Scribd
Upload
3 views11 pages

Energy Consumption Comparison (KWH/M ) : Conventional Ro Thermal Distillation Aqualoop

The document compares three water treatment technologies: Conventional RO, Thermal Distillation, and AquaLoop, focusing on energy consumption, cost per cubic meter, and greenhouse gas emissions. AquaLoop demonstrates the lowest energy consumption (1.2 kWh/m³) and cost ($0.6/m³), while Conventional RO has higher emissions (2.5 kg CO₂e/m³). Performance metrics indicate AquaLoop excels in energy efficiency and sustainability compared to the other technologies.

Uploaded by

Saad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3 views11 pages

Energy Consumption Comparison (KWH/M ) : Conventional Ro Thermal Distillation Aqualoop

The document compares three water treatment technologies: Conventional RO, Thermal Distillation, and AquaLoop, focusing on energy consumption, cost per cubic meter, and greenhouse gas emissions. AquaLoop demonstrates the lowest energy consumption (1.2 kWh/m³) and cost ($0.6/m³), while Conventional RO has higher emissions (2.5 kg CO₂e/m³). Performance metrics indicate AquaLoop excels in energy efficiency and sustainability compared to the other technologies.

Uploaded by

Saad
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as XLSX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 11

Energy Consumption Comparison (kWh/m³)

Technology

Conventional RO

Thermal Distillation

AquaLoop
Energy Energy Consumption Comparison (kWh/m
Consumption
(kWh/m³) 7

Energy Consumption
6
3.5
5

(kWh/m³)
4
6
3
2
1.2
1
0
Conventional RO Thermal Distillation Aqu

Technology
omparison (kWh/m³)

mal Distillation AquaLoop

hnology
Cost per Cubic Meter ($/m³)

Technology Cost ($/m³)


Conventional RO 1.2

Thermal Distillation 2

AquaLoop 0.6
Cost per Cubic Meter ($/m³)
2.5
2
2
Cost ($/m³)

1.5
1.2
1
0.6
0.5

0
Conventional RO Thermal Distillation AquaLoop

Technology
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg CO₂e/m³)

Technology

Conventional RO

Thermal Distillation

AquaLoop
Greenhouse Gas Emissions (kg
GHG Emissions CO₂e/m³)
(kg CO₂e/m³)

2.5
Conventional R
0.8; 10% Thermal Distill
5 2.5; 30% AquaLoop

0.8
5; 60%
missions (kg
)

Conventional RO
Thermal Distillation
AquaLoop
Performance Radar (Score 1–10)

Performance Metric

Energy Efficiency

Cost Reduction

Scalability

Water Quality

Sustainability
Conventional Tech AquaLoop Chart Title

5 9 16

12
9 8
6 9 9

score
8

4 7
7 8 5 6
0
Energy Ef- Cost Reduction Scalability
8 9 ficiency

Performance Me
5 10

Column D Column

P erformance Radar (Score 1–


10)
Column D Column E
Energy Efficiency
9
10
5
Sustainability
10 5 Cost Reduction
5 6 9
0

78
98
Water Quality Scalability
Chart Title

9
9 8
10

7 8
6 5

Cost Reduction Scalability Water Quality Sustainability

Performance Metric

Column D Column E

You might also like