Abstract

In recent years, desalination has been turned into a fresh water supply as a solution in some areas which suffer from water shortage. Desalinated water as an industrial product causes environmental problems. The objectives of this study are investigating environmental sustainability indicators related to seawater desalination via reverse osmosis (SWRO) on the coastline of Hormozgan province to provide a better insight for current and future water and energy demands related to this alternative. The selected indicators are specific energy consumption, seawater withdrawal, and brine volume in desalination, fuel consumption, carbon emission and water withdrawal in electric power generation. Using a solution-diffusion model, the direct indicator of energy consumption was obtained as used to calculate indirect indicators from the energy generation sector. Analysis of results indicates that desalination can lead to out-of-area side effects resulting from fuel type consumed and the practical power of the power plant, in addition to the regional environmental effects that are mostly affected by total dissolved solids of feed water. Based on the results, the environmental issues should be considered for the regions where desalination was planned as the most feasible alternative for water supply. This result can help policymakers to manage water supply and demand for sustainable development appropriately.

HIGHLIGHTS

  • For assessment environmental sustainability production in water harvesting (SWRO desalination), the direct and indirect indicators were calculated.

  • The direct indicator was used to calculate some indirect indicators so that minimum input of index was used.

  • For calculating index, the theoretical and experimental models were used.

  • Calculation of how much fresh water indirectly consume as cooling water, for, desalinating 1 unit freshwater via SWRO desalination.

  • The research was aimed at creating a comprehensive insight into SWRO on its long-term environmental effects. This result can help policy makers to manage water supply and demand for sustainable development appropriately.

INTRODUCTION

Population growth and enhancement of living standards coupled with inefficient consumption and contamination of water resource have led to the consideration of desalination technology as an alternative to obtain freshwater in some countries. According to IDA (2014), there are approximately 23,000 desalination plants in more than 150 countries producing ∼85,000 m3/day of water and 60% of these are located in the Middle East. The installed desalination plants are increasing in number, such that 564 new desalination plants were constructed from 2013 to 2014.

While other distillation technologies were dominant in 1997, currently, desalination with reverse osmosis (RO) has an approximately 65% growth in installed plants due to higher efficiency. Based on the Sixth Development Plan approved in February 2017 in Iran, the government is tasked to supply at least 30% of the drinking water for southern provinces via seawater desalination (Parliament of Iran 2016).

Environmental effects due to energy consumption and brine discharge are among the challenges in this industry. In fact, feed water is often a habitat and part of the ecosystem. Desalination by feed water withdrawal and discharge of saline water including a large amount of chemicals can disturb the ecosystem. Lior (2017) states that the associated saline feed water flow rate is 63% higher than that of the Nile River, and 83% higher than that of the Yellow River. Also, the rate of CO2 emission from desalination was almost 0.8% of the world's total emissions in 2011. Emission of SO2 and NOx are also high. One of the key concerns of desalination projects is its potential effects on climate change. These values become much more significant where the regional amount of desalination becomes larger per unit area.

The Persian Gulf is a marginal and semi-enclosed area with special environmental conditions due to its geographical location, shallow depth, and high evaporation rate. Water desalination in regional countries of the Persian Gulf is an energy-intensive activity consuming non-renewable fossil fuels (Darwish et al. 2009). Due to the increased water consumption, governments' policy and wealth, cheap fuel and fragile environment and poor consumption laws, desalination can exert long-term adverse effects on the environment in the Persian Gulf and regional countries. Serious cooperation among these countries is required for this problem to be solved (Lior & Kim 2018).

The environmental sustainability indicator is among the indicators presented by Krajnc & Glavic (2003). These indicators are categorized into seven groups according to whether entering or exiting the system. Energy use, materials' use, water use were introduced as input indices and product, solid and liquid waste, and air emission indicators as outputs.

