Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
104
May 2004
The public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of the collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to an penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
2. REPORT TYPE
May 2004
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Final
DWPR
11. SPONSOR/MONITORS REPORT NUMBER(S) DWPR No. 104
Available from the National Technical Information Service, Operations Division, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
An energy efficient, cost competitive, modular, small-scale photovoltaic reverse osmosis (PVRO) desalination system has been developed and field tested. This PVRO system will fit the needs of off-power-grid communities that face drinking water shortages due to saline water problems. The system is powered directly by a photovoltaic (PV) array, without an inverter or battery. A variable-flow pump was utilized to compensate for the variable power output due to daily and seasonal solar intensity fluctuations. To ensure efficient system operation, a linear current booster or maximum power point tracker was used to match power available with load requirements. A solid state circuit was designed to detect a suitable power level set by the user and to activate a membrane rinsing cycle prior to shutdown. The PVRO system was field tested for 3 months in Mesquite, Nevada. The PVRO system performed well overall, consistently desalinating water at Mesquite, which has a salinity of 3,500 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids (TDS), to water of 100 ppm TDS. During the field test, energy use per volume of water produced was 1.38 kilowatt-hours per cubic meter, which is low for a small system.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
desalination, reverse osmosis, photovoltaic, solar desalination, linear current booster, maximum power point tracker, scaling prevention
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF:
a. REPORT b. ABSTRACT c. THIS PAGE
19a. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON Lee Petersen 19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER (Include area code) (303) 285-1824 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program Report No. 104 May 2004
U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Denver Office Technical Service Center Environmental Services Division Water Treatment Engineering and Research Group
Mission Statements U.S. Department of the Interior The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nations natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to tribes.
Bureau of Reclamation The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
Disclaimer
Information contained in this report regarding commercial products or firms was supplied by those firms. It may not be used for advertising or promotional purposes and is not to be construed as an endorsement of any product or firm by the Bureau of Reclamation.
The information contained in this report was developed for the Bureau of Reclamation; no warranty as to the accuracy, usefulness, or completeness is expressed or implied.
Acknowledgments
Funding for this project was provided by the Desalination and Water Purification Research and Development Program of the Bureau of Reclamation and ITN Energy Systems, Inc. Help from the Water Treatment Engineering and Research Group at Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) was greatly appreciated. In particular, the author acknowledges the following individuals for help in field site, discussion, and contribution to the project: Tom Jennings, Harry Remmers, Frank Leitz, Saied Delagah, John Walp, and Michelle Chapman (Reclamation) Michael Johnson and Pete Peterson (Virgin Valley Water District, Nevada) Patrick Swanson, Lloyd Cooper, Jade Bechir, G. Scott Kato, D. Garth Jensen, and Lee Petersen (ITN Energy Systems, Inc.)
iii
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Executive Summary .............................................................................................................. 1 2. Background and Introduction to Potential Solutions ............................................................ 2 2.1 Current Technologies...................................................................................................... 2 2.2 Proposed Solutions.......................................................................................................... 4 3. System Description ............................................................................................................... 4 3.1 Overall System Description ............................................................................................ 4 3.2 PV Cooling and Feedwater Preheating ........................................................................... 8 4. Testing and Research Findings ........................................................................................... 10 4.1 Testing........................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Detailed Descriptions of Research Findings................................................................. 14 4.3 Economic Cost Analysis ............................................................................................... 22 5. Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................... 23 5.1 Recommendations and Future Directions..................................................................... 24 6. References........................................................................................................................... 25 Appendix: Mesquite Field Test Data ..................................................................................... 27
Tables
