Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Desalination
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/desal

Assessment of methodologies and data used to calculate desalination costs MARK

a,b,⁎ a a a
Michael Papapetrou , Andrea Cipollina , Umberto La Commare , Giorgio Micale ,
Guillermo Zaragozac, George Kosmadakisb,d
a
Dipartimento di Ingegneria dell'Innovazione Industriale e Digitale, Università degli Studi di Palermo, Viale delle Scienze, Ed.6., 90128 Palermo, Italy
b
Wirtschaft und Infrastruktur GmbH & Co Planungs-KG (WIP), Sylvensteinstr. 2, 81369 Munich, Germany
c
CIEMAT-Plataforma Solar de Almeria, Almeria, Spain
d
Department of Natural Resources and Agricultural Engineering, Agricultural University of Athens, Iera Odos St. 75, Athens 11855, Greece

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

Keywords: In desalination, similarly with other industries, the cost of the final product is one of the most important criteria
Desalination costs that define the commercial success of a specific technology. Therefore, when new projects are planned or new
Energy source technologies are proposed, the analysis of the expected costs attracts a lot of attention and is compared to
Methodology (perceived) costs of state-of-the-art desalination or costs of alternative fresh water supply options. This com-
Boundary conditions
parison only makes sense if the cost assessment methodologies are based on the same principles and use common
Input data
assumptions. This paper assesses: (i) the methodologies used to calculate the water cost; (ii) the boundary
conditions and (iii) the input data and assumptions. It has been found that most papers in the literature use
suitable equations and boundary conditions. Also certain elements like land costs are ignored, but in most cases
this is duly acknowledged and justified. However, the quality of the input data for the hardware costs, the
operating costs, and the financial parameters are not always appropriate. Guidance for the methodology, data
and assumptions that should be used is provided depending on the purpose for which the cost of the desalinated
water is calculated.

1. Introduction municipalities, or some other kind of governmental agencies.

Therefore, these agencies and the companies that are supporting them
The combined effects of global population growth, industrialisation in the process face the following choices:
and urbanisation drive an increasing demand for water. UNEP predicts
that by 2025 > 2.8 billion people in 48 countries will face water stress • Shall they employ desalination, or is there a better alternative for
or scarcity conditions [1]. In many regions of the world, desalination is securing the necessary resources for their water supply needs?
one of the strategies adopted in order to deal with this issue. As a result • If desalination is employed, which is the most suitable technology
the relevant market is growing rapidly. The global desalination capacity for their specific conditions?
in 1980 was about 5 million m3/year [2] increasing to about 90 mil- • Which source(s) of energy should be used to power the inherently
lion m3/year by 2016 [3]. Between 2005 and 2015 alone the desali- energy intensive desalination process?
nation capacity in the world has more than doubled and this trend
continues [3]. The issue of cost is central in dealing with these questions. Of course
The preferred type of desalination process and the sources of energy other parameters are also taken into account in the decision process,
used change over time depending on technological developments, such as environmental impacts, social acceptance and strategic choices
which affect both the performance and the cost of the desalination and defined by governmental policies. But in any case, no decision can be
energy generation technologies. In addition, the technological pre- taken without full clarity on the economics of each choice.
ferences are greatly affected by the local conditions in the regions The importance of the desalination costs is reflected on the large
where the plants are installed because parameters such as the cost of amount of relevant scientific papers and reports that deal directly with
fuel and the typical feed water composition can vary widely, affecting this issue. It has been widely acknowledged [4–7] that the different
the performance and feasibility of the plant. methodologies, definitions and data sources used to calculate desali-
In most countries water supply is the responsibility of nation costs make difficult objective comparisons between technologies

⁎
Corresponding author at: Wirtschaft und Infrastruktur GmbH & Co Planungs-KG (WIP), Sylvensteinstr. 2, 81369 Munich, Germany.
E-mail address: michael@papape.com (M. Papapetrou).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.05.038
Received 23 March 2017; Received in revised form 31 May 2017; Accepted 31 May 2017
0011-9164/ © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

and between different projects. There have been efforts in developing a By grouping together information without accounting for these
global picture about this issue and streamlining the approaches fol- three factors the conclusions can be misleading. As will be shown in
lowed by the desalination community. Most notably, in December 2004 Section 2.2, it has been proven that the year of construction and the
MEDRC started a process aiming to develop a global standard for de- geographical location are two of the most important factors affecting
salination cost calculations. The first step was a dedicated conference in the cost. For example, a decision maker that reads in a 2013 paper [37]
Larnaca, Cyprus, where invited papers by leading experts were pre- that the cost of water produced by a PV-RO system ranges from 11.7 to
sented on issues like: (i) Desalination technology costs [8–14], (ii) Cost 15.6 USD/m3 may very well decide against considering that technology
models [15–21], (iii) Boundary conditions [22–26], and (iv) Case stu- as it seems very expensive. However, within the 22 year period from
dies [27–34]. The idea was that the conference would be followed by a 1991 (from when some of the data are derived) to 2013 (when the
“book that will be useful to decision makers, planners and the industry” paper is published) the cost of PV has actually reduced by 90% [42–46].
and “ultimately develop a dynamic standard that is globally accepted”
[4]. However, these follow-up actions were never organised and no 2.2. Cost correlations
other dedicated action or event has taken place since.
This paper aims to pick-up on this process and contribute to the Some papers develop cost correlations (i.e. regression equations as a
development of increased understanding a common practices within function of main parameters), based on desalination project cost data-
the desalination community. Over 100 publications from the past bases. One of the important works in this category was presented in
20 years (1996–2016) have been critically reviewed, focusing mainly 2014 by Loutatidou et al. [47]. They performed statistical analysis of
on the methodologies, the assumptions and input data that they use, real cost data from 950 RO plants and showed that the most important
rather than the actual results of desalinated water cost in USD/m3. Then parameters affecting the cost were:
the strengths and weaknesses of each approach are discussed, coming
up with suggestions for desalinated water cost calculations that are • the plant capacity,
reliable, defining the extent to which they can be used for different • the year of construction,
decision making processes or other purposes. • the feed water salinity,
• the region where the plants are installed.
2. Literature on desalination cost reviews and correlations
In addition, this paper [47] derived an equation that can be used to
2.1. Cost reviews assess the EPC costs of SWRO and BWRO plants installed in the GCC or
Southern Europe, a useful tool for decision makers that need an initial
There are several studies that have reviewed published desalination estimation of the costs they should be expecting.
costs. In 2008 Karagiannis et al. [35] reviewed almost 100 different Also Wittholz et al. [48] published in 2008 a paper where a series of
cases and classified the reported costs into categories according to the cost correlations were developed for order of magnitude cost estima-
type of feed water (i.e. seawater, brackish etc.), the desalination process tions. Their initial database included over 500 plants and the focus was
adopted (i.e. RO, MED, MSF) and the type of energy source (heat, re- on large scale MSF and MED plants both for seawater and for brackish
newable electricity or grid electricity). In 2014, Shatat et al [36]. also water. Finally, Lamei et al. [49] also attempted to develop a cost cor-
screened desalination costs from various sources and grouped them in relation for forecasting PV-RO prices. However, their paper was based
tables classified by technology and energy source. The cost data come on a database of only 21 plants of very different sizes, feed-water
mostly from the previously mentioned work of Karagiannis and from qualities and energy supply arrangements, making it difficult to come-
few other published papers with original cost calculations. In 2013, Al- up with a reliable correlation.
Karaghouli et al. [37] did a similar work, where cost data from 23
publications were used to develop a table providing cost ranges for all 2.3. Factors affecting costs
major desalination technologies powered by conventional sources and
another 29 papers were used to compile a similar table with the costs of The factors affecting the water cost have been discussed in some
desalination powered by renewable energy. Also Ziolkowska in 2015 papers. One such paper was published in 2013 by Ghaffour et al. [6]
[38] presented an analysis where over 50 papers, reports and databases and was based on an extensive review of the literature; it can be used as
have been used and the costs reported have been discussed, providing a check-list when analysing the economics of desalination plants. Then,
also a cost breakdown to operating, maintenance and capital cost. All in 2015 Ghaffour et al. [2] discussed the potential of renewable energy
these papers [35–38] classify costs based on technology and energy driven desalination technologies, including a discussion on their costs.
source and sometimes plant size; however the grouping of the costs in It is an exhaustive paper, built on 210 references.
all these papers does not take into account critical factors, such as: There are more review papers on desalination technologies, which
also touch on the issue of costs. For example Reif et al. [50] and
(i) The different year of construction. For example, Al-Karaghouli et al. Bundschuh et al. [51] both in 2015 reviewed renewable energy com-
in his paper in 2013 [37] derived a cost range for PV-RO from 11.7 binations with thermal desalination, however the former did not go into
to 15.6 USD/m3 by grouping together costs taken from papers specific costs while the latter grouped together costs from several
published from 1991 [39,40] up to 2009 [41]. sources ending up with very wide ranges that cannot be used for de-
(ii) The different geographical locations. For example Karagiannis et al. cisions or clear conclusions.
[35] gave a cost range from 0.48 to 1.62 USD/m3 for RO systems
with capacities from 15,000 to 60,000 m3/day, grouping together 3. Methodologies for calculating desalination costs
data from countries with very different conditions such as USA,
China, Greece and UAE. 3.1. Investment evaluation indicators
(iii) The assumptions/methodologies used to derive these costs. For ex-
ample Ziolkowska [38] grouped together costs reported in the Desalination plants involve several kinds of costs and revenues over
Global Water Intelligence (GWI) database from real desalination a long period of time during the planning, construction, operation and
plant EPC contracts, cost assessments from the literature and re- decommissioning phases, which results in complicated cash flows.
sults she derived from applying the DEEP 5 model developed by There are well established methodologies applied in any kind of in-
the International Atomic Energy Agency. dustry to compare different projects involving cash flows over several
years. The most commonly applied indicators used in the evaluation of