In the case of desalination, most studies have evaluated sustainability indicators in energy generation (Torcellini et al. 2003; Rutberg 2012; Diehl & Harris 2014; Ansorge & Zeman 2016) and water supply (Ludwig 2010; Nazari et al. 2012; Mazlan et al. 2016; Voutchkov 2018). In recent years, many research activities have been performed, especially on environmental sustainability of the desalination industry, such as those reported by Lior (2017), Liu et al. (2013), Manju & Sagar (2017), Miller et al. (2015), Shahabi et al. (2014), Shemer & Semiat (2017), and Xevgenos et al. (2016). Darwish et al. (2009), as the first researchers, applied the environmental indicators of specific fuel-energy consumption for evaluating seawater desalination, using measured data. Then, Lior & Kim (2018) used emission and brine discharge as environmental indicators for quantitative sustainability analysis of RO desalination that were expressed by weights based on relative importance.

In this research, environmental sustainability indicators for RO, as the dominant desalination technology in the Persian Gulf, based on their priority and significance in the environment and also used in previous studies, were selected. The novelty of this study is utilization of the direct sustainability indicator (specific energy consumption) in the desalination sector to determine other indirect sustainability indicators in this technology related to energy generation sector (specific fuel consumption, specific water withdrawal, and specific carbon emission). The assumption was that the desalination plants were powered by thermal power plants with natural gas and fuel oil consumed by wet cooling tower systems. For calculating water desalination and energy generation sector indicators, theoretical and experimental models were used, respectively. The research was aimed at creating a comprehensive insight into seawater desalination via reverse osmosis (SWRO) on its long-term environmental effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The location of the investigated desalination plants on the Persian Gulf is given in Figure 1.

Figure 1

The investigated RO seawater desalination plants in Hormozgan province.

Figure 1

The investigated RO seawater desalination plants in Hormozgan province.

The procedure is summarized in the following five steps:

  1. The environmental sustainability indicators of RO desalination were considered as introduced by Krajnc & Glavic (2003) for assessment of sustainability production. The output indicators were selected based on their significance on the environment and previous studies (Lior & Kim 2018). Carbon is emitted during energy generation in power plants. Fuel consumption and water withdrawal of power plants are indirect indicators attributed to carbon emission. In addition, specific seawater withdrawal was selected due to the physical and geographical conditions of the Persian Gulf (Table 1).

  2. In the SWRO desalination sector, indicators were calculated for producing 1 m3 of desalinated water, using the physiochemical data of the Persian Gulf water. IMSDesign software was used for RO processing considering optimal energy consumption.

  3. In electricity generation, indicators were calculated using the data from ten thermal power plants supplying 21% of the entire national grid of Iran. The S-GEM model considered the minimum consumed or withdrawn fuels and fresh water.

  4. Based on the obtained specific energy consumption in step 2, the calculated indicators in step 3 were accounted.

  5. The calculated indicators were evaluated according to daily drinking demands of the population of Hormozgan province.

Table 1

The environmental sustainability indicators under study

Production unitInput indicatorsOutput indicators
Desalination plant Specific energy consumption Specific brine volume 
 Specific seawater withdrawal  
Power plant Specific fuel consumption Specific carbon emission 
 Specific water withdrawal  
Production unitInput indicatorsOutput indicators
Desalination plant Specific energy consumption Specific brine volume 
 Specific seawater withdrawal  
Power plant Specific fuel consumption Specific carbon emission 
 Specific water withdrawal  

Environmental indicators for RO processing

Specific energy consumption

Specific energy consumption is the energy consumed per unit volume of freshwater produced. RO desalination consists of: (1) feed water intake, (2) pre-treatment, (3) high-pressure pumps (with or without ERD equipment), (4) membranes and modules, and (5) product transferring. As a result, the required energy for the total process can be expressed as follows:
formula
(1)
where, ET is the total energy consumption; Ein the energy requirement to obtain feed water from the source; Ept the required energy for pre- and post-treatment (microfiltration and pumping) stages; Ehp the required energy for high-pressure pumps; Ea the required energy for other auxiliary equipment (chemical, filter washing and water pumping) and EERD the recovered energy by ERD (Gude 2011). In reverse osmosis, salt transmembrane permeation is a function of salt concentration:
formula
(2)
where, NS is salt permeation across the membrane; B a constant for salt permeation describing physical characteristics of the membrane; Cfeed, salt concentration in feed water; and Cpermeate, salt concentration in the permeate (Sagle & Freeman 2004). The IMSDesign software (Hydranautics Company) was utilized to design RO based on the solution-diffusion model.