1. Summary of renewable energy powered desalination systems.................................................. 3 2. Water analysis results of raw well water and RO feed at test site in Mesquite, Nevada........... 9 3. Cost comparison between storing water and storing electricity in batteries............................ 16 4. Comparison of energy expenditure for water production at different water recoveries. ......... 21 5. Water production cost of the PVRO system. ............................................................................ 23
Figures
1. Schematic of first generation PVRO system built and tested in this research project................ 5 2. Data showing variable flow and pressure of the pump as a function of power generated from the PV panels.. ........................................................................................................................ 6 3. PVRO research unit being tested at ITN campus from May to August 2003.......................... 11 4. Water production at ITN campus............................................................................................. 12 5. Set up of PVRO system in Mesquite, Nevada. ........................................................................ 12 6. Electron dispersive spectroscopy of calcium sulfate scale in the RO membrane, showing dominance of calcium and sulfur lines. Oxygen and carbon were not determined quantitatively in this EDS scan. ............................................................................................ 14 7. Daily permeate production at Mesquite, Nevada...................................................................... 15 8. Relation between water recovery and power on a 5-minute interval....................................... 17 9. Relation between temperature and water recovery in the early part of Mesquite field test...... 17 10. Water recovery and power produced during the period August 29, 2003 to September 4, 2003. ............................................................................................................... 18
vi
Figures (continued)
11. Energy per volume permeate versus water recovery. Data obtained in Mesquite, Nevada, between August and November 2003..................................................................... 19 12. Average power and permeate production during the period September 12 to October 1, 2003 when water recovery was limited to only 27 percent................................. 20 13. Hourly variation of permeate and power production on a typical day at Mesquite, Nevada (September 18, 2003)............................................................................................... 20 14. Conductivity of permeate produced........................................................................................ 22
vii
1. Executive Summary
ITN has developed an energy efficient, cost competitive, modular, small-scale, photovoltaic reverse osmosis (PVRO) desalination system. This PVRO system will fit the needs of off-power grid communities that face drinking water shortages due to saline water problems. ITNs approach was to design a system powered directly by a photovoltaic (PV) array, without an inverter or battery. A variable-flow pump was utilized to compensate for the variable power output from PV due to daily and seasonal solar intensity fluctuations. To ensure efficient system operation, a linear current booster or maximum power point tracker was used to match the power available with load requirements. A solid-state circuit was designed to detect a suitable power level set by the user and to activate a membrane rinsing cycle prior to shutdown. The PVRO desalination system, designed and built by ITN, was field tested for 3 months in Mesquite, Nevada, in collaboration with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the Virgin Valley Water District. The PVRO system performed well, despite a calcium sulfate scaling problem that occurred in early September. The PVRO system consistently desalinated water at Mesquite (which has a salinity of 3,500 parts per million (ppm) total dissolved solids [TDS]) to 100 ppm TDS. The PVRO system produced water at 1.38 kilowatt hours per cubic meter (kWh/m3), which is low for a small system. It was concluded from the field test that a method of automatically controlling water recoveries will be crucial to prevent membrane fouling when treating water with high scaling potential. The operating cost of the system can be reduced by using a passive tracking solar array and converting to a solid-state control system. Using nanofiltration or low energy reverse osmosis (RO), membranes could reduce energy use further. Designing solar-powered pretreatment modules will be essential for the application of this system in various environments.
the desert area of Australia. The system is designed for 15 to 20 percent water recovery. Part of the reasoning for the low water recovery is to reduce problems with scaling. One of the problems SES encountered were biological fouling of prefilters during field testing in Western Australia and Indonesia [5]. They also reported problems with plunger pump (manufactured inhouse by SES) failure. They have since changed the design, so perhaps these failures are no longer a problem. Their brochure, available on the Web [6], estimated a cost of $0.01 per liter, which translates to approximately $30 to $40 per 1,000 gallons.
Total RO installed power (kilowatts) 1.9-kW PV, 600-kW wind turbine, 3.5-kW diesel generator
Advantages Two different technologies for backup ensure continuous operation. Simple system.
Disadvantages High cost. Wind turbine takes more maintenance than PV.
5,800
10.08
Intermittent operation.
High energy requirement with large PV panels translates to high cost. Intermittent operation only. Energy use gets very high as TDS increases; hence, not suitable for saline water with TDS > 2,000 ppm or seawater.
900
0.095
720
Simple system. Low energy use for TDS < 2,000 ppm. Robust with different types of water. Simple system.
1,500 5,000
0.1
106
30 to 40
High energy use. Low water recovery. Piston and valve assembly have to be adjusted individually for different quality feedwater.