9
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

investments are the Net Present Value (NPV), the Internal Rate of where the amortisation factor (α) is defined by Eq. (4):
Return (IRR) and the (Discounted) Payback Period (PBP). There are
i (1 + i)n
many textbooks and papers where these indicators are defined, pro- α=
(1 + i)n − 1 (4)
viding equations for their calculation (see for example Levy et al. [52]).
The calculation of the NPV can be done using the following equa- The SCOW approach that was adopted in most of the reviewed
tion: papers is essentially a simplified version of the LCOW as can be seen in
n Eq. (3), where it is assumed that every year (from year 1 to year n) the
R −C
NPV = ∑ (1t + i)tt − I0 desalination plant produces exactly the same amount of water (Mw) and
t=1 (1) has exactly the same running costs (C). It is reasonable that most papers
The calculation of NPV requires the knowledge of the initial capital adopted that approach, since in theoretical calculations it is standard
investment (I0), the revenues and costs in year t (Rt, and Ct respectively) practice not to go into too much detail and to assume stable operation
for all years from the first to the last (n). In addition, it is needed to over the system's technical life due to lack of actual data.
select an appropriate discount rate (i), which reflects the expected re- It is possible to elaborate further the assumptions within the SCOW
turn by the investor and depends on macro-economic assessments. The approach. First of all, it is quite common to break down the running
selection of the discount rate can be difficult as it is affected by non- costs to annual fixed costs (CF) measured in USD and variable costs (CV)
technological elements that can vary widely among industries, coun- measured in USD/m3. Then, in some cases [72], the expected variation
tries and over time. Especially for theoretical cost calculations, as is of prices over time was taken into account by assuming an annual es-
often the case in the scientific literature, its selection can be quite calation rate (r) for running costs. In that case Eq. (3) becomes more
random. In that respect the IRR can be a more interesting indicator as it complicated by introducing a multiplier (λ) for taking into account the
solves Eq. (1) to calculate the required discount rate (i) for the project price escalation over time, as observed in Eq. (5):
to break even (NPV = 0) by the end of its technical/accounting lifetime (I0 × α ) + λ × CF
and therefore the calculation of the IRR does not require the selection of SCOW = + λ × Cv
Mw (5)
a discount rate; it rather calculates the return on investment that can be
expected from a specific project. The multiplier (λ) is defined as by Eq. (6) and parameter k is given
In the case of desalination projects the Rt reflects the revenues from by Eq. (7).
selling the produced water; as a result the calculation of NPV or IRR k (1 − k n )
requires the assessment of the amount of water that will be produced λ= ×α
1−k (6)
and the price at which the water can be sold at the point of production
from year 1 to year n. For example the Rt can be calculated easily in the 1+r
k=
case of a contractor who develops and operates a project on behalf of a 1+i (7)
client like a municipality, which as part of the agreement has offered a Different multipliers can be introduced to account for different ex-
guarantee that it will purchase all produced water at a well-defined pected escalation rates of various cost or revenue elements. The LCOE
price over a certain period of time. However, for theoretical cost cal- methodology is still more flexible allowing for (non-linear) future
culations the selection of a water selling price and its evolution over variations in costs, prices and production rates. However, the elaborate
time can be difficult as it depends on volatile market framework con- versions of the SCOW and the LCOW give practically the same results in
ditions over a period of 20 to 30 years. most of the cases where simple enough scenarios are considered.
The situation is similar in energy projects, where the price at which On the other hand, in some papers [7,73,74] a very simplistic cal-
the generated electricity can be sold has to be known. In that case the culation was performed for the cost of water (COW) where no dis-
concept of Levelised Cost of Electricity (LCOE) has been introduced, counting of future cash flows was taken into account. This simplified
which is an assessment of the price at which the electricity would have calculation is given by Eq. (8):
to be sold for the project to break even and is calculated by dividing the
discounted costs over the lifetime of the project by the discounted en- (I0 n) + C
COW =
ergy produced over the same period. By adapting that concept for de- Mw (8)
salination and other water production technologies, Eq. (2) is obtained
There are papers where the water cost was calculated but the
for the Levelised Cost of Water (LCOW), where Ct is the annual cost of
methodology used was not clearly defined [75–78], while in several
operation and Mw, t is the amount of water produced in year t:
others [79–84] the methodology used was also not explained but re-
n C ference was made to software packages used, which in most cases have
I0 + ∑t = 1 (1 +t i)t
LCOW = n M
built-in a methodology similar to the LCOW or at least the SCOW.
∑t = 1 (1 +w,it)t (2)
4. Assumptions and estimations of input data
By calculating the LCOW it is easier to compare the relative feasi-
bility of different technologies, plant layouts, sizes, etc.
As discussed in Section 3, the methodology used can affect the
calculated cost of water, as there are differences depending on whether
3.2. Review of methodologies used to calculate desalination costs
the following parameters are considered: the value of money over time
and the variations of the system's performance, costs and revenues over
In the literature, there are only few papers using the LCOW [53–57]
its technical lifetime.
or the NPV/IRR [58,59] methodologies described in Section 3.1.
However, even if a correct and detailed equation is used to calculate
In most of the cases [60–71] a method that some authors call
the costs, the quality and detail of the input data and the accuracy of the
“amortisation factor” or “annualised life cycle cost method” was used.
assumptions about future performance, costs and revenues will be the
In that approach, the initial capital costs were annualised by using the
main elements that define how relevant or reliable the results are.
amortisation factor (α). The result obtained from this method is called
These assumptions and estimations are discussed in this section.
here Simplified Cost of Water (SCOW), which can be calculated using
Eq. (3):
4.1. Boundary conditions
(I0 × α ) + C
SCOW =
Mw (3) As a starting point, the boundaries for the cost calculation have to

10
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

be defined; depending on the purpose of the calculation and the specific initial design and the costs of the process required to go through for
conditions in every site, it might make sense to take into account the securing all necessary permits. However, it has been widely
auxiliary equipment and materials under the capital cost and their acknowledged (see Ref. [47,86]) that the potential environmental
running requirements under operating costs. Items that can be either impacts of desalination are increasingly recognised and lead to higher
included or excluded are: water storage, desalinated water distribution, costs, for permitting but also in other capital and operating
laboratory for quality control, electricity grid extension, access roads expenditures, especially in the European Union, the United States and
opening and desalination plant decommissioning at the end-of-life. Australia.
For example Shahabi et al. in 2015 [56], when comparing alter-
native desalination options for the Perth water supply in terms of RO 4.2.2.3. Cost of land. Most cost calculations ignore the cost of land.
plants alternative sizes and siting options, included in the calculation However, Lapuente in 2012 [74] in his effort to calculate “fully and
the investment and running costs of the infrastructure for the water accurately desalination costs” did account for land costs, and where data
distribution to the end-users, concluding that one of the decentralised were not available he assumed 2% of the construction costs for land
scenarios provided water that costs 18% less than in the centralised acquisition. Also, Shahabi et al. in their 2015 paper [56] accounted for
scenario. If the distribution costs were ignored, the centralised scenario the cost of land, using the figure of 300 AUS$/m2, while Kosmadakis
would appear to cost 40% less than the selected decentralised scenario, et al. [87] considered an annual cost of 3000 EUR/ha for their small-
leading to a totally different conclusion. This example reflects the im- sale solar-ORC-RO system. Finally, papers that performed an
portance of defining properly the boundary conditions. assessment of desalination costs based on real plant data might have
taken some kind of land costs into account, depending on the kind of
4.2. Capital costs (I0) data available in the sources used, which is not always clear; for
example Wittholz et al. in [48] mentioned: “Important details such as if
4.2.1. Hardware costs the land and civil works were included in the capital cost were not always
All examined papers take into account the equipment and material reported, making it difficult to develop accurate predictions of cost.” If there
costs in their calculation. Most papers used a fixed figure as specific is a leasing agreement for the land rather than land acquisition, the
capital cost (usually in USD/m3/day) for the desalination technology, annual fee paid should be included under the operating costs rather
including standard pre-treatment and post-treatment equipment and than the capital costs.
materials. The specific capital cost figures reported, are most of the
times reproduced from one paper to the other without taking into ac- 4.3. Operating costs (Ct)
count critical factors which can affect that cost substantially as dis-
cussed in Section 3.2, like year of construction, scale and location. 4.3.1. Energy
For an accurate definition of the capital costs, a breakdown of all One of the main contributors to the cost of desalinated water is
equipment and materials is necessary. In order to do that, the plant energy. When the desalination plant includes an integrated or co-lo-
design has to be known, which depends on choices made by the cus- cated electricity generation system, some of the associated costs might
tomer (for example the type of energy recovery equipment used) and have to be considered part of the project's capital costs. The implica-
site specific characteristics, like topography (affecting feed-water in- tions for these dual purpose plants are discussed at the thermal energy
take), feed water quality (affecting pre-treatment), the quality stan- section at the end of paragraph 4.3.1. In most cases however, energy is
dards that the desalinated water has to comply with (affecting post- considered as an operating cost. For calculating the energy related
treatment) and regulations (affecting brine disposal). In addition to the operating cost for year t (CE,t) Eq. (9) can be used:
desalination related equipment and materials, also any integrated
CE , t = Eel, t × Pel, t + Eth, t × Pth, t (9)
auxiliary equipment and energy generation hardware costs have to be
taken into account. where Eel,t and Eth,t the amount of electrical and thermal energy re-
It has to be noted that many papers spectively used by the plant in year t and Pel,t and Pth,t the cost of the
[7,53,60,64,65,70–72,75,77,78,83] included only the hardware in their unit of electrical and thermal energy respectively in year t.
capital costs and did not explicitly mention or take into account any of The energy requirements (Eel and Eth) are the product of the specific
the other capital cost factors listed in Section 4.2.2 below. energy consumption (in kWh/m3) with the water production Mw (in
m3). The specific energy consumption is determined by the desalination
4.2.2. Other capital costs technology used and the design characteristics of each specific plant.
4.2.2.1. Engineering, construction and project management. Many of the The ambient conditions do also affect the specific energy consumption;
reviewed cost assessments ignored the engineering, construction (site for example the feed water composition and temperature affect the
preparation, civil, electromechanical) and project management costs. It plant performance [88]. Some authors performed detailed calculations
is common though to account for those by adding a percentage on top to determine the specific energy consumption (see Ref. [63,64] for RO
of the equipment hardware costs. Some examples are provided in and [69] for MED) while others just took a reference figure from the
Table 1. literature (see Ref. [54,62] for RO and [65] for MED).
The way to account for the cost of energy (Pel and Pth) depends on
4.2.2.2. Initial design and permitting. None of the desalination cost whether it is generated on-site or provided externally (for example
assessment papers reviewed did explicitly account for the costs of the electricity from the grid). For on-site generation, if the energy and

