF THE NOVEL FLASH-ME DESALINATION PROCESS DRIVEN BY LOW-

2 GRADE THERMAL ENERGY

6 h enthalpy of saturated water (kJ/kg)

18 ΔP pressure difference (Pa)

20 ηpp reference power plant intrinsic efficiency (-)

12  operate with saturated feed sent to each effect;

14  operate with flexible degree of vaporization over the horizontal tubes;

Coupling by FlashME Coupling by MED-based

19 3. produced distillate considered to be free of salts;

Heat source flow rate

Min effect LMTD [°C] 3

5 + 3 auxiliary 6 + 4 auxiliary 8 + 6 auxiliary 9 + 7 auxiliary

123 are available in Figures 10 and 11.

131 MED processes (assumptions in Table 2).

142 which, in fact, shows better results above 70 ° C.

222 82 (2015) 18-29.

233 [22] D. Barba, A. Germana, G. Liuzzo, G. Tagliaferri, G. Spizzichino. Multistage flash

260 Invenzione Industriale numero: 102021000005216 (2021).

You might also like