The physio-chemical data of the Persian Gulf seawater were supplied by Hormozgan Province Water and Wastewater Company. The input information was determined according to AWWA guidelines (AWWA 1999) (Table 2).

Table 2

The input parameters in the IMSDesign software for planning the SWRO system

ParameterValue or type
pH 8.18 
Permeate recovery 50% 
Temperature 20–34 °C 
Average flux 13.5 L/m2
Membrane age 1 day 
Element type/vessel Spiral wound configuration: 8.6 
ERD Pressure Work Exchanger, TURBO 
Total plant product flow 10,000–100,000 m3/day 
Chemical According to model default 
ParameterValue or type
pH 8.18 
Permeate recovery 50% 
Temperature 20–34 °C 
Average flux 13.5 L/m2
Membrane age 1 day 
Element type/vessel Spiral wound configuration: 8.6 
ERD Pressure Work Exchanger, TURBO 
Total plant product flow 10,000–100,000 m3/day 
Chemical According to model default 

The model was run using constants at various ranges of temperature and capacity, which are expected to have a significant effect on energy consumption (Demichele 2014). Three scenarios were performed to examine the capacity variations and effect of ERD on energy consumption; Test (0) without using ERD, Test (1) using Pressure Work Exchanger, and Test (2) using TURBO.

Specific seawater withdrawal

Specific seawater withdrawal is the volume of withdrawal feed water used for producing a unit volume of desalinated water. According to the AWWA manual for designing RO systems, a 50% permeate recovery was considered for feed water with total dissolved solids (TDS) = 39,142 mg/L. Therefore, specific water withdrawal is twice the permeate volume, theoretically.

Specific brine volume

Based on the level of recovery (50%), the theoretical specific brine volume is equal to 1 m3/m3.

ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS IN ENERGY PRODUCTION

Specific water withdrawal

Specific water withdrawal is the amount of water used per unit electrical energy produced. Water is used as cooling in the wet tower of the thermal power plants in the recirculating loop. Hot water from the condenser and any other heating load flow into the top of the tower. Evaporation from the cooling tower is the principal mechanism through which water is consumed (Rutberg 2012). A system-level generic model (S-GEM) of water consumption was introduced by Rutberg (2012), for estimating water withdrawal in the cooling system in wet tower-cooled power plants:
formula
(3)
where, Iww is water withdrawal intensity; ηnet net efficiency of power plant; kos dimensionless coefficient representing the fraction of heat loss to sinks other than the cooling system; ncc number of concentration cycles: describing the concentration of impurities in the circulating water relative to that of the makeup water. The purer the input stream, the more cycles of concentration can be tolerated before mineral impurities reach the unacceptable level. Typical values for ncc in the US fall between 2 and 10. Iproc is the non-cooling process intensity coefficient for boiler feed water makeup and miscellaneous uses. In this case, 10 L/MWh was considered based on the type of consumed fuel. ρw is water intensity (0.998 kg/L); ksene fraction of heat load rejected through sensible heat transfer, which is determined by the following equation:
formula
(4)
where, x is the mean annual normal air temperature and y is ksens.

In this study, the required data were provided by Tavanir organization (see Supplementary Material). Ten power plants with wet cooling tower systems were selected (Table 3). Then, ksens was estimated using mean annual air temperature for all power plants using synoptic stations' data prepared from IRIMO website (see Supplementary Material), and applying the inverse distance method for those that are not within the station range.

Table 3

The studied thermal power plants

Power plantNumber of unitsPractical power (MW)
Ramin (Ahvaz) 1,823 
Shahid Mofateh Hamedan 1,000 
Esfahan (Eslam Abad) 830 
Bokhari Tabriz 650 
Montazerolghaem 548 
Zarghan (Shahid Modhej) 255 
Shahid Beheshti (Loshan) 240 
Besat 216 
Mashhad 133 
Shahid Firoozi (Tarasht) 40 
Power plantNumber of unitsPractical power (MW)
Ramin (Ahvaz) 1,823 
Shahid Mofateh Hamedan 1,000 
Esfahan (Eslam Abad) 830 
Bokhari Tabriz 650 
Montazerolghaem 548 
Zarghan (Shahid Modhej) 255 
Shahid Beheshti (Loshan) 240 
Besat 216 
Mashhad 133 
Shahid Firoozi (Tarasht) 40 
In order to determine and apply the most appropriate ncc in Equation (3), the following procedure was taken. According to the allowable TDS for cooling water (1,850 ppm) (Guideline WG-2 2009), the acceptable TDS was calculated for each ncc (1,850/ncc, Figure 2). Specific water withdrawal (Iww), for ncc= 2–10, was calculated for each power plant. Then, the amount of water saving variation vs the increasing ncc was computed using Equation (5) (Figure 2):
formula
(5)
where, the difference between specific water withdrawal of ncc=i and ncc=i+ 1, = the difference between specific water withdrawal of ncc= 2 and ncc= 10.
Figure 2