Table 1
Overview of engineering, construction and project management costs used in desalination cost analysis literature.

Year of publication Engineering, construction and project management costs Reference

1996 site preparation and utility costs at 10% of equipment and indirect costs charged at 27% of direct capital costs [85]
2001 Foundations and buildings 15% on top of capital costs for equipment, engineering and contingency at 10% of equipment and capital [80]
2011 Installation cost 25% of equipment cost [62]
2011 Installation & infrastructure 30% of system capital costs, Professional costs 5% of system capital costs [63]
2012 Engineering 3.5% of the project costs, Project development 0.5% of project expenses [74]
2015 Site preparation 20% of equipment cost, all other indirect costs charged at 30% of direct costs [67]

11
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

desalination plants are operated by the same entity, the initial costs 4.3.1.2. Thermal energy. In most cases, thermal energy/steam is
related to energy generation (for equipment, engineering etc.), must be generated on-site, either directly for the desalination plant or within
taken into account as part of the capital costs, leaving only the asso- a co-generation installation where a power plant and a desalination
ciated running costs (like fuel, maintenance and personnel costs) to be plant are co-located [93–97]. Usually natural gas or oil is used to
used in Eq. (9). An alternative approach to that is to calculate separately generate the heat (and electricity where applicable), but there are
the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) and to use that as the cost of the several other options possible like solar thermal, concentrated solar,
unit of electricity [57]. If the energy plant is on-site but operated by a geothermal and nuclear [98–103].
separate legal entity, which financed its development and sells the One way to take these costs into account is to include the pro-
energy to the desalination plant, the calculation is similar to the case curement and installation of the energy generating equipment as part of
where externally provided energy is used, where the cost of the unit of the capital costs, while the fuel procurement (if any) and other running
energy is defined in the agreement between the desalination plant op- costs of the energy generation under the operating costs of the desali-
erator and the energy supplier. nation system (see Ref. [60]). If electricity is also generated the annual
revenues (Rt) from selling it to the grid should also be taken into ac-
count (see Ref. [84]) by adding it as an element in Eq. (2), as shown in
4.3.1.1. Electricity. The vast majority of the papers reviewed used a Eq. (10) below:
fixed rate for electricity over the whole lifetime of the desalination
plant: most were in the 0.05 to 0.06 USD/kWh range n Ct − Rt
I0 + ∑t = 1 (1 + i)t
[49,61,73,74,85,86,89], with few being at 0.03 USD/kWh [72,80] or LCOW = n Mw, t
below [83] and some at 0.08 USD/kWh [68,71] or above (as high as ∑t = 1 (1 + i)t (10)
0.11 USD/kWh) [65,75]. In two cases the authors performed a
sensitivity analysis on the electricity costs ranging from very low to A simpler way to deal with this is to consider the desalination as a
very high prices [67,79]. separate process and to define a price for the unit of heat/steam that is
In all these papers though, the selected electricity price was kept provided to drive the thermal desalination system. See for example
stable for the whole lifetime of the desalination system. In reality the Kesieme who put a price of 0.007 USD/kg for steam [65], using as a
price of electricity can vary significantly over these 20 to 30 year per- reference the paper of Al-Obaidani [97], who also used this value but
iods. Only Kaldelis in 2004 [54] introduced an annual increase rate of did not explain where it came from. On the other hand, Agashichev
4%; he started by assuming electricity costs of 0.04 USD/kWh for 2004 [53] also attached a cost to the heat, but had a more sophisticated
and it increased gradually reaching 0.06 USD/kWh by 2014 and approach, starting from the capital and operating costs of an auxiliary
0.09 USD/kWh by 2024. Looking back to this assumption now, in 2016, boiler and calculating from that the levelised cost of heat.
it seems to be much closer to reality compared to fixing the electricity In cases where the heat is produced on-site together with electricity,
price at 0.04 USD/kWh for 20 years, which is the approach that most a decision has to be made for the allocation of capital and operating
authors followed. Especially in the case where a large desalination plant costs between the electricity and the heat. There are two approaches:
procures directly from the wholesale electricity market, rather than
from a supplier, it will face much stronger variations, not only over the (a). The exergetic cost accounting method, where the costs are allo-
years, but also seasonally, daily and even hourly [90,91]. cated between heat and electricity proportional to the exergy em-
In addition to that, the industrial electricity prices vary strongly bedded to the corresponding streams entering or leaving any plant
between the countries and the regions of the world. Fig. 1 illustrates the component- this is used for example by Agashichev [53]. Also
industrial electricity prices in some Southern European countries from Ortega-Delgado et al. [103] use this method, which is termed as
2011 to 2015. It clearly shows that even between countries in the same thermoeconomic analysis.
region the differences can be very large. For example, industries pay for (b). The reference cycle method as explained by Sommariva in chapter
electricity in Italy more than double than what they pay in Bulgaria. 6.1.5 of [104] where “the energy associated to the steam extracted to
Fig. 1 also clearly demonstrates that in Southern Europe industrial the desalination plant is considered in terms of equivalent loss of electric
electricity costs are higher compared to the 0.05–0.06 USD/kWh figure power that would otherwise be rendered by the steam extracted in the
used in most papers. Also within a period of a few years the industrial power generation yard” – this method is applied for example by
electricity prices can vary significantly and this variation can be in the Moser [55].
form of prices increases or price reductions; for example in Cyprus, a
country with high desalination needs, industrial electricity prices were The two methods were compared in a 1999 paper by El-Nashar
reduced by 39% from 2012 to 2015. [105], where he concluded that the exergy method is preferable.

0.25 Fig. 1. Industrial electricity prices in EUR/kWh in Southern Europe

excluding VAT and other recoverable taxes and levies (Band IC:
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 500 MWh < Consumption < 2000 MWh)
0.20 Source: [92].

