PROSPECTS IN SOLAR WATER DESALINATION: TOWARDS AFFORDABLE H2O WITHOUT CO2

Vasilis Fthenakis1, 2, Adam A. Atia1, Raed Bkayrat3, Kim Choon Ng4, Tawfiq Alghasham5, Arslan Khalid6, Divyam
Nagpal6, Sgouris Sgouridis7
1
Center for Life Cycle Analysis, Columbia University,
926 S.W. Mudd Bldg. 500 West 120th Street, New York, NY 10027, vmf5@columbia.edu, aaa2269@columbia.edu,
2
Renewable Energy Group, Brookhaven National Laboratory,
3
First Solar International Middle East, Raed.Bkayrat@FIRSTSOLAR.COM,
4
King Abdullah University of Science & Technology, Kim.NG@KAUST.EDU.SA,
5
MEDAD Technologies, tawfiq.ghasham@medad-tech.com,
6
IRENA, AKhalid@irena.org,
7
Masdar Institute of Science & Technology, ssgouridis@masdar.ac.ae

ABSTRACT: This paper presents performance and cost analysis of small- and medium-scale seawater reverse
osmosis (RO) desalination plants powered in full or in part by photovoltaic power systems in the Gulf Cooperative
Council (GCC) region. Simulations of PV-RO desalination were conducted using HOMER Pro 3.6.1 and an Excel-
based, hourly RO model developed at Columbia University. We describe a) small and medium size stand-alone
systems operating 8, 10, 12 or 24 hours/day, which are powered by PV only, or PV and battery storage and diesel
generators, and, b) combinations of PV and solar thermal and co-location of PV and conventional power plants. The
stand-alone systems operating less than 24 hours included water storage. Our simulations show water production
costs in the range of $1.2-$2.65 per m3 of product water for small (i.e., 5m3/day) stand-alone PV-RO systems with
PV LCOE values ranging from 12–18 ¢/kWh; water production costs are in the range of $0.9-$2.0/m3 for medium
size (e.g., 6500 m3/day) systems with PV LCOE down to 6-8.8 US¢/kWh. Co-locating a 50 MW PV system with an
existing power plant in Jordan resulted in LCOE being reduced from 8.8 ¢/kWh to 7.1 ¢/kWh. The potential for
improved water production yield and cost savings in hybrid PV-solar thermal is also highlighted.
Keywords: Photovoltaics, PV, hybrid systems, reverse osmosis, desalination, MED-AD, SWRO, energy-water nexus

1 INTRODUCTION the GCC region is about 35 million m3/day; seawater is

Producing fresh water via water desalination is
essential for arid, water-scarce regions, but expensive and
energy-intensive compared to using conventional water
sources. The cost of energy is a significant contributor to
this high cost and the use of fossil fuels to power the
desalination plants causes emissions of hazardous
pollutants. Water desalination using thermal energy from
the sun has a long history. Aristotle first described the
concept of saline water evaporation for desalination. The
earliest commercial solar thermal system on record is a
solar still for a mining community in Las Salinas Chile,
producing 22.7 m3/d of fresh water from the evaporation
of very high salinity (140,000 ppm) water; installed in
1872, it operated for about 40 years until the mine was
exhausted [1]. Solar stills resemble greenhouses; they
comprise a basin holding the saline water within a
transparent enclosure. Solar energy enters the still
through a sloping transparent glass or plastic roof and
heats the saline water in the basin. The heated water
evaporates and then condenses on the roof glass panels.
The condensed droplets run down the panels and are
collected for use as fresh water. Solar stills require a very
large area (250-300 m2/m3 daily water production) and,
therefore, are not viable for large-scale production. In
contrast, a PV-RO system will require less than 8 m2 per
m3/d of installed capacity. However, combinations of
solar thermal and electric technologies have promise, and
this is explored in our study.
The rapidly decreasing cost of photovoltaic (PV)
electricity makes solar-powered desalination an
affordable and ultimately sustainable option in arid
countries with high insolation such as the Gulf
Cooperative Council (GCC) nations, Northern Chile, the
Southwest US, and other regions. The current worldwide
water desalination capacity is approximately 90 million
cubic meters per day [2], accounting for ~0.8% of the
global fresh water demand. The desalination capacity in
the feed water in more than 85% of the GCC plants.