Recently, the government-sponsored research institute Critical Research on Economic and Social Transformation (CREST), in the United Kingdom and Dulas Ltd., had performed extensive modeling and simulation, selected components, and designed a 800-gallon-per-day seawater reverse osmosis unit powered by photovoltaic panels. They published their modeling result in 2002 [7][8] and were trying to obtain funding to build a research/pilot unit. From their modeling, they estimated water production costs of $12 per 1,000 gallons.
Figure 1. Schematics of first generation PVRO system built and tested in this research project.
250
2.5
150
1.5
100
feed pressure
1.0
50
feed flow
0.5
0.0 400
Figure 3. Data showing variable flow and pressure of the pump as a function of power generated from the PV panels. This set of data was collected between September 12 and October 1 in Mesquite, Nevada. Strictly, the data are not pump curves as feed pressure and flow rates will change if water recoveries were adjusted to higher (or lower) values.
with appropriate disconnect, breakers, and grounding for safety. The other schematic connects the PV panel to a 12-volt, 104 ampere-hour battery via charge controller. This separate power supply is for all the electronics, gauges, meters, motorized valve (only needed temporarily when equipment goes into night time mode), and an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection unit because the electronics function best with a stable power source. The battery in the final production unit is likely to be much smaller because many of the gauges and sensors are for data collection, which will not be necessary in the final production unit.
3.1.2 Membranes
Fouling of RO membranes is a challenging issue for a reverse osmosis system that may be used to treat a variety of water sources including surface water. There are a number of lowfouling membranes available from different manufacturers. However, Osmonics is the only manufacturer that makes a low-fouling membrane element in the 2.5-inch-diameter size under the brand name Duraslick. The principle behind the low-fouling design is an ultra-smooth membrane surface that reduces colloidal and microbial attachment. The pressure required to desalinate water using Duraslick is higher than for other thin film polyamide membranes, but not excessively so, and it is certainly lower than for cellulose acetate RO membranes. Consequently, Duraslick membranes were selected for the PVRO system, with four 2.5-inch Duraslick membrane elements in series to achieve an overall water recovery of approximately 50 percent.
Table 2. Water analysis results of raw well water and RO feed at test site in Mesquite, Nevada. RO feedwater is raw well water that has been pretreated by Reclamation. The raw well water analysis was conducted in June 2002, while the RO feed analysis was conducted in September 2003 Analyte name Raw well water (mg/L) RO feed (mg/L) pH 7.46 7.20 Aluminum ND ND Arsenic 0.00535 Barium 0.029 0.0328 Beryllium ND ND Boron 1.6 1.65 Cadmium ND ND Calcium 490 514 Chromium ND ND Copper ND ND Iron 3.8 ND Magnesium 180 186 Manganese 0.94 ND Nickel ND ND Potassium 40 37.8 Silver ND ND Sodium 460 322 Zinc ND ND Chloride 610 580 Fluoride 0.78 0.63 Nitrate, as N ND ND Phosphorous, total 0.035 Silica 22 Sulfate 1,600 1,600 200 360 Alkalinity, bicarbonate (as CaCO3) 400 ND Alkalinity, carbonate (as CaCO3) Alkalinity, hydroxide (as 0 ND CaCO3) Alkalinity, total (as CaCO3) 400 360 Specific conductance 4,600 S/cm 4,800 S/cm Total dissolved solids 3,910 3,480 ND not detected at the reporting limit for: aluminum: 0.025 mg/L; chromium, copper, and silver: 0.005 mg/L; zinc: 0.05 mg/L; beryllium and cadmium: 0.0025 mg/L; nickel: 0.02 mg/L; nitrate as N: 5.0 mg/L
7/23/2003
7/28/2003
8/2/2003
8/7/2003
8/12/2003
8/17/2003
8/22/2003
Date
The PVRO system (figure 4) was running at 40 to 50 percent water recovery, producing approximately 400 gallons per day (gpd) of permeate. There was no scaling or biofouling problem for the system during the 4-month test at ITN. Frequent summer thunderstorms in the afternoon in Denver reduced the daily production. The maximum power produced at Denver (49.5 volts [V], 8.83 amperes [A], 440 watts [W]) was close to the pump specifications (48.0 V, 10.0 A, 480 W).