0.15

0.10

0.05

0.00

12
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

However, both methods are still used and are widely accepted. Table 3
An interesting option is the use of “waste heat”. This option is often Overview of specific costs for labour used in desalination cost analysis literature.
discussed, especially as reverse osmosis has taken over the bulk of the
Year of publication Specific costs for labour Reference
mainstream desalination market and there is a search for niche markets
where thermal desalination might have a competitive advantage. For 2002 0.1 USD/m3 for the thermal processes and [61]
example Rahimi [58] studied different MED plant configurations, as- 0.05 USD/m3 for RO
2003 0.1 USD/m3 [76]
suming low grade sensible heat sources that are available for free. Also
2012 Ranging from 0.007 €/m3 to 0.030 €/m3 [74]
Ghaffour [2] and Bundschuh [51] discussed various thermal desalina- reflecting the economies of scale
tion options in combination with low-cost energy supply, with parti- 2013 0.03 USD/m3 for MD and MED and 0.02 USD/ [65]
cular emphasis on low-cost, low enthalpy geothermal sources. m3 for RO
2014 0.027 €/m3 [55]
2016 0.08 to 0.1 USD/m3, depending on the RO size [107]
4.3.2. Other operating costs
4.3.2.1. Chemicals and other consumables. The requirements for
chemicals depend on the type of desalination plant and on the feed Table 4
water quality. Many of the reviewed papers take the consumables into Overview of other maintenance costs used in desalination cost analysis literature.
account using reasonable assumptions for the specific costs (USD/m3).
Year of publication Other maintenance costs Reference
A standard reference for the cost of chemicals is the 2002 paper by
Ettouney et al. [61] where they included tables with a breakdown of the 2002 < 2% of capital cost per year for other [61]
chemicals and their specific costs for different technologies and scales; maintenance and spare parts
these values ranged from 0.024 to 0.35 USD/m3. Similar figures, closer 2013 maintenance cost 2% of the normalised capital [65]
cost
to the lower end of this range were used in most of the papers reviewed
2014 maintenance and repair 3 to 3.3% of capital [55]
where the costs of chemicals were explicitly taken into account, as costs for MED and 2.7% for RO
indicated in Table 2. 2015 maintenance, spares and insurance 1.5% of [58]
capital costs
2016 4% of the capital cost to account for all [109]
4.3.2.2. Labour. The labour costs can vary widely depending on the operating costs
country, the exact location, the technology and the specific design and
the scale of the plant. Table 3 takes the specific costs used in some of the
reviewed papers to give a taste of the values used. quoted 0.0015 USD/m3 for brine disposal from MD and MED [65].
However, the reference he used for that figure was [97]. This paper
4.3.2.3. Maintenance. One of the major maintenance costs for RO is the actually used the value of 0.015 USD/m3 for MD, which is one order of
membrane replacement. The membrane cost per m2 is varying over magnitude higher. Regarding RO brine disposal, Kesieme [65] quoted
time and depends also on other factors like region and economies of 0.04 USD/m3. The various options for dealing with the problem and
scale; finding current prices from suppliers should not be a problem. their cost implications were also analysed in 2004 by Mickley [23]. On
The most important for the cost calculation is a reasonable assumption the other hand, there is a growing trend exploring the option of
for the membranes replacement rate, which depends among others on recovering valuable minerals [110–115] or energy [116–119] from
the feed water quality. Ettouney in [61] mentioned that the membrane the brine. This way the brine disposal can pay for itself or even generate
replacement rate varies between 5 and 20%. This is confirmed in the additional income.
literature where most papers used the 20% rate (see Ref. Regarding other externalities, there are some papers that introduce
[62,63,65,67,80,108]) or the 10% value (see Ref. [76,71]). In one the price of carbon in the overall cost calculation, ranging from
case [63] where PV was considered as the source of energy, 40% was 19 USD/t [82] to 23 USD/t [65]. In the paper of Nisan [82], the carbon
used to account for the negative effect that varying pressure might have tax was termed as an environmental externality and was obviously in-
on the membranes. troduced in an effort to highlight the advantage of nuclear against coal
Regarding other maintenance costs, like replacement of parts, for powering desalination. However, other externalities like the nuclear
pumps etc., they are often ignored, or they are accounted for by adding waste disposal were ignored.
annually to the costs a certain percentage of the capital costs, ranging In the paper of Moser in 2013 [84] a different type of externality
between 1.5 and 3%. Some examples are provided in the Table 4. was included for the first time – the variability of PV or wind and the
impact that this has on the power system was taken into account in the
4.3.2.4. Brine disposal and other externalities. As mentioned in Section cost calculations. It is a topic that attracts attention lately, but the way
4.2.2, the brine disposal is increasingly becoming an issue that attracts that this should be taken into account in cost calculations is not obvious
more attention. In addition to the permitting and infrastructure costs and is a matter of debate also in papers that study the electricity market
associated with it, also operating costs have to be allowed for. Most of issues (see Ref. [43,120]).
the reviewed papers did not take that into account. In 2013, Kesieme
4.3.2.5. Others. In most cases the tax and legal costs were not explicitly
Table 2 mentioned. Insurance costs fall also under that category, however some
Overview of Chemical Costs used in desalination cost analysis literature. recent papers have started taking insurance explicitly into account (see
Ref. [69,58]). In some cases this kind of costs might not be explicitly
Year of publication Chemicals costs Reference
mentioned, but was included under overhead/indirect costs (see
2001 3
0.024 USD/m for MED and MSF and [80] [67,85]). However, very few of the reviewed papers did include
0.047 USD/m3 for RO overhead costs in their calculation.
2002 0.024 to 0.35 USD/m3 [61]
2003 0.025 to 0.035 USD/m3 [76]
2005 0.035 USD/m3 [106] 4.4. Water production (Mw,t)
2012 0.024 €/m3 for upwelling water uptakes and [74]
0.042 €/m3 for seawater intakes
The annual water production (Mw,t) is usually calculated simply as
2013 0.019 to 0.05 USD/m3 [65]
2015 0.0421 USD/m3 [58] the product of the plant capacity with the plant availability. The plant
availability is estimated after taking into account the planned

13
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

Table 5 These parameters will be affected by the risk and the general eco-
Overview of availability rates used in desalination cost analysis literature. nomic situation, which defines inflation and alternative opportunities
for the capital. The risk has several elements to it: On the one hand it
Availability Reference
has to do with the technology; in general new technologies (like
0.96 [69] emerging desalination methods) are not proven and are perceived as
0.95 [58,74] riskier. Then there are the general risks that have to do with the project,
0.9 [48,61,63,65,67,68,72,80,122]
like risk associated with the revenues expected from selling the water,
0.85 [85]
0.83 (operating 20 h a day) [64] unforeseen changes in the running costs (for example big changes in the
0.8 [59] cost of energy), changes in the rules associated with product water
0.27, 0.54 and 0.82 considered [54] quality or brine disposal etc. On the other hand there are the risks as-
Sensitivity, starting from 0.5 and increasing up [56] sociated with the location and the country, like currency risk. In the
to 0.85
calculation of desalination costs these items have to be taken into ac-
0.33 (PV powered) [89]
0.25 (PV powered) [49,77] count when defining the discount rate.

4.5.2. Plant lifetime (t)

maintenance and unplanned downtime. There are papers, which ig- All methodologies seen in Section 3 for evaluating the feasibility of
nored availability and just used the plant capacity for the water pro- desalination projects require the definition of the plant lifetime (t), i.e.
duction figure (see Ref. [62]). However, most papers did take into ac- the number of years for which the future cash flows will be taken into
count a reasonable rate between 85 and 95% for availability in account. Normally this is defined by the decision makers, who have to
conventional systems, or around 25% for systems that use PV solar fix the period of time over which they want to calculate the return on
energy and do not have any back-up or energy storage. It has also been their investment, respecting the technical constraints of the plant and
pointed out that availability can be affected by interruption because of its components. The residual value of the plant at the end of this period
failure of auxiliary equipment and therefore proper specifications are has to be taken into account.
important also for such items that have small contribution to the capital If the calculation is not done to determine a “return on investment”
costs but could affect economics by causing reduction of the availability but the purpose is to define an average cost of water, as plant lifetime
[121]. Table 5 provides an overview of some availability rates used in has to be used the period of time that the plant is expected to operate
the literature. without the need for a major refurbishment.
All papers assumed that water is produced at full capacity when the In general it is common to choose a period between 15 and 25 years.
plant is technically available to do so. In most cases this is a reasonable In most cases 20 years are chosen, as shown in Table 6 and the residual
assumption. However, as shown by Kaldellis in 2004 [54], seasonal value or decommissioning costs are never taken into account. It is not
variations in demand have to be taken also into account where relevant. uncommon to use 30 years, especially for more recent plants. If the
For example, in the case of the touristic Greek islands that Kaldellis technology is expected to operate without problems for such a period of
studied, the demand for water can be very different between the time, it is good to take it into account as it will give on average lower
summer and the winter periods and in some cases the desalination water costs, but it is important not to forget the maintenance and
plants might not operate at full capacity in the winter [123]. As Kal- equipment replacement requirements that will arise at certain periods
dellis et al. showed [54], this is an important consideration, as it can of the 30 year lifetime. In particular for thermal plants, Sommariva
increase the water costs by as much as 50% when taken into account. et al. have shown already since 2001 [126] that 30 years can be used
and that this can be extended to 40 or even 50 years if an optimised
4.5. Financial variables and plant lifetime material selection takes place.

4.5.1. Discount rate (i) 4.5.3. Currency

As discussed in Section 4, cost assessment methods require the use The vast majority of papers reported the costs in USD, while there
of a discount rate to account for the value of money over time and the are few papers that used Euro [55,70,74,87], or the local currency in
risk or uncertainty of future cash flows. However, no single paper was the land where the case study refers to, for example Indian Ruppees
found which had a discussion on how the discount rate was selected. In [62] or Egyptian pounds [77]. What is important when making a cal-
fact, the vast majority of the desalination cost papers just picked a culation is to pay attention at the input data: In which currency they are
value, usually between 6.5 and 10%. This is a very narrow range given
that the papers reviewed cover two decades and a very wide range of Table 6
projects with different technologies, locations and scales. Some of the Overview of plant lifetime used in desalination cost analysis literature.
papers [79,81,82,124] included the discount rate as one of the variables
Plant Lifetime (years)
for which a sensitivity analysis was performed. However, there was still
no discussion on the factors that could affect the discount rate. 10 [83,7,53]
In reality, the discount rate can vary widely depending on various 10 for mechanical and 40 for [73]
parameters. For example in the DiaCore project [125] it was shown that buildings/infrastructure
even during one single year (2014) for one mature technology (on- Ranging from 5 to 15 [54]
15 [85,59]
shore wind) and within the same region (Europe) the weighted average 20 years for all equipment but [70]
cost of capital varies significantly between the countries, from 3.5% for 15 years for the boiler
Germany to 12% for Greece, with the other countries being in between 20 [75] [89,62] [64,66]
(7% for the UK, 8% for Italy, 9% for Poland, 10% for Spain etc.) [67,72,68,69,56,71,127]
20 in most cases but more recent ones [48]
For defining the discount rate the following three main issues have
have 30
to be determined on a project-per-project basis: 25 [80,76,63,74,84,78]
25 years for the PV – not clear for [49]
• Loan to equity ratio desalination