Withdrawal water rate and the maximum allowable TDS due to ncc variations.

Figure 2

Withdrawal water rate and the maximum allowable TDS due to ncc variations.

The variations of water saving for ncc> 6 is <0.01, so the specific water withdrawal was calculated for each power plant considering ncc= 6.

Specific fossil fuel consumption

The thermal power plants under study use different fossil fuels for producing thermal energy at different proportions. These fuels are natural gas, fuel oil, and gasoil with the following proportions: natural gas, 64 to 100%; fuel oil 0 to 34%; and gasoil on average 1% supplied thermal energy. Two scenarios were supposed: (1) only natural gas supplied the total energy, (2) only fuel oil supplied the total energy. The specific volume of fuels for producing unit thermal energy were calculated using the volume of annual consumed fuels, the annual production, density, and higher heating value of all the fuels (Table 4). Then, the consumed volume of each fuel for producing unit electrical energy using the heating rate of the fuel was calculated.

Table 4

The characteristics of studied fossil fuels

FuelHHV (MJ/kg)aDensity (kg/m3)aEmission factor (tC/TJ)bFraction of carbon oxidizedb
Fuel oil 43.3 968 20–21 0.99 
Natural gas 43.9 0.777 17.2–19 0.995 
FuelHHV (MJ/kg)aDensity (kg/m3)aEmission factor (tC/TJ)bFraction of carbon oxidizedb
Fuel oil 43.3 968 20–21 0.99 
Natural gas 43.9 0.777 17.2–19 0.995 

Specific carbon emission

Specific carbon emission was estimated using Equation (6) and Table 4 (Van Harmelen & Koch 2002):
formula
(6)
where, Cr is the quantity of carbon released and attributed to fuel combustion; Q, the quantity of fuel delivered to or consumed by the activity sector expressed in natural units; NCV, the net calorific value of fuel = higher and lower heating value (TJ/natural unit): EF the emission factor (the specific carbon content, tC/TJ); Sf, carbon storage factor (the fraction of carbon delivered, which remains unoxidized after fuel consumption); and F the oxidation factor, the fraction of carbon which is oxidized during combustion. Specific carbon emission was calculated using Equation (6) supposing Sf = 0 for natural gas and fuel oil.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This case study was conducted to evaluate the main environmental sustainability indicators of SWRO desalination. Indicators were selected based on their significance to the environment including direct indicators: (1) indicators in the desalination process (specific energy consumption, specific seawater withdrawal, and specific brine volume) and (2) indirect indicators in energy production (specific water withdrawal, specific fuel consumption, and specific carbon emission).

In order to calculate direct indicators, IMSDesign software was utilized to design RO based on the solution-diffusion model. The model was run using constants at various ranges of temperature (Figure 3(a)) and capacity variations with or without ERDs (Figure 3(b)).

Figure 3

(a) The effect of temperature and (b) the effect of capacity on specific energy consumption.

Figure 3

(a) The effect of temperature and (b) the effect of capacity on specific energy consumption.

The results indicated that the minimum specific energy consumed at 34 °C (of feed water) according to Gude (2011) and the change in capacity does not have a noticeable effect on energy consumption. In addition, the use of the Pressure Work Exchanger as the ERD consumes less specific energy.

Considering the above, the minimum specific energy consumption was determined to be 2.26 kWh/m3 (Table 5). Specific energy consumption is reported between 2.2 and 5.6 kWh in other studies (Ludwig 2010; Gude 2011, 2016; Mazlan et al. 2016; Lior & Kim 2018; Voutchkov 2018). If pH and dissolved cations-anions in water samples are considered constant for the coastline of Hormozgan province, this result can be generalized to other SWRO desalination units in this region.