Saudi Arabia (SA) has the biggest share, followed by
United Arab Emirates (UAE), Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and
Bahrain. The share of reverse osmosis (RO), which is a
natural fit with PV, is increasing. As of 2014, RO
accounted for approximately 60% of global desalination
capacity (~74% of the capacity contracted over the last
10 years) but only 34% of the desalination capacity in the
GCC countries. The region’s stakeholders feel
comfortable with the thermal technologies they have been
employing for 30-35 years, and, only recently started
adopting seawater RO (SWRO), but the trend in favor of
RO is clear. Early on, RO was used only for brackish
water as the high TDS content of seawater was
excessively fouling the membranes. Subsequently,
advances in higher-permeability membranes that reduced
both energy consumption and the extent of membrane
fouling, made RO technologies increasingly the preferred
choice for desalination of both brackish water and
seawater. Several projects combining RO and thermal
desalination have been commissioned, helping RO in
gaining more traction in the region [2]. This creates a
pathway for decoupling electricity generation from fossil
fuels in the co-generation multi-stage flash (MSF) and
multi-effect desalination (MED) plants towards using
solar electricity in desalination as RO’s sole energy input.
If such a trend continues, and the recent introduction of
solar power plants in the region supports this, it will
create a significant additional market for photovoltaics.
Further prospects are created with PV electricity being
combined with solar thermal energy in newly developed
technologies, like adsorption desalination. In addition to
grid integrated systems, solar desalination can be a
solution for arid areas away from electricity grid, mobile
sectors such as military and drilling services, refugee
camps, and disaster emergency cases.
2 BACKGROUND AND MOTIVATION Table I. Summary of HOMER input parameters.
Parameters Parameter Values
In the current study we are examining cost reductions Small- Medium-Scale RO
in small, stand-alone systems via smart combination of Scale RO
water and solar electricity storage. Also we identify
PV Capital Cost 2050 923
potential reductions of the levelized cost of water
($/kWDC)
(LCOW) production from seawater, via integration of PV
into existing desalination plants, integration of PV and PV O&M Cost 36 36
solar thermal technologies, and combinations of solar RO ($/kWDC/year)
with conventional thermal desalination technologies. PV Module DC 16 16
Such combinations could significantly decrease operating Efficiency (%)
and maintenance (O&M), land and grid integration costs. PV Lifetime (years) 25 25
Inverter Efficiency (%) 97.8 97.8
3 APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY Diesel Gen Capital Cost -- 1009
($/kWDC)
3.1 Stand-alone PVRO Plants Diesel Gen O&M Cost -- 0.02
($/hr)
The objective of this analysis is to compare small- Subsidized Diesel Fuel -- 0.08
scale, stand-alone PV-RO systems that utilize water Cost ($/liter)
storage so that intermittent operation is possible. Small-
Unsubsidized Diesel -- 0.70
scale scenarios were simulated for a daily water demand
Fuel Cost ($/liter)
of 5 m3/day; combinations of PV and water storage were
compared with PV, batteries, and water storage. To Diesel Gen Minimum -- 25
extend the analysis further, medium-scale scenarios were Load Ratio (%)
simulated subsequently to meet a daily water demand of Diesel Gen Lifetime -- 15000
6,550 m3/day. For these scenarios, PV-battery power (hours)
systems with water storage were compared with PV- Li-Ion Battery Specs 166.7/6/1 166.7/6/1
battery-genset systems with necessary water storage. All (Ah/V/kWh)
simulations were conducted with HOMER, the Hybrid Li-Ion Capital Cost 250 250
Optimization Model for Electric Renewables [3], in ($/battery; $/kWh)
combination with an Excel-based hourly RO model Li-Ion Replacement 250 250
developed by Atia with guidance from Fthenakis. Cost ($/battery)
The project location used in all simulations was in Li-Ion O&M Cost 3.5 3.5
Saudi Arabia at 20.67° N, 39.55° E coordinates. The ($/battery/year)
annual horizontal global irradiation (GHI) at this site was
estimated to be 2,128 kWh/m2/yr. Table I gives the main Battery Lifetime (years) 15 15
technical and economic HOMER inputs for small- and Discount Rate (%) 5 5
medium-scale RO scenarios, which include costs