• Loan interest rate and duration 30 [61,65,58,77]

• Investor expectations for return on capital. Between 30 and 60 for power plants –
not clear for desalination
[81]

14
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

provided and in which year they were reported originally. If the input more detailed, especially when comparing desalination technology
data are in a different currency than the desired one, a conversion is options between them or trying to decide between desalination and
necessary and it has to be done taking into account the weighted alternative water supply options (For benchmark prices of water
averaged exchange price published by the Central Bank for the year supply see for example [86]). The cost estimation might not be only
from which the original data comes. If these data are older, they have to for one site, but it could include the evaluation of different sites, for
be updated to current prices using the Chemical Engineering Plant Cost the water supply of one specific area. (see Ref. [54,74,86]).
Index. For a good example of currency conversion and update to current 4. Comparing investment options: For someone providing the finan-
prices see the paper of Wittholz et al. from 2008 [48]. cing for a desalination project, an assessment of its economic per-
formance is necessary. This process might involve also the com-
4.5.4. Subsidies parison of different options for selecting the most viable. This is a
Subsidies can make a big difference in the viability of desalination process that will be performed by an investor, the bank or the owner
projects. Still there is very little attention to them in the papers that of the project and is a very site specific and detailed calculation (see
study the desalination costs. At a minimum, it has to be made clear if Ref. [59]). A similar calculation is performed for fixing the base cost
any subsidies are taken into account for the calculations, or if any form for public tenders, where public authorities request offers for pro-
of subsidies can be expected in the future. The subsidies can be in the ducing and selling water at a cost which must be below the tender
form of low cost or free land, low cost energy supply, loans with low (or base cost.
no) interest or a capital subsidy. The only paper that clearly took a
potential subsidy into account during the desalination cost assessment In general, the classification above starts with the type of analysis
is Kaldellis et al. in 2004 [54], who included in the calculation the 40% (comparing configurations) which has the lowest requirements and
capital subsidy, which was available under certain conditions at the moves through more complicated options towards the last one (com-
time for development of desalination plants in Greece. paring investment options), which is the most demanding. For example,
when the purpose of the desalination cost calculation is to compare the
5. Discussion economic performance of two different plant designs (i.e. RO with or
without energy recovery), it is acceptable to simplify the calculation, by
When trying to define best-practices regarding the methodology, leaving out items, such as the cost of land, which might be the same or
assumptions and data sources used for the calculation of desalination very similar between the two options. When the comparison extends
costs, there is a need to consider the following key question: “What is the between different desalination technologies, it is still common to sim-
purpose of the cost calculation?” Depending on how that question is an- plify by leaving out certain elements; however it is important to ensure
swered, there are different approaches that would be recommended in that these elements would have the same impact between the two
terms of the methodology that should be used, the assumptions that are technologies compared. If the two technologies have a very different
acceptable and the adequate procedure for identifying the most suitable footprint, ignoring the cost of land could lead to misleading conclu-
values/sources for the data needed to perform the calculation. sions. As we move to specific sites, details become more important. Also
Some of the common reasons for which calculations of desalination the boundary conditions are of relevance when comparing different
are performed are listed below, discussing briefly for each one the as- types of water supply options. Finally, for investment evaluation, the
pects of the calculation where attention should be focused. calculation has to be as detailed as possible, with the most critical
element being the forecast of future costs and revenues.
1. Comparing configurations: For any desalination technology, there Table 7 below provides a guideline for the elements that should be
are different possible configurations or possible additional equip- taken into account for each of the four identified desalination cost as-
ment that can improve certain performance characteristics of the sessments purposes. These allow developing a common basis for com-
system, as for example energy recovery devices for RO. An economic paring different options, without distortions that could be introduced
analysis can be performed to assess the impact of any proposed by factors which are not necessarily relevant; for example the cost of
design options on the final cost of water (Some papers, just calculate land when trying to compare two technologies.
the break-even cost of additional equipment/design modifications of
established plants. See for example [64]). In this category belongs 6. Conclusions
the assessment of innovative design modifications of desalination
technologies (see Ref. [58,66,69,72,78,128]) or the comparison In the current work, a wide range of scientific literature that has
between different possible energy sources for the same desalination been published over the past 20 years on assessing the costs associated
technology (see Ref. [63,70,82,84,129]). with water desalination was analysed. The main conclusions are sum-
2. Comparing desalination technologies: There are fundamentally dif- marized below:
ferent types of desalination technologies and the preferences change
over time, between the different regions of the world and between ► In order to assess the cost of desalination, a suitable equation has to
the end-user categories. It is common to compare the cost of water be used. In general most papers use suitable equations.
between the various desalination technologies [130], usually fo- ► A clear definition of the boundary conditions is necessary, defining
cusing in a specific part of the world and for a certain project scale, the infrastructure that is assumed as a given (like general infra-
i.e. small, medium or large scale (see Ref. [60,65,76,83]). Under this structure, distribution of the water to the end user etc.) and what is
category comes also the evaluation of emerging technologies. Al- included into the cost of the desalinated water (water intake, post-
ready at the very early stages of technological development, the treatment and storage)
question of the cost comes up and there are studies that try to de- ► Certain elements (like EPC, permitting, land costs, taxes, insurance
termine the cost and compare it to the state-of-the-art (see Ref. etc) are very often ignored when calculating the costs of desalina-
[67,71]). tion. This can be acceptable, depending on the purpose of the cal-
3. Comparing water supply options: When it comes to a specific site culation. However, it is always important to clearly acknowledge
and deciding the technology, the energy supply and the details of and explain the costs that are ignored, so that the final result is
the plant design, comparing the costs of alternative options is an assessed at the correct context.
important factor in the decision making process. This is similar to ► The element that defines to the larger extent the accuracy and re-
category “1. Comparing configurations”. However, for decision levance of the cost assessment is the quality of the data/estimated
making regarding actual plant construction the calculation will be values used for the key variables:

15
 Table 7
M. Papapetrou et al.

Guidelines for elements to be taken into account in the desalination cost calculation depending on the purpose of the analysis.

Comparing configurations Comparing desalination technologies Comparing water supply options Comparing investment options

Methodology SCOW (see Eqs. (3) or (5)) SCOW (see Eqs. (3) or (5)) LCOW (see Eq. (2)) NPV or IRR (see Eq. (1))
Boundary conditions Almost anything can be acceptable, restricted Should include at least all peripheral systems (like Should be wide enough to allow a fair comparison Should be restricted to the level that will be under
down to the core desalination plant if so pre- and post-treatment), unless they are expected to between alternative water supply options, especially the direct responsibility of the plant investor/owner
wished be identical between the compared options in cases where centralised and decentralised options
are compared
Hardware costs Literature data can be used (adapted to current The hardware costs of the technologies to be Normally real costs expected for the specific location Real costs, quoted for the specific project should be
pricesa), but a more accurate estimation for the compared, must be assessed with similar and plants should be used – first screening of options used
hardware costs of the innovative part must be assumptionsb (prices to refer to the same year, can be based on literature data (adapted to current
provided region, scale, currency etc.) prices)
Engineering/civil/ Can be ignored Can be ignored, or can be added as a fixed Should be taken into account – can be as a fixed Detailed estimation of the cost should be taken into
project percentage of the hardware costs (usually between percentage of the hardware costs (usually between account
management 20 and 30%) 20 and 30%)
Permitting/cost of land Can be ignored Can be ignored, unless the technologies compared Should be taken into account – an assessment or Real cost estimations should be used
have significantly different footprint inclusion to the indirect costs could be acceptable
Energy costs Should be taken into account – especially in Should be taken into account with realistic assumptions about future energy costs – a sensitivity analysis Data from the agreement with the energy supplier
case the design modification affects energy could be useful to show impact of energy cost variations in the future should be used where relevant – otherwise detailed
consumption forecast should be procured and sensitivity analysis
performed to assess risk
Chemicals/ Can be ignored or included as a fixed rate of Should be taken into account, based on literature data if detailed assessment is not easy Detailed assessment of the expected costs in these
consumables operational costs unless the design categories should be included
Labour modification affects specifically one of these Cab be ignored, unless the technologies compared Should be taken into account, based on literature

16
elements. are expected to have significantly different labour data if detailed assessment is not easy
requirements
Maintenance Should be taken into account, based on literature data if detailed assessment is not easy
Brine disposal Can be ignored Should be taken into account, if any Should be taken into account, if any
Externalities Can be ignored unless the technologies compared are Should be taken into account Externalities can be ignored in the cost calculation,
expected to have significantly different results but public acceptance must be ensured
Tax/Legal/Insurance Can be ignored Can be ignored Can be ignored or added as a small fixed percentage Should be taken into account
of the operational costs
Availability A standard figure can be used (normally between 85% to 95%). A more careful assessment of the availability should be carried out if there are specific situations The availability has to be calculated based on
like large seasonal variability in demand, or intermittent power supply maintenance requirements and other local
conditions
Discount rate A standard figure can be used (usually around A standard figure can be used (around 0.08). If the A standard figure can be used (usually around 0.08 – The discount rate has to be calculated, based on the
0.08 – depending on the country and the technologies compared are at very different stages of depending on the country and the general economic risk and the financing structures expected for the
general economic situation in the year the development, sensitivity analysis can be used to situation in the year the analysis is carried out). project – alternatively the IRR metric can be used
analysis is carried out) show the impact higher discount rates have on the
new technologies with higher perceived risks
Plant lifetime A standard figure can be used (usually A standard figure can be used (usually 20 years), A standard figure can be used (usually 20 years) It has to be defined, depending on the water sale
20 years) unless differences are expected between the agreements, loan duration and investor
technologies compared expectations. The residual value (if any) has to be
taken into account as well.
Subsidies Subsidies should be taken into account, if any

a
Chemical engineering plant cost index.
b
When a technology at the very early stages of development is compared with a state-of-the-art one, it makes sense to use for the emerging technology assumed costs for when the technology is at least on a pilot scale, if not market ready –
however, if such an assumption is made it has to be very clear.
Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

• Regarding the hardware costs, when using assumptions based on plants using water price index, Water Resour. Manag. 29 (2015) 3343–3356,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269-015-1002-2.
other projects, it is crucial to account for the year of construction, [8] P. Glueckstern, History of desalination cost estimations, in: R. Semiat,
the scale of the plant, the location and the appropriate currency M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
conversion where relevant. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.