Table 5

The calculated direct and indirect indicators for the production 1 m3 of desalinated water

Desalination plants
Power plant units
Energy consumptionBrine volumeSeawater withdrawalWater withdrawalCarbon emission
Fuel consumption
Fuel oilNatural gasFuel oilNatural gas
For producing 1 MWh electrical energy in power plant – – – 1.898 (m3/MWh) 257.885 (kg/MWh) 183.945 (kg/MWh) 0.265 (m3/MWh) 268.94 (m3/MWh) 
Producing 1 m3 desalinated water 2.26 × 10−3 (MW/m31 (m3/m32 (m3/m30.00423 (m3/m30.583 (kg/m30.416 (kg/m30.000599 (m3/m30.607 (m3/m3
Supplying 30% drinking water for Hormozgan province 413.56 (MW/day) 155,475.453 (m3/day) 310,950.906 (m3/day) 666.909 (m3/day) 90,614.219 (kg/day) 64,633.586 (kg/day) 93.114 (m3/day) 94,498.664 (m3/day) 
Desalination plants
Power plant units
Energy consumptionBrine volumeSeawater withdrawalWater withdrawalCarbon emission
Fuel consumption
Fuel oilNatural gasFuel oilNatural gas
For producing 1 MWh electrical energy in power plant – – – 1.898 (m3/MWh) 257.885 (kg/MWh) 183.945 (kg/MWh) 0.265 (m3/MWh) 268.94 (m3/MWh) 
Producing 1 m3 desalinated water 2.26 × 10−3 (MW/m31 (m3/m32 (m3/m30.00423 (m3/m30.583 (kg/m30.416 (kg/m30.000599 (m3/m30.607 (m3/m3
Supplying 30% drinking water for Hormozgan province 413.56 (MW/day) 155,475.453 (m3/day) 310,950.906 (m3/day) 666.909 (m3/day) 90,614.219 (kg/day) 64,633.586 (kg/day) 93.114 (m3/day) 94,498.664 (m3/day) 

Theoretically, specific seawater withdrawal and specific brine volume would be 2 and 1 m3, respectively, according to 50% recovery in designing the SWRO system. However, these values are higher in practice as Pars Geometry Consulting Engineers Company (see Supplementary Material) reported 3.3 m3 of water withdrawal for producing 1 m3 desalination water in Bandar Abbas desalination plant.

Specific water withdrawal (Iww), for ncc= 2–10, was calculated for each power plant. Then, the amount of water saving variation vs increasing ncc was computed. The variations of water saving for ncc> 6 was <0.01, so the specific water withdrawal was calculated for each power plant unit considering ncc= 6. Another two indirect indicators, specific fuel consumption and specific carbon emission, were calculated for each of the 34 power plant units.

The relevant graphs were drawn between each calculated indirect indicator and practical power in power plant units (Figure 4). It was found that the minimum fuel was consumed, water was withdrawn, and carbon was emitted in 250 MW practical power. Therefore, the practical power = 250, was selected as the base power.

Figure 4

The effect of practical power on: (a) specific water withdrawal, (b) specific natural gas consumption, (c) specific fuel oil consumption, and (d) specific carbon emission indicator.

Figure 4

The effect of practical power on: (a) specific water withdrawal, (b) specific natural gas consumption, (c) specific fuel oil consumption, and (d) specific carbon emission indicator.

Based on the obtained regression equation, each indirect indicator for 250 MW was calculated. The results are presented in Table 5.

Regarding specific energy consumption for desalination (2.26 kWh), each indirect indicator for producing 1 m3 desalinated water was calculated and presented (Table 5).

Based on the calculated specific fuel consumption and carbon emission, 607 m3 of natural gas or 0.6 L of fuel oil is required to supply electrical energy to produce 1 m3 of SWRO desalinated water. Despite the fact that the natural gas was almost 1,000 times larger than that of the fuel oil, natural gas specific carbon emission is 0.7% of that for fuel oil.