10
Figure 4. PVRO research unit being tested at ITN campus from May to August 2003.
11
Pretreatment of the raw well water was performed by equipment designed by WaTER. An ozone generator and contactor were used to reduce microbial population and to provide an oxidant that oxidizes iron and manganese in the system. The oxidized iron and manganese then form iron oxyhydroxide and manganese oxide precipitates that can be collected in a flocculation tank or filtered with multi-media and green sand filtration. Hypersperse, an antiscalant from GE Betz, was added in a pretreatment step prior to nanofiltration or reverse osmosis to protect against scale formation and colloidal fouling. Water quality after pretreatment is shown in table 2 (RO feed). Calculations indicate that at a dosage of 3 milligrams (mg/L), water recovery of approximately 60 percent can be achieved with the use of Hypersperse antiscalant. In 12
practice, using the Reclamation trailer to desalinate water from the site, WaTER concluded that to successfully prevent scale formation, 50-percent water recovery on the RO feedwater was the limit. Experience by WaTER also showed that if water recovery was set at 60 percent, scaling would occur. Because the location of the PVRO system was slightly higher than the Reclamation trailer, an alternating current (AC) powered lift pump had to be installed to pump water from the Reclamation trailer to our feedwater tank (an elevation of approximately 7 feet and a distance of approximately 100 feet).
13
Figure 6. Electron dispersive spectroscopy spectrum of calcium sulfate scale in the RO membrane, showing dominance of calcium and sulfur lines. Oxygen and carbon were not determined quantitatively in this EDS scan.
14
o Battery has a round-trip efficiency of 80 to 85 percent, (i.e., approximately 15 to 20 percent of electrical power is lost when it is being stored in batteries and when it is being discharged from batteries). o Additional power stored in batteries is often measured in number of days of storage. The more days of storage, the higher the cost. Hybrid systems. These could involve a standby generator powered by propane or diesel. Another option would be a wind-PV hybrid system in regions where wind energy is also abundant. The decision to use a hybrid system is primarily dependent on two factors: (1) the size of the load (in this case the size of the pump), and (2) seasonal variability in solar insolation. Reference [14] has a graph that shows when it is economical to consider adding a generator into the PV system. In general, the larger the system, the more economical it is to build a hybrid system. This is because the control for a hybrid system is more complex, and the capital and maintenance cost is higher for a hybrid system.
By comparing our load data to that in Reference [14], our system would be more economical without a generator. Of the remaining two options, storing excess water in a tank is the least complicated and least costly. See table 3 for approximate cost comparison between larger tanks and larger battery banks.
15
Table 3. Cost comparison between storing water and storing electricity in batteries Tank storage of water 1-day storage 2-day storage 3-day storage $396 (550 gallons) $558 (1,100 gallons) $670 (1,500 gallons) Battery storage of electricity $660 (4 of 12-volt, 104 amp-hour batteries) $1,320 (8 of 12-volt, 104 amp-hour batteries) $1,980 (12 of 12-volt, 104 amp-hour batteries)
Notes: First order comparison between tank and battery storage cost. Battery price is based on Concorde SunXtender sealed, deep-cycle battery. Other lower cost options are available but require more maintenance. Notes on approximate calculation for battery size: Amp-hour load for pump: 10 Ah Number of hours per day when pump is operating: 8 hours Required battery capacity = amp-hour load / maximum depth of discharge = 10 * 8 / 0.7 = 114 Ah System voltage is 48 V; therefore, approximately four 12 V, 104 Ah batteries are required. No temperature correction is done for this calculation.
16
temperatures were all higher than the previous few, which perpetuated the cycle (see Appendix). Overall, water temperature might have had a larger effect because the power available during the days when water recoveries started going out of control (September 2-4, 2003, was relatively constant, while water temperature on average was higher (see figures 9 and 10 and the Appendix).