assumed for the PV system (including BOS), diesel In addition to the high-pressure pump and the booster
generators, and battery storage. pump, a seawater intake pump (not shown in Figure 1) is
The main difference in our assumptions pertaining to also included in all scenarios. Sea water, and therefore
small-scale and medium-scale scenarios, is the change in feed-water, temperature varies seasonally as shown in
PV unit cost. The levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) for Figure 2. Four operational scenarios were considered for
large-scale PV in the GCC has reached 5.8 US cents per the RO plant’s operational availability while holding the
kWh. Therefore, the PV system cost of $922.50/kWDC in total daily water demand constant: 8, 10, 12 and 24
Table I reflects the cost that corresponds to that LCOE of hours/day. This means that for a daily water demand of 5
5.8 ¢/kWh; whereas a two times higher capital cost was m3/day, each one of these operational scenarios require
assumed for very small systems. PV modules were the RO plant to produce enough water to meet that
modeled at 16% efficiency and configured for single- demand. Hence, the 8, 10, and 12 hour scenarios
axis, E-W tracking, inclined at latitude-tilt. Furthermore, correspond to capacity increases by factors of 3, 2.4, and
an 80% derating factor was assumed to account for 2, respectively, relative to an RO plant that operates 24
inefficiencies in PV system performance due to soiling, hours per day. For further investigation a variable water
ohmic losses, and other losses. The subsidized diesel fuel demand that fluctuated monthly as a function of global
price is assumed to be 8 cents/liter while the global horizontal irradiation was analyzed for comparison with
market price is assumed to be 70 cents/liter. Lithium-ion the constant water demand scenario. Note that even in
batteries with 1 kWh of energy storage and an 80% the constant water demand scenario the electricity load
maximum depth of discharge were used in simulations. still fluctuates as seasonal variations of feedwater
We assumed a battery system price of $250/kWh which temperature were accounted for; an increase in feedwater
is less than present battery prices in the GCC but reflects temperature corresponds to an increase in membrane
a price forecasted for the near-future. water permeability, enabling lower feed pressures and
The average feedwater salinity assumed in each thus requiring a lower electric load.
scenario is 40,000 ppm TDS, while the target product
water quality was set to 213 ppm TDS. The RO plant
model has a recovery of 35% using a single-pass system
with an energy recovery device and booster pump (Figure
1).
 Membrane Replacement Rate 33%
Membrane Water Permeability 4.25x10-4 L/m2-bar-s
Membrane Salt Permeability 1.93x10-5 L/m2-s
O&M Spare Parts Cost 0.02 $/m3
O&M Chemical Cost 0.0225 $/m3
Annual Labor Salary 36000 $/yr-worker
Figure 1. RO desalination plant configuration used in Annual Management Salary 42000 $/yr-manager
stand-alone PVRO scenarios [4]
3.2 Hybrid Grid-connected Plants

Most of the recently constructed desalination plants

use either thermally-driven MED or pressure-driven RO.
Ongoing R&D work at KAUST shows the potential for
greatly decreased the energy requirement of MED by
employing nano-filtration and solar-energy driven
adsorption cycles (AD) [5,6]. This work shows the
potential for reducing the water production cost to less
than $0.5/m3. Also the hybrid technology can be
retrofitted in existing thermally-driven plants. Moreover,
cost reductions can be realized by adding PV in rights-of-
way around existing power plants.

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Figure 2. A monthly feedwater temperature profile was 4.1 Stand-alone PVRO Plants
assumed for all simulations.
For small-scale PVRO scenarios, a constant water
The high-pressure, seawater, and booster pump demand of 5 m3/day was satisfied by either the 8, 10, 12,
efficiencies were each set at 82%, 90%, and 85%. The or 24 hour scenario, corresponding to RO capacities of
pressure exchanger that was modeled for energy recovery 15, 12, 10, and 5 m3/day, respectively; electric loads
was set to an efficiency of 95%. The main technical and follow the same correspondence. With the exception of
economic parameters used in the RO model are PV-alone scenarios, these operational scenarios mean that
summarized in Table II. the RO plant will run for the given number of hours.