Several studies calculated or reported carbon emission for electricity production between 100 to 275.2 kg C/MWh for natural gas combustion and 58.89 to 333.3 kg C/MWh for combustion of oil, including McIntyre et al. (2011), Mousavi et al. (2017), and Shrestha et al. (2011). In the literature, the estimated carbon emission associated with RO desalination varies in the 0.110 to 1.861 kg C/m3 range (Cornejo et al. 2014), which can be multiplied by a factor of 3.6 to obtain the amount of CO2 emission (Van Harmelen & Koch 2002).

The results show that to produce 1 m3 of desalinated water, 4.23 L of fresh water is needed indirectly. This water is used for cooling systems in power plant units and 2 m3 of seawater that is a part of the marine ecosystem. The population of Hormozgan province is 2,307,442 (in 2019) and daily drinking water consumption for Iranians is estimated as 0.225 m3 (Center for Statistics of Iran, see Supplementary Material). The indicators were estimated for 30% of the volume of the population drinking water of Hormozgan province (based on the Sixth Five-Year Development Plan of Iran). The results are presented in Table 5. These results are for daily drinking water consumption. Long-term consumption and population growth can lead to serious effects on the environment, both in terms of consumption and pollution. Uddin (2014) revealed that the increased salinity in the Persian Gulf was attributed to desalination. Lior (2017) reported that the rate of CO2 emissions of desalination was almost 0.8% of the world's total in 2011.

CONCLUSIONS

Desalination not only affects the environment regionally but also has out-of-area effects such as carbon emissions that can result in global warming. The minimum fuel is consumed, the minimum water is withdrawn, and minimum carbon emitted in power plant units that operate on a 250 MW practical power. By changing the type of fossil fuel for energy generation (natural gas instead of fuel oil), carbon emission can be reduced to 16%. Considering the positive rate of population growth in Hormozgan province, attention to environmental issues associated with desalination industry is necessary. Cooperation between the desalination industry and water research centers can help predict the long-term effects of this industry and its decline. Seawater desalination industries depend on the availability of sea or brackish water that may be a part of the ecosystem, thus, this system cannot be considered as a new water resource.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the Iran National Science Foundation of Vice-Presidency for Science and Technology (No. 96013368).