• Regarding the operating costs, it is important to try and foresee

[9] M. Wilf, Fundamentals and cost of RO-NF technology, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman,
K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East
the variations expected during the lifetime of the system. A sen- Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
sitivity analysis can be very helpful to assess the impact on the [10] H. Strathmann, Assessment of electrodialysis water desalination process costs, in:
R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing
water cost in case where operating expenses develop in a different - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
way than expected. [11] P. Wolf, The new generation for a reliable RO pre-treatment and impact on life-
• On the financial parameters, the discount rate has to reflect the cycle cost, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence
Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca,
risk associated with the technology and with the wider economic
2004.
and political situation at the project's location. [12] A.A. Jassim, S. Ismail, Fundamentals and costing of MSF, in: R. Semiat,
M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
Overall, it was concluded that the methodology, data and assump- Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[13] A. Ophir, F. Lokiec, Review of MED fundamentals and costing, in: R. Semiat,
tions that are suitable on each occasion depend on the purpose of the M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
cost calculation. A table was developed to give guidance to this respect. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
Irrespective of the calculation purpose though, when using a cost cal- [14] H.T. El-Dessouky, Review of VC fundamentals and costing, in: R. Semiat,
M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
culation for making decisions and drawing general conclusions, it is Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
important to take into account the assumptions that were made during [15] E. Koutsakos, Cost aspects of desalination plant operation, in: R. Semiat,
the calculation and understand the impact it would have on the result if M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
the real conditions were different from the assumed ones. [16] K. Al-Jamal, M. Shoblak, Costing a major desalination plant for the Mediterranean
region, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence
Nomenclature Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca,
2004.
[17] G. Leitner, Desalination cost models, the need & the development, in: R. Semiat,
C costs per year M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
CE,t Energy related cost for year t Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[18] J. Diaz Caneja, R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Estimation of
Eel,t the amount of electrical energy used by the plant in year t
Desalination Cost for Spain, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca,
Eth,t the amount of thermal energy used by the plant in year t 2004.
i discount rate [19] I. Moch, D. Steward, WTCost - A computerized water treatment cost estimating
I0 initial capital investment program, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence
Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca,
Mw amount of water produced per year 2004.
Pel,t the cost of the unit of electrical energy in year t [20] B. Misra, IAEA's desalination economic evaluation program, in: R. Semiat,
Pth,t the cost of the unit of thermal energy in year t M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
r annual escalation rate for running costs [21] S. Adham, R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson, Development of a Model
R revenues per year for Brackish and Reclaimed Water Membrane Desalination Costs, Middle East
α amortisation factor Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[22] L. Loizides, The cost of environmental and social sustainability of desalination, in:
R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing
Subscripts - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[23] M. Mickley, Estimating the cost of concentrate management, in: R. Semiat,
M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
t value in year t Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[24] L. Awerbuch, Hybridization & dual purpose plant cost considerations, in:
Acknowledgements R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing
- Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[25] T. Pankratz, Cost of seawater desalination intake and outfall systems, in:
This work has been performed within the RED-Heat-to-Power pro- R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing
ject (Conversion of Low Grade Heat to Power through closed loop - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
Reverse Electro-Dialysis) - Horizon 2020 programme, Grant Agreement [26] C. Sommariva, Approaches to desalination project budgeting, in: R. Semiat,
M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
nr. 640667. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[27] F.H. Kiang, W. Yong, Supply of desalinated water by the private sector: 30 MGD
References Singapore seawater desalination plant, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price,
D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East
Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[1] UNEP, Vital Water Graphics: An Overview of the State of the World's Fresh and [28] G. Kronenberg, Ashkelon 100 MC/year BOT project, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman,
Marine Waters, (2008) (doi: 92-807-2236-0). K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East
[2] N. Ghaffour, J. Bundschuh, H. Mahmoudi, M.F.A. Goosen, Renewable energy- Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
driven desalination technologies: a comprehensive review on challenges and po- [29] G. Velter, Ashkelon desalination plant operations, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman,
tential applications of integrated systems, Desalination 356 (2015) 94–114, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.10.024. Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
[3] John Lienhard; Thiel, Gregory; Warsinger, David; Banchik, Leonardo, Low Carbon [30] Y. Dreizin, Ashkelon seawater desalination project: Off-takers self-costs, supplied
Desalination: Status and Research, Development, and Demonstration Needs, water costs, total costs and benefits, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, n.d. https://jwafs.mit.edu/node/66. D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East
[4] R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson, International conference on desali- Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
nation costing - program and papers, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, [31] N. Tsiourtis, Desalination water costing-financing institutions view, in: R. Semiat,
2004. M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr.
[5] J.E. Blank, G.F. Tusel, S. Nisanc, The real cost of desalted water and how to reduce Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
it further, Desalination 205 (2007) 298–311, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal. [32] J. Medina, S.J. Cedex, 20 years evolution of desalination costs in Spain, in:
2006.05.015. R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing
[6] N. Ghaffour, T.M. Missimer, G.L. Amy, Technical review and evaluation of the - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004.
economics of water desalination: current and future challenges for better water [33] J. Del Castillo, Actual costs for 2 desalination plants on the Spanish Mediterranean
supply sustainability, Desalination 309 (2013) 197–207, http://dx.doi.org/10. coast, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson (Eds.), Int. Confrence
1016/j.desal.2012.10.015. Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination Research Centre, Larnaca,
[7] S. Kumar, A. Groth, L. Vlacic, Cost evaluation of water and wastewater treatment 2004.