However, for PV-alone cases, the electric load was
Table II. Summary of RO model input parameters. allowed to extend for additional day hours to maximize
Feedwater Salinity 40000 ppm PV power production for as many hours during the year
as possible. Power systems comprising PV alone were
Feedwater Temperature Seasonal Profile (see compared with PV with batteries, and water storage was
Figure ) estimated in both configurations. Furthermore, for every
Recovery Rate 35% simulation, initial water storage volume was set to full
capacity; water storage was sized so that 100% of the
water demand was satisfied throughout the first
Daily Water Demand (Small- 5/6550 m3/day operational year. To add another dimension to the small-
/Medium-Size Scenarios)
scale simulations, a seasonal water demand was also
RO Plant Lifetime 25 years modeled as a function of the ratio of the monthly-average
GHI over the peak GHI.
Table III shows the nominal capacities for all small-
Base Unit Cost 1800 $/m3/day
scale RO power systems. Figure 3 shows the LCOE
Water Plant Owners’ Cost 5% values for these scenarios. For PV alone, the lowest
Factor LCOE is 19.4 cents/kWh, corresponding to the 8-hour,
Water Plant Cost Contingency 10% seasonal water demand scenario. The LCOW estimates
Factor and LCOW breakdown are shown in Figure 4 and Figure
5, respectively, for small-scale RO plants. The LCOW
Interest Rate 5%
breakdown comprises RO capital cost, operational water
Capital Recovery Factor 7% production cost, and water storage cost, all in $/m3.
Annual Water Plant Fixed Cost 2000 $/yr Operational water production cost includes energy costs
as well as costs for labor and maintenance. The minimum
Water Storage Capital Cost 72.5 $/m3 LCOW values correspond to constant water demand. For
Water Storage O&M Cost 2% of water storage PV alone, the optimal scenario is the 8-hour RO scenario
capital cost at $1.75/m3; for PV with batteries, the optimal scenario is
the 24-hour RO scenario at $1.14/m3. From these results,
Membrane Module Cost 990 $/module it is evident that the balance between energy costs and the
Membrane Module Area 37 m2 RO plant utilization rate (i.e., RO capital cost) is key to
arriving at the optimal system. In this case, although PV-
alone scenarios showed lower LCOEs than those of PV-
battery scenarios, the RO plant utilization (fraction of
annual load met) of a 24-hour PV-battery system leads to
a more significant reduction in the LCOW.

Table III. Nominal capacities for small-scale scenarios

Nominal Capacity
System Scenario
PV (kW) Battery (kWh)
PV Only, 8-hour 5 --
Seasonal 10-hour 5 --
Load 12-hour 7 --
PV Only, 8-hour 6.5 --
Constant 10-hour 6 --
Load 12-hour 9.5 --
PV w/ 8-hour 3.25 12 Figure 5. RO capital, operational, and water storage cost
Batteries, 10-hour 3.5 8 contributions to LCOW for small-scale scenarios
Seasonal 12-hour 2.75 12
Load 24-hour 3 14 For medium-scale PVRO scenarios, a constant water
PV w/ 8-hour 3.5 16 demand of 6,550 m3/day is met by either the 8, 10, 12, or
Batteries, 10-hour 3.5 14 24 hour scenario, corresponding to RO capacities of
Constant 12-hour 3.5 14 19650, 15720, 13100, and 6550 m3/day, respectively.
Load 24-hour 3 20 Furthermore, power systems comprising PV with
batteries were compared with systems powered by PV,
batteries, and diesel generators (water storage included
for all simulations). Table IV shows the nominal
capacities for these power systems; the corresponding
LCOE values are shown in Figure 6. It is shown that PV,
batteries, and diesel generator systems result in lower
LCOEs then simply PV with batteries, regardless of
whether 8 or 70 ¢/L is assumed for diesel fuel cost.
PV/battery systems require ~2 – 27 times the amount of
nominal battery capacity than PV/battery/diesel systems
(considering both fuel costs). Considering the relatively
low battery capital costs that we assumed ($250/kWh)
and a battery lifetime of 15 years, these results show
batteries to be less cost-competitive than diesel
generators. LCOW values and the LCOW breakdown
are shown in Figure 7 and Figure 8, respectively, for
medium-scale RO plants. These results indicate that
energy costs cause the main disparity between water
Figure 3. LCOE values and power system capacities for producion costs for PV/battery systems compared to
small RO plant scenarios PV/battery/diesel systems; furthermore, increasing the
operational availability (e.g., from 8-hour to 24-hour)
yields a decrease in LCOW due to the decrease in RO
capital cost, which is an artifact of increased RO plant
utilization.