400 350 300 250 power (W) 200 150 100 50 0 9/1/03 6:00
power recovery
9/1/03 8:24
9/1/03 10:48
9/1/03 13:12
9/1/03 15:36
Date
70
50
8/30/2003
8/31/2003
9/1/2003 Date
9/2/2003
9/3/2003
Figure 9. Relation between temperature and water recovery in the early part of Mesquite field test.
17
430 380
60
power recovery
50 330 power produced (W) 280 230 180 20 130 10 80 30 8/29/03 0:00 8/30/03 0:00 8/31/03 0:00 0 9/4/03 0:00 30 water recovery (%) 40
9/2/03 0:00
9/3/03 0:00
Figure 10. Water recovery and power produced during the period August 29, 2003 to September 4, 2003.
Regardless of the root cause of the scaling of the membranes, it is apparent that careful control of water recoveries would be crucial for the system. Even a battery-based system with the speed of the pump fixed would need this because water temperature could be a very important factor.
18
3.0 energy per volume 3 permeate (kWh/m ) 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 0 20 40 60 water recovery (%)
Figure 11. Energy per volume of permeate versus water recovery. Data obtained in Mesquite, Nevada, between August and November 2003.
19
250
50
permeate flow
Figure 12. Average power and permeate production during the period September 12 to October 1, 2003 when water recovery was limited to only 27 percent.
power produced
0.60
0.50
100
0.20
0.10
0 6:00
7:12
8:24
9:36
10:48
12:00
13:12
14:24
15:36
16:48
0.00 18:00
time
Figure 13. Hourly variation of permeate and power production on a typical day at Mesquite, Nevada (September 18, 2003). Using larger PV panels will increase energy production during the nonpeak hours and increase drinking water production.
20
300
0.6 0.5
It is estimated that increased average power production will increase the average amount of water produced by approximately 20 to 30 percent, while the increase in capital cost of the complete PVRO system will be approximately 6.4 percent. Consequently, the water production cost would be reduced from $13.80 per 1,000 gallons to 11.60 per 1,000 gallons, or a reduction of water production cost of 16.0 percent. Using larger panels will result in excess power (power in excess of the rated pump capacity) being produced at certain times. However, the linear current booster can limit the power delivered to the pump to prevent this excess power from damaging the pump. We may also include an algorithm for using excess power to charge the battery (for gauges and controls and UV disinfection), rather than having a dedicated PV panel for the battery.
Notes Feedwater tank 2 feet above pump; 6000-foot elevation Feedwater tank 2 feet above pump; 6000-foot elevation Feedwater tank 7 feet above pump
3,720
1,900
40.7
1.50
4,800
3,480
50.1
1.38
*Salinities from July 22 to August 19 were obtained by dividing conductivity by 2 (common multiplier for the relation between salinity and conductivity of pure sodium chloride at this low concentration range). Feedwater salinity at Mesquite was based on actual TDS measurements.
Afterwards, conductivity of the water was in the range of 90 to 160 S/cm, corresponding to water of approximately 90 TDS. The water is still well within drinking water standards, but it appeared that EDTA and TSP might be too harsh for the Duraslick membranes.
350 300
250 200
150 100 50
membrane cleaning
8/22/2003
9/11/2003
10/1/2003 date
10/21/2003
11/10/2003
11/30/2003
22
Table 5. Water production cost of the PVRO system Cost of producing 1,000 gallons of water $13.80
Capital cost PVRO (results of this study) PVRO (projection) with an additional 200-W PV panel PVRO (projection) with next generation improvements $15,030
$15,990
$1,605
$408
536
$11.60
$14,880
$1,494
$408
557
724
$8.10
23
Pretreatment: For very small systems, it is more economical to run without pretreatment. If fouling and scaling are a concern, based on data on the quality of water, it will be necessary to run the system at very low recoveries. This running mode is not optimal, but significant expenses can be spared when a small system is designed as simply as possible. For larger systems, some pretreatment will be necessary to allow the system to run at higher recoveries and with more efficient energy usage. The system size at which pretreatment will be more economical can only be determined after obtaining cost information for pretreatment (i.e., after pretreatment processes are selected, the equipment is assembled, and the processes are tested). For the water quality at Mesquite, Nevada, solar-powered pretreatment would most likely include aeration, settling, and slow sand filtration to remove iron, manganese, and microbes; antiscalant addition using metering pump (Dosatron type of injector could potentially replace electrical metering pump). Alternatively, ultrafiltration could also be considered for removing microbes.