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

REFERENCES

Ansorge
L.
Zeman
M.
2016
Model of water needs for energy production
.
STATISTIKA
96
,
35
46
.
AWWA
1999
Manual Reverse Osmosis and Nanofiltration
.
American Water Works Association
,
Denver, CO, USA
.
Cooling Tower Guideline WG-2
.
2009
Queensland Water Commission
,
Queensland
,
Australia
.
Cornejo
P. K.
Santana
M. V. E.
Hokanson
D. R.
Mihelcic
J. R.
Zhang
Q.
2014
Carbon footprint of water reuse and desalination: a review of greenhouse gas emissions and estimation tools
.
Water Reuse and Desalination
4
(
4
),
238
252
.
Darwish
M. A.
Al-Najem
N. M.
Lior
N.
2009
Towards sustainable seawater desalting in the gulf area
.
Desalination
235
(
1–3
),
58
87
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2008.07.005
.
DeMichele
D.
2014
Manual of Practice for the Use of Computer Models for the Design of Reverse Osmosis/Nanofiltration Membrane Processes
.
Texas Water Development Board Report
,
Austin, TX
,
USA
.
Diehl
T. H.
Harris
M. A.
2014
Withdrawal and Consumption of Water by Thermoelectric Power Plants in the United States, 2010
.
U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2014–5184
, p.
28
,
Gude
V. G.
2011
Energy consumption and recovery in reverse osmosis
.
Desalination and Water Treatment
36
(
1–3
),
239
260
.
Gude
V. G.
2016
Desalination and sustainability–an appraisal and current perspective
.
Water Research
89
,
87
106
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2015.11.012
.
IGS-M-CH-033(1)
2014
Specification for Iranian Natural Gas Quality
.
National Iranian Gas Company
,
Tehran
,
Iran
.
Krajnc
D.
Glavic
P.
2003
Indicators of sustainable production
.
Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy
5
,
279
288
.
DOI 10.1007/s10098-003-0221-z
.
Lior
N.
2017
Sustainability as the quantitative norm for water desalination impacts
.
Desalination
401
,
99
111
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.08.008
.
Lior
N.
Kim
D.
2018
Quantitative sustainability analysis of water desalination–A didactic example for reverse osmosis
.
Desalination
431
,
157
170
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.12.061
.
Liu
T. K.
Sheu
H. Y.
Tseng
C. N.
2013
Environmental impact assessment of seawater desalination plant under the framework of integrated coastal management
.
Desalination
326
,
10
18
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2013.07.003
.
Ludwig
H.
2010
Energy consumption of reverse osmosis seawater desalination-possibilities for its optimisation in design and operation of SWRO plants
.
Desalination and Water Treatment
13
(
1–3
),
13
25
.
https://doi.org/10.5004/dwt.2010.982
.
Mazlan
N. M.
Peshev
D.
Livingston
A. G.
2016
Energy consumption for desalination- A comparison of forward osmosis with reverse osmosis, and the potential for perfect membranes
.
Desalination
377
,
138
151
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2015.08.011
.
McIntyre
J.
Berg
B.
Seto
H.
Borchardt
S.
2011
Comparison of Lifecycle Greenhouse gas Emissions of Various Electricity Generation Sources
.
World Nuclear Association Report
,
London, UK
.
Mekonnen
M. M.
Gerbens-Leenes
P. W.
Hoekstra
A. Y.
2015
The consumptive water footprint of electricity and heat: a global assessment
.
Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology
1
(
3
),
285
297
.
Miller
S.
Shemer
H.
Semiat
R.
2015
Energy and environmental issues in desalination
.
Desalination
366
,
2
8
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2014.11.034
.
Mousavi
B.
Lopez
N. S. A.
Biona
J. B. M.
Chiu
A. S.
Blesl
M.
2017
Driving forces of Iran's CO2 emissions from energy consumption: an LMDI decomposition approach
.
Applied Energy
206
,
804
814
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.08.199
.
Nazari
R.
Eslamian
S.
Khanbilvardi
R.
2012
Water reuse and sustainability, Chapter 11
. In:
Ecological Water Quality-Water Treatment and Reuse
(
Voudouris
K.
Vousta
D.
, eds).
InTech
,
London
, pp.
241
254
.
Parliament of Iran
2016
The Sixth Five-Year Development Program of the Islamic Republic of Iran
.
Tehran, Iran
.
Rutberg
M. J.
2012
Modeling Water use at Thermoelectric Power Plants
.
MSc thesis
,
Mechanical Engineering, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
,
Cambridge, MA, USA
.
Sagle
A.
Freeman
B.
2004
Fundamentals of membranes for water treatment
.
The Future of Desalination in Texas
2
(
363
),
137
.
Shemer
H.
Semiat
R.
2017
Sustainable RO desalination – energy demand and environmental impact
.
Desalination
424
,
10
16
.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2013.11.050
.
Shrestha
E.
Ahmad
S.
Johnson
W.
Shrestha
P.
Batista
J. R.
2011
Carbon footprint of water conveyance versus desalination as alternatives to expand water supply
.
Desalination
280
(
1–3
),
33
43
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2011.06.062
The IDA Desalination Yearbook
.
2014–2015
International Desalination Association
,
Topsfield, MA, USA
.
Torcellini
P.
Long
N.
Judkoff
R.
2003
Consumptive Water use for US Power Production (No. NREL/TP-550-33905)
.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden
,
CO, USA
.
Uddin
S.
2014
Environmental impacts of desalination activities in the Arabian Gulf
.
Environmental Science and Development
5
(
2
),
114
117
.
Van Harmelen
A. K.
Koch
W. R. R.
2002
CO2 Emission Factors for Fuels in the Netherlands
.
TNO-report, R 2002/174
,
The Netherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research
,
Apeldoorn, The Netherlands
.
Voutchkov
N.
2018
Energy use for membrane seawater desalination–current status and trends
.
Desalination
431
,
2
14
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2017.10.033
.
Xevgenos
D.
Moustakas
K.
Malamis
D.
Loizidou
M.
2016
An overview on desalination & sustainability: renewable energy-driven desalination and brine management
.
Desalination and Water Treatment
57
(
5
),
2304
2314
.
https://doi.org/10.1080/19443994.2014.984927
.

Supplementary data