Table IV. Nominal capacities for medium-scale

scenarios
Nominal Capacity
System Scenario PV Battery Genset
(MW) (MWh) (MW)
8-hour 5.6 18.8 --
PV w/ 10-hour 6 15 --
Batteries 12-hour 5 18.4 --
24-hour 5 23 --
PV, 8-hour 3.2 1.8 2.1
Figure 4. LCOW values and number of water storage Batteries, 10-hour 3 0.7 1.6
days for small RO plant scenarios & Diesel, 12-hour 2.4 2 1.3
8-¢/L 24-hour 1.1 0.85 0.56
PV, 8-hour 3.5 2.3 2.1
Batteries, 10-hour 4 0.7 1.6
& Diesel, 12-hour 3.1 3.7 1.3
70-¢/L 24-hour 2.5 10.2 0.56
Therefore, the minimum LCOW values correspond to
each of the 24-hour scenarios: 0.88, 0.98, and 1.15 $/m3
for PV/battery/diesel (8 ¢/L), PV/battery/diesel (70 ¢/L),
and PV/battery, respectively.
Figure 6. LCOE values and power system capacities for
medium RO plant scenarios
Figure 7. LCOW values an the number of water storage
days for medium RO plant scenarios
Figure 8. RO capital, operational, and water storage cost
contributions to LCOW for medium-scale scenarios
4.1 Hybrid Grid-connected Solar Desalination Plants
The energy cost is the major constituent of the
operating cost of water desalination and inexpensive solar
energy makes desalination increasingly the most
affordable option for providing fresh water in arid areas.
The PV industry has accomplished phenomenal cost
reductions through improving efficiency in the stages of
manufacturing and deployment. The prices of
photovoltaic modules have been reduced by a factor of
three over the last five years, and together with increased
system efficiencies, have brought the cost of solar
electricity down to levels in parity with subsidized
electricity rates in areas of high solar irradiation in the
Middle East and other arid and sunny regions. On a non-
subsidy basis, the cost of electricity from photovoltaics
has become compatible to that of electricity in the GCC
countries; this is exemplified by a contract to provide PV
electricity for 5.84 US₵/kWh in Dubai. The residential
electricity rates in Abu Dhabi are 6 US₵/kWh and they
do not reflect full cost recovery. With current subsidized
rates, adding 10% of PV electricity into an existing RO
plant would influence the cost per cubic meter of water
produced by 2.5%, while reducing the carbon emissions
of the plant by 10%. Another possibility is the integration
of PV and solar thermal as shown in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Potential hybridization of PV and solar thermal
technologies
Also PV-RO can be combined in series with MED-AD
[5,6]. The MED-AD can take in RO reject brine because
the evaporator can handle TDS up to 250,000 ppm,
thereby increasing the water recovery to 85%. The brine
is then transferred to a crystallizer to form salts. The
electricity consumption of MED-AD is about 1.5
kWh/m3 (in addition to thermal energy input).
The deterministic variability of solar energy is
mitigated to a large degree by using tracking PV and the
stochastic one is mitigated by power controls in modern
solar farms that provide power factor control, voltage
control, active power control, ramp-rate control and
frequency droop response [8].
PV-hybrid systems could make a significant impact
by allowing fuel-independence and reducing CO2
emissions while meeting water demand. However, there
are institutional barriers related to solar desalination, and
have mainly to do with introducing renewable energy in
the region [9]. New policy initiatives, like Saudi Arabia’s
intent to replace fossil fuels with solar energy in most
desalination plants by mid-century, the Masdar-led
Initiative of RE deployment in the UAE, and the Global
Clean Water Desalination Alliance [10], are the type of
drivers needed for long-term sustainable growth in
industry. Photovoltaic electricity is cost-competitive in
the GCC based on direct costs (LCOE) and is a lot
cheaper than fossil fuel based on full cost accounting for
resource (fuel and water) depletion, and environmental
impacts [11,12].
Conventional power generation can be integrated
with solar power generation (solar thermal and
photovoltaic) as part of the overall generation mix for
centralized power plants. There are examples, such as Al
Abdaliya Integrated Combined Cycle Solar (ICCS)
power plant in Kuwait where 60 MW of solar thermal
generation was added to a conventional 220 MW power
plant. Solar thermal troughs have been used to generate
steam which would consequently be injected in the low
 power steam cycle for combined cycle power plant and
hence increase the power output capability and/or save
fuel for the same capacity value. ICCS plants need
thermal storage to allow for steam to be provided during
off solar hours and even then require over sizing for days
when there are low DNI values for the location or there
are dust storms which severely impact their performance.