17
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

[34] G. Bravo Mancheno, Trends of desalination bids for RO plants in the North African economics of desalination, Chem. Eng. Prog. 98 (2002) 32–39.
countries: the case of Algeria, in: R. Semiat, M. Chapman, K. Price, D. Hasson [62] T. Abraham, A. Luthra, Socio-economic & technical assessment of photovoltaic
(Eds.), Int. Confrence Desalin. Costing - Progr. Pap, Middle East Desalination powered membrane desalination processes for India, Desalination 268 (2011)
Research Centre, Larnaca, 2004. 238–248, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.10.035.
[35] I.C. Karagiannis, P.G. Soldatos, Water desalination cost literature: review and [63] A.M. Bilton, R. Wiesman, A.F.M. Arif, S.M. Zubair, S. Dubowsky, On the feasibility
assessment, Desalination 223 (2008) 448–456, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal. of community-scale photovoltaic-powered reverse osmosis desalination systems
2007.02.071. for remote locations, Renew. Energy 36 (2011) 3246–3256, http://dx.doi.org/10.
[36] M. Shatat, S.B. Riffat, Water desalination technologies utilizing conventional and 1016/j.renene.2011.03.040.
renewable energy sources, Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 9 (2014) 1–19, http://dx. [64] A. Hossam-Eldin, A.M. El-Nashar, A. Ismaiel, Investigation into economical de-
doi.org/10.1093/ijlct/cts025. salination using optimized hybrid renewable energy system, Int. J. Electr. Power
[37] A. Al-Karaghouli, L.L. Kazmerski, Energy consumption and water production cost Energy Syst. 43 (2012) 1393–1400, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijepes.2012.05.
of conventional and renewable-energy-powered desalination processes, Renew. 019.
Sust. Energ. Rev. 24 (2013) 343–356, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.12. [65] U.K. Kesieme, N. Milne, H. Aral, C.Y. Cheng, M. Duke, Economic analysis of de-
064. salination technologies in the context of carbon pricing, and opportunities for
[38] J.R. Ziolkowska, Is desalination affordable?—regional cost and price analysis, membrane distillation, Desalination 323 (2013) 66–74, http://dx.doi.org/10.
Water Resour. Manag. 29 (2015) 1385–1397, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11269- 1016/j.desal.2013.03.033.
014-0901-y. [66] M.M. Alhazmy, Economic and thermal feasibility of multi stage flash desalination
[39] S. Kehal, Reverse osmosis unit of 0.85 m3/h capacity driven by photovoltaic plant with brine-feed mixing and cooling, Energy 76 (2014) 1029–1035, http://
generator in South Algeria, Proc. New Technol. Use Renew. Energy Sources Water dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2014.09.022.
Desalin. Conf. Sess. II, Athens, Greece, 1991, pp. 8–16. [67] Y. Choi, H. Cho, Y. Shin, Y. Jang, S. Lee, Economic evaluation of a hybrid desa-
[40] A. Maurel, Desalination by RO using RE (solar & wind): Cadarache Center lination system combining forward and reverse osmosis, Membranes (Basel,
Experience, Proc. New Technol. Use Resour. Water Desalination, Greece, 1991. Switz.) 6 (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/membranes6010003.
[41] A. Al-Karaghouli, D. Renne, L.L. Kazmerski, Solar and wind opportunities for [68] H. Mokhtari, H. Ahmadisedigh, I. Ebrahimi, Comparative 4E analysis for solar
water desalination in the Arab regions, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 13 (2009) desalinated water production by utilizing organic fluid and water, Desalination
2397–2407, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2008.05.007. 377 (2016) 108–122, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.09.014.
[42] The Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, Better Growth, Better [69] P. Palenzuela, D.C. Alarcón-Padilla, G. Zaragoza, Large-scale solar desalination by
Climate: the New Climate Economy Report, (2014) (doi:978 0 9906845 0 3). combination with CSP: techno-economic analysis of different options for the
[43] F. Ueckerdt, L. Hirth, G. Luderer, O. Edenhofer, System LCOE: what are the costs of Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Gulf, Desalination 366 (2015) 130–138,
variable renewables? Energy 63 (2013) 61–75, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.12.037.
energy.2013.10.072. [70] G. Zaragoza, P. Horta, P. Palenzuela, D.C. Alarcón-Padilla, Solar desalination:
[44] E. Fuentealba, P. Ferrada, F. Araya, A. Marzo, C. Parrado, C. Portillo, Photovoltaic constraints and opportunities of different technologies based on energy efficiency
performance and LCoE comparison at the coastal zone of the Atacama Desert, and cost, IDA World Congr. Desalin. Water Reuse, San Diego, 2015.
Chile, Energy Convers. Manag. 95 (2015) 181–186, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. [71] R. Valladares Linares, Z. Li, V. Yangali-Quintanilla, N. Ghaffour, G. Amy,
enconman.2015.02.036. T. Leiknes, et al., Life cycle cost of a hybrid forward osmosis - low pressure reverse
[45] M. Taylor, K. Daniel, A. Ilas, E. Young So, Renewable Power Generation Costs in osmosis system for seawater desalination and wastewater recovery, Water Res. 88
2014. https://www.irena.org/DocumentDownloads/Publications/IRENA_RE_ (2016) 225–234, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.10.017.
Power_Costs_2014_report.pdf, (2015). [72] A.N. Mabrouk, H.E.S. Fath, Technoeconomic study of a novel integrated thermal
[46] Levelised Cost of Electricity - LCOE, Essen, Germany, 2015. https://www.vgb.org/ MSF–MED desalination technology, Desalination 371 (2015) 115–125, http://dx.
en/lcoe2015.html?dfid=74042, (2015). doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.05.025.
[47] S. Loutatidou, B. Chalermthai, P.R. Marpu, H.A. Arafat, Capital cost estimation of [73] A. Hafez, S. El-manharawyb, Economics of seawater RO desalination in the Red
RO plants: GCC countries versus southern Europe, Desalination 347 (2014) Sea region, Egypt. Part1.pdf, Desalination 153 (2002) 335–347.
103–111, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.05.033. [74] E. Lapuente, Full cost in desalination. A case study of the Segura River Basin,
[48] M.K. Wittholz, B.K. O'Neill, C.B. Colby, D. Lewis, Estimating the cost of desali- Desalination 300 (2012) 40–45, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.06.002.
nation plants using a cost database, Desalination 229 (2008) 10–20, http://dx.doi. [75] T. Szacsvay, P. Hofer-Noser, M. Posnansky, Technical and economic aspects of
org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.07.023. small scale solar pond seawater desalination systems, Desalination 122 (1999)
[49] A. Lamei, P. van der Zaag, E. von Münch, Impact of solar energy cost on water 185–193.
production cost of seawater desalination plants in Egypt, Energ Policy 36 (2008) [76] G. Fiorenza, V.K. Sharma, G. Braccio, Techno-economic evaluation of a solar
1748–1756, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2007.12.026. powered water desalination plant, Energy Convers. Manag. 44 (2003) 2217–2240,
[50] J.H. Reif, W. Alhalabi, Solar-thermal powered desalination: its significant chal- http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0196-8904(02)00247-9.
lenges and potential, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 48 (2015) 152–165, http://dx.doi. [77] D.E.A. Zaid, Economic analysis of a stand-alone reverse osmosis desalination unit
org/10.1016/j.rser.2015.03.065. powered by photovoltaic for possible application in the northwest coast of Egypt,
[51] J. Bundschuh, N. Ghaffour, H. Mahmoudi, M. Goosen, S. Mushtaq, J. Hoinkis, Desalin. Water Treat. 54 (2015) 3211–3217, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
Low-cost low-enthalpy geothermal heat for freshwater production: innovative 19443994.2014.911704.
applications using thermal desalination processes, Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 43 [78] M. Al-Hamahmy, H.E.S. Fath, K. Khanafer, Techno-economical simulation and
(2015) 196–206, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.10.102. study of a novel MSF desalination process, Desalination 386 (2016) 1–12, http://
[52] H. Levy, M. Sarnat, Capital Investment & Financial Decisions, 5th ed., Prentice dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.02.018.
Hall, 1994. [79] L. Tian, Y. Wang, J. Guo, Economic analysis of a 2 × 200 MW nuclear heating
[53] S.P. Agashichev, Analysis of integrated co-generative schemes including MSF, RO reactor for seawater desalination by multi-effect distillation (MED), Desalination
and power generating systems (present value of expenses and “levelised” cost of 152 (2003) 223–228, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(02)01067-6.
water), Desalination 164 (2004) 281–302, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011- [80] N. Wade, Distillation plant development and cost update, Desalination 136 (2001)
9164(04)00196-1. 3–12, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011-9164(01)00159-X.
[54] J.K. Kaldellis, K.A. Kavadias, E. Kondili, Renewable energy desalination plants for [81] L. Tian, J. Guo, Y. Tang, L. Cao, A historical opportunity: economic competitive-
the Greek islands - technical and economic considerations, Desalination 170 ness of seawater desalination project between nuclear and fossil fuel while the
(2004) 187–203, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.01.005. world oil price over $50 per boe - part A: MSF, Desalination 183 (2005) 317–325,
[55] M. Moser, F. Trieb, T. Fichter, J. Kern, D. Hess, A flexible techno-economic model http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.05.008.
for the assessment of desalination plants driven by renewable energies, Desalin. [82] S. Nisan, N. Benzarti, A comprehensive economic evaluation of integrated desa-
Water Treat. 3994 (2014) 1–15, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014. lination systems using fossil fuelled and nuclear energies and including their en-
946718. vironmental costs, Desalination 229 (2008) 125–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
[56] M.P. Shahabi, A. McHugh, M. Anda, G. Ho, Comparative economic and environ- j.desal.2007.07.031.
mental assessments of centralised and decentralised seawater desalination options, [83] A. Eslamimanesh, M.S. Hatamipour, Economical study of a small-scale direct
Desalination 376 (2015) 25–34, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.08.012. contact humidification-dehumidification desalination plant, Desalination 250
[57] S. Loutatidou, H.A. Arafat, Techno-economic analysis of MED and RO desalination (2010) 203–207, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.11.015.
powered by low-enthalpy geothermal energy, Desalination 365 (2015) 277–292, [84] M. Moser, F. Trieb, T. Fichter, J. Kern, Renewable desalination: a methodology for
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.03.010. cost comparison, Desalin. Water Treat. 51 (2013) 1171–1189, http://dx.doi.org/
[58] B. Rahimi, J. May, A. Christ, K. Regenauer-Lieb, H.T. Chua, Thermo-economic 10.1080/19443994.2012.715446.
analysis of two novel low grade sensible heat driven desalination processes, [85] A. Malek, M.N.A. Hawlader, J.C. Ho, Design and economics of RO seawater de-
Desalination 365 (2015) 316–328, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.03. salination, Desalination 105 (1996) 245–261, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0011-
008. 9164(96)00081-1.
[59] A. Suarez, P. Fernandez, J. Ramon Iglesias, E. Iglesias, F.A. Riera, Cost assessment [86] V.G. Gude, Desalination and sustainability - an appraisal and current perspective,
of membrane processes: a practical example in the dairy wastewater reclamation Water Res. 89 (2016) 87–106, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.012.
by reverse osmosis, J. Membr. Sci. 493 (2015) 389–402, http://dx.doi.org/10. [87] G. Kosmadakis, D. Manolakos, S. Kyritsis, G. Papadakis, Economic assessment of a
1016/j.memsci.2015.04.065. two-stage solar organic Rankine cycle for reverse osmosis desalination, Renew.
[60] A.M. El-Nashar, Economics of small solar-assisted multiple-effect stack distillation Energy 34 (2009) 1579–1586.
plants, Desalination 130 (2000) 201–215, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011- [88] E. Ntavou, G. Kosmadakis, D. Manolakos, G. Papadakis, D. Papantonis,
9164(00)00087-4. Experimental evaluation of a multi-skid reverse osmosis unit operating at fluctu-
[61] H.M. Ettouney, H.T. El-Dessouky, R.S. Faibish, P.J. Gowin, Evaluating the ating power input, Desalination 398 (2016) 77–86, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