Solar PV power plants on the other hand represent an
easier integration from a system stand point with
conventional power plants; be it liquid or gas fired power
plants. The case for hybrid PV power plants on the
utility scale is gaining more and more momentum in
recent years, driven by the fluctuation in the hydrocarbon
pricing and the constant drop in solar PV LCOEs. Also,
there is a greater realization that in large area electrical
grids, the benefits of utility scale solar PV are maximized
in terms of reducing electrical losses and reducing or
eliminating the need for grid infrastructure upgrades by
co-locating solar PV power plants next to or in the
vicinity of conventional hydrocarbon based centralized
power plants.
The value of integrating the simple solar output of
PV power plants is also based on the fact that with little
output profile adjustments, there is a direct
complementarity between the output of thermal power
plants and solar PV plants based on the reduction in ISO
efficiency of the engines/turbines in these power plants
during midday temperatures especially in areas like the
GCC (Figure 10 The same complementarity applies to
geothermal and PV as heat exchange is less efficient
during the hot ambient hours when solar is at its best.
Figure 10. Thermal and solar PV power plant outputs
illustrate a complementary relationship due to mid-day
thermal power efficiency reductions .
There are three main synergies in co locating solar PV
power plants with centralized power plants; those are
reduction in O&M costs, electricity grid connection, and
land use.
• Operation and Maintenance:
- The O&M cost for hybrid PV power plants can be up
to 50% lower than stand-alone solar PV power plants.
- Solar PV plant scheduled and preventative
maintenance can be coordinated with main
conventional power plant.
- There is minimal need to add any head count for
supporting the O&M of co-located solar PV with other
power plants.
• Electrical Grid Connection:
- Overall capacity nameplate can stay the same for the
conventional power plant as solar PV generation will
act mainly as a fuel saver.
- Typically 10% to 15% is available as additional
capacity on MV/HV switch yard and transmission lines
Land Utilization:
- Solar PV plants can be built in areas that are deemed
unutilized, such as HV transmission rights of way and
zoning areas already designated to conventional plants.
For example, the Al Manakher power plant in Jordan,
shown in Figure 11, has a lot of unutilized land in the
right-of-way between the HV transmission lines (red
lines) coming out of the switch yard of the plant which
can be used for PV plants.
Figure 11. Red lines show the HV transmission lines’
right-of-way and land available between the transmission
lines for solar PV power plants.
In short, solar PV power plants are simple in terms of
integration requirements to conventional power plants
and this integration results in a lower LCOE than that of
PV power plants that aren’t co-located with thermal
power plants. The graph below shows the case for a
proposed solar PV power plant in Al Manakher, Jordan,
whereby a meaningful drop in the LCOE is achieved by
co-locating the solar plant with a conventional power
plant. The monetary benefits from such co-location,
include a reduction of O&M costs, almost free land, use
of an existing Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for asset
management of the plant (e.g., managing O&M,
accounting, revenue, reporting), and use of an existing
substation.
Figure 1. LCOE per MWh with full finance terms for a
50MW PV in Jordan; reduced from $88 to $71/MWh by
co-locating with existing power plant (SPV stands for
Special Purpose Vehicle of the registered project
company. So there is a saving of about $2.7/MWh due to
the fact that the conventional plant has an SPV that does
asset management for the plant. This asset management
Initial
includesPrice O&M Land
managing O&M,SPV Price1 Substation
accounting, revenue, NewPrice
and repo
Figure 12. Price reduction due to co-locating PV and
conventional power plant
The same impact on the hybrid LCOE can be derived
from co locating solar PV power plants and seawater RO
desalination plants where the synergies in O&M, grid
connection (or feed in this case) and land utilization are
achieved.
The above comparisons are based on direct cost only.