18
M. Papapetrou et al. Desalination 419 (2017) 8–19

desal.2016.07.014. Reactive crystallisation process for magnesium recovery from concentrated brines,
[89] S. Kalogirou, Effect of fuel cost on the price of desalination water: a case for re- Desalin. Water Treat. (2014) 37–41, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.
newables, Desalination 138 (2001) 137–144, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0011- 947771.
9164(01)00255-7. [111] A. Cipollina, A. Misseri, G.D.A. Staiti, A. Galia, O. Scialdone, Integrated production
[90] J. Abrell, The Swiss Wholesale Electricity Market, Zurich https://www.ethz.ch/ of fresh water, sea salt and magnesium from sea water, Desalin. Water Treat. 49
content/dam/ethz/special-interest/mtec/cer-eth/economics-energy-economics- (2012) 390–403, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2012.699340.
dam/documents/people/jabrell/Abrell_Swiss_Wholesale_Electricity_Market.pdf, [112] G. Al Bazedi, R.S. Ettouney, S.R. Tewfik, M.H. Sorour, M.A. El-rifai, G. Al, et al.,
(2016). Salt recovery from brine generated by large-scale seawater desalination plants,
[91] J.N. Tsitsiklis, Y. Xu, Pricing of fluctuations in electricity markets, Eur. J. Oper. Desalin. Water Treat. 3994 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2013.
Res. 0 (2015) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.020. 810381.
[92] Eurostat, Energy Statistics, (n.d.). http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/energy/ [113] M.H. Sorour, H.A. Hani, H.F. Shaalan, Separation of calcium and magnesium using
data/database (accessed May 18, 2016). dual precipitation/chelation scheme from saline solutions, Desalin. Water Treat.
[93] A. Ophir, F. Lokiec, Advanced MED process for most economical sea water desa- 1114170 (2015) 1–6, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2015.1114170.
lination, Desalination 182 (2005) 187–198, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal. [114] M.H. Sorour, H.A. Hani, H.F. Shaalan, G.A. Al-bazedi, Schemes for salt recovery
2005.02.026. from seawater and RO brines using chemical precipitation, Desalin. Water Treat.
[94] G.W. Meindersma, C.M. Guijt, A.B. de Haan, Desalination and water recycling by 946720 (2014) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.946720.
air gap membrane distillation, Desalination 187 (2006) 291–301, http://dx.doi. [115] A. Cipollina, C. Sommariva, G. Micale, Efficiency increase in thermal desalination
org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.088. plants by matching thermal and solar distillation: theoretical analysis,
[95] Y. Zhou, R.S.J. Tol, Evaluating the costs of desalination and water transport, Water Desalination 183 (2005) 127–136, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2005.04.
Resour. Res. 41 (2005) 1–10, http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003749. 024.
[96] K.V. Reddy, N. Ghaffour, Overview of the cost of desalinated water and costing [116] M. Tedesco, A. Cipollina, A. Tamburini, G. Micale, J. Helsen, M. Papapetrou,
methodologies, Desalination 205 (2007) 340–353, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. REAPower: use of desalination brine for power production through reverse elec-
desal.2006.03.558. trodialysis, Desalin. Water Treat. 53 (2014) 3161–3169 http://www.tandfonline.
[97] S. Al-obaidani, E. Curcio, F. Macedonio, G. Di, H. Al-hinai, E. Drioli, Potential of com/doi/abs/10.1080/19443994.2014.934102#.VdDFnrM2tZ4.
membrane distillation in seawater desalination: Thermal efficiency, sensitivity [117] M. Tedesco, P. Mazzola, A. Tamburini, G. Micale, I.D.L. Bogle, M. Papapetrou,
study and cost estimation, J. Membr. Sci. 323 (2008) 85–98, http://dx.doi.org/10. et al., Analysis and simulation of scale-up potentials in reverse electrodialysis,
1016/j.memsci.2008.06.006. Desalin. Water Treat. (2014) 1–13, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.
[98] F. Manenti, M. Masi, G. Santucci, G. Manenti, Parametric simulation and economic 947781.
assessment of a heat integrated geothermal desalination plant, Desalination 317 [118] M. Papapetrou, Reverse Electrodialysis power production - progress in the de-
(2013) 193–205, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.02.027. velopment of an innovative system, 4th Int. Conf. Ocean Energy, 2012, pp. 1–4.
[99] F. Banat, N. Jwaied, Economic evaluation of desalination by small-scale autono- [119] M. Papapetrou, K. Kumpavat, Environmental aspects and economics of salinity
mous solar-powered membrane distillation units, Desalination 220 (2008) gradient power (SGP) processes, in: A. Cipollina, G. Micale (Eds.), Sustain. Energy
566–573, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2007.01.057. from Salin. Gradients, Elsevier, 2016, pp. 315–335 http://www.sciencedirect.
[100] G. Zuo, R. Wang, R. Field, A.G. Fane, Energy efficiency evaluation and economic com/science/book/9780081003121.
analyses of direct contact membrane distillation system using Aspen Plus, [120] J. Batalla-bejerano, E. Trujillo-baute, Impacts of intermittent renewable genera-
Desalination 283 (2011) 237–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.04. tion on electricity system costs, Energ Policy 94 (2016) 411–420, http://dx.doi.
048. org/10.1016/j.enpol.2015.10.024.
[101] S. Bouguecha, B. Hamrouni, M. Dhahbia, Operating analysis of a direct energy [121] C. Sommariva, H. Hogg, K. Callister, Maximum economic design life for desali-
coupled desalination family prototype, Desalination 168 (2004) 95–100, http:// nation plant: the role of auxiliary equipment materials selection and specification
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2004.06.173. in plant reliability, Desalination 153 (2002) 199–205.
[102] R.B. Saffarini, E.K. Summers, H.A. Arafat, J.H. Lienhard V, Economic evaluation of [122] Z. Al Suleimani, V.R. Nair, Desalination by solar-powered reverse osmosis in a
stand-alone solar powered membrane distillation systems, Desalination 299 remote area of the Sultanate of Oman, Appl. Energy 65 (2000) 367–380, http://dx.
(2012) 55–62, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.05.017. doi.org/10.1016/S0306-2619(99)00100-2.
[103] B. Ortega-delgado, L. García-rodríguez, D. Alarcón-padilla, Thermoeconomic [123] E. Tzen, D. Theofilloyianakos, M. Sigalas, K. Karamanis, P. Kalozoumis, Design and
comparison of integrating seawater desalination processes in a concentrating solar development of a hybrid autonomous system for seawater desalination, PV Eur. -
power plant of 5 MW e, Desalination 392 (2016) 102–117, http://dx.doi.org/10. From PV Technol. to Energy Solut, 166 2002, pp. 1154–1156.
1016/j.desal.2016.03.016. [124] K.C. Kavvadias, I. Khamis, The IAEA DEEP desalination economic model: a critical
[104] C. Sommariva, Desalination and Advance Water Treatment Economics and review, Desalination 257 (2010) 150–157, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.
Financing, Balaban Desalination Publications, 2010, https://www.desline.com/ 2010.02.032.
Sommariva_book_flyer.pdf. [125] DiaCore, Assessing Renewables Policy in the EU (DiaCore project), (2016).
[105] A.M. El-nashar, Cost allocation in a cogeneration plant for the production of power [126] C. Sommariva, H. Hogg, K. Cauister, Forty-year design life: the next target material
and desalted water comparison of the exergy cost accounting method with the selection and operating conditions in thermal desalination plants, Desalination
WEA method, Desalination 122 (1999) 15–34. 136 (2001) 169–176.
[106] U. Atikol, H.S. Aybar, Estimation of water production cost in the feasibility ana- [127] A.S. Nafey, M.A. Sharaf, Combined solar organic Rankine cycle with reverse os-
lysis of RO systems, Desalination 184 (2005) 253–258, http://dx.doi.org/10. mosis desalination process: energy, exergy, and cost evaluations, Renew. Energy
1016/j.desal.2005.02.065. 35 (2010) 2571–2580, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2010.03.034.
[107] V. Fthenakis, A.A. Atia, O. Morin, R. Bkayrat, P. Sinha, New prospects for PV [128] C. Sommariva, H. Hogg, K. Callister, Cost reduction and design lifetime increase in
powered water desalination plants: case studies in Saudi Arabia, Prog. Photovolt. thermal desalination plants: thermodynamic and corrosion resistance combined
Res. Appl. 24 (2015) 543–550. analysis for heat exchange tubes material selection, Desalination 158 (2003)
[108] M. Khayet, Solar desalination by membrane distillation: dispersion in energy 17–21.
consumption analysis and water production costs (a review), Desalination 308 [129] A. Al-Karaghouli, D. Renne, L.L. Kazmerski, Technical and economic assessment of
(2013) 89–101, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2012.07.010. photovoltaic-driven desalination systems, Renew. Energy 35 (2010) 323–328,
[109] U. Caldera, D. Bogdanov, C. Breyer, Local cost of seawater RO desalination based http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.05.018.
on solar PV and wind energy: a global estimate, Desalination 385 (2016) 207–216, [130] T. Mezher, H. Fath, Z. Abbas, A. Khaled, Techno-economic assessment and en-
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.02.004. vironmental impacts of desalination technologies, Desalination 266 (2011)
[110] A. Cipollina, M. Bevacqua, P. Dolcimascolo, A. Tamburini, A. Brucato, H. Glade, 263–273, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2010.08.035.

19