A more complete cost accounting, including external
fossil fuel subsidies, reveals that PV powered
desalination is less expensive than that powered by diesel
or natural gas.. A comprehensive study commissioned by
the KAUST Industry Collaboration Program [13],
showed that ground-mount PV and wind with capacity
ratios of 28% are the least-cost renewable energy
technologies Saudi Arabia. The LCOE from such plants
is lower than the cost of electricity from oil- and gas-
burning power plants if the opportunity costs (i.e., lost
revenue reflecting fuel subsidies), are accounted for. The
KICP 2014 study determined the LCOE of ground
mounted PV to be in the range of $0.07-$0.15 /kWh and
the LCOE of oil and gas power plants including
opportunity costs to be $0.09/kWh and $0.18/kWh
correspondingly.
4.3 Future Work
The work presented here for stand-alone PVRO
systems assumes a constant load (with the exception of
monthly variations) that can only be met when the power
supply is equal to it or exceeds the load. In future work,
modeling efforts will account for variable recovery rate,
variable feed-pressure, and variable flow in order to
optimize water production with a variable power supply.
Also research is ongoing on synergistic combinations of
renewable energy technologies for powering desalination
plants without generating CO2 emissions.
5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT & DISCLAIMER
The work of Adam Atia is supported by the National
Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
Program under Grant No. DGE-11-44155. Vasilis
Fthenakis and Raed Bkayrat serve at the board of the
Global Clean Water Desalination Alliance and they
acknowledge useful conversations with multiple
members of the Alliance. Any opinions, findings, and
conclusions or recommendations expressed in this
material are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the National Science Foundation or
the Global Clean Water Desalination Alliance.
[10] GDA, 2015 - Global Clean Water Desalination
Alliance-H20 minus CO2, lunched during COP21,
Paris, December 2015; Concept paper
http://www.clca.columbia.edu/Global-Water.pdf
[11] V. Fthenakis V., A.A. Atia, Morin O., Bkayrat R.,
and Sinha P., New Prospects for PV Powered Water
Desalination Plants: Case studies in Saudi Arabia,
Prog. Photovolt. Res. Appl., (2016) 24:543-550.
[12] Atia A., Fthenakis V., and Bkayrat R., Techno-
economic Evaluation of Stand-Alone PV-Powered
Seawater desalination Plants in Saudi Arabia, pp.
4075-4080, Proceedings 29th European Photovoltaic
Solar Energy Conference, Amsterdam, Sept. 2014.
[12] KICP 2014. KAUST Industry Collaboration
Program (KICP) Strategic Study: Appraisal and
Evaluation of Energy Utilization and Efficiency in
Saudi Arabia: Supply and Demand Impacts, Business
Opportunities and Technological and Economic
Consideration, 2014.
http://www.kaust.edu.sa/assets/downloads/kicp-
annual-strategic-study-appraisal-and-evaluation-of-
energy-utilization-and-efficiency-in-the-
ksa%202014-volume1.pdf

6 REFERENCES
[1] Delyannis E., Historic Background of Desalination
and Renewable Energies, Solar Energy, 75, 357-366,
2003.
[2] GWI, 2015 - Desalination Markets 2016, Global
Water Intelligence, published by Media Analytics,
Oxford, UK, ISBN: 978-I-907467-38-7.
[3] HOMER- hybrid renewable and distributed
generation system design software. Available:
http://www.homerenergy.com/.
[4] Jiang A. , J. Wang, L. T. Biegler, W. Cheng, C. Xing,
and Z. Jiang, “Operational cost optimization of a full-
scale SWRO system under multi-parameter variable
conditions,” Desalination, vol. 355, pp. 124–140, Jan.
2015.
[5] Shahzad M.W. and K.C. Ng, New studies carry
potential for creating much more efficient water
desalination systems in the Gulf, Nature Middle East
[6] K.C. Ng K.C. et al, Energy efficiency improvement
by hybridizationof he MED and AD cycles,
Desalination, 356: 255-270, 2015.
[7] Bkayrat R., Solar Power Desalination Solutions for
Saudi Arabia, presentation dated Sept. 2014; also
Kamerer A., Exploring the Potential for Solar
Desalination in the Middle East, presentation to Solar
Village, dated January 18, 2016.
[8] Morjaria M., Dmitriy Anichkov D., Chadliev V., and
Soni S., Grid-friendly PV Plants, IEEE Power and
Energy magazine, pp. 87-95, May/June 2014
[9] Sgouridis S., Abdullhh A. et al., RE-mapping the
UAE’s energy transition, Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews, in press (on line 2015)