24
6. References
[1] Energy Research Institute of King Abdulaziz City for Science and Technology (March 2002), Photovoltaic Water Pumping and Desalination at Sadous Village, Saudi Arabia, Newsletter of The Middle East Desalination Research Center. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations (2000), Renewable Energy Powered Desalination Systems in the Mediterranean Region-Case Studies, document prepared by Richard Morris & Associates, Energy & Environmental Consultants, Scotland. European Commission Joint Research Center web page, <www.jrc.es/projects/intersudmed/PROJECT11.html.> Dan Weiner, David Fisher, Eduard J. Moses, Baruch Katz, Giora Meron (2001), Operation experience of a solar- and wind-powered desalination demonstration plant, Desalination, 137: 713. Kuruvilla Mathew, Stewart Dallas, Goen Ho, and Martin Anda (2001), Innovative Solar-Powered Village Potable Water Supply, Women Leaders on the Uptake of Renewable Energy Seminar, Perth, Australia, June 2001. Available on the Web at http://acre.murdoch.edu.au/unep/papers/Mathew.pdf. http://www.sesltd.com.au/downloads/SolarFlow.pdf Murray Thomson and David Infield (2002), A photovoltaic-powered seawater reverseosmosis system without batteries, Desalination, 153: 18. M. Thomson, M. Miranda, J. Gwillim, and A. Rowbottom (2001), Batteryless photovoltaic reverse-osmosis desalination system, DTI/Pub URN 01/1121, <www.dti.gov.uk/energy/renewables/publications/pubs_solar.shtml>, Department of Trade and Industry, United Kingdom. Tripanagnostopoulos, Th. Nousia, M. Souliotis, and P. Yianoulis (2002), Hybrid Photovoltaic/Thermal Solar Systems, Solar Energy Vol. 72, No. 3, pp. 217234. United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations (2000), Renewable Energy Powered Desalination Systems in the Mediterranean Region, document prepared by Richard Morris & Associates, Energy & Environmental Consultants, Scotland. Mark A. Lichtwardt and Harry E. Remmers (1996), Water treatment using solarpowered electrodialysis reversal, Conference Proceedings, Mediterranean Conference on Renewable Energy Sources for Water Production, Santorini, Greece. Mark A. Lichtwardt and Harry E. Remmers (1996), Solar powered water treatment for remote sites and communities, Bureau of Reclamation Information Booklet. Solar Energy Systems, Ltd. (2002), Website address: <http://www.sesltd.com.au/html/waterpure.htm.> Daystar, Inc. Stand-alone Photovoltaic SystemsA Handbook of Recommended Design Practices (1995), issued by Sandia National Laboratories. 25
[2]
[3] [4]
[5]
[9] [10]
[11]
Appendix
Date 8/29/03
Average Total Average Average Max Total Average Max Total Energy Average Max Average Average Permeate Per Volume Energy Feed Feed Feed Feed Permeate Permeate Permeate Max Power Power Water Temp Conductivity Permeate Produced Pressure Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Produced Temp(C) (W) (W) Recovery(%) (C) (kWh) (psi) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gallon) (kWh/m3) (S/cm) 27.3 31.8 205.8 264.4 1.6 168.8 1.30 1.54 605.2 0.65 0.79 304.4 49.8 32 1.39
Not quite full day, started at 9:33 am 8/30/03 8/31/03 9/1/03 9/2/03 9/3/03 9/4/03 9/5/03 9/6/03 9/7/03 9/8/03 26.2 25.5 26.3 28.2 28.8 28.4 28.4 26.1 25.2 21.3 31.0 29.9 31.4 30.8 32.2 29.9 30.2 29.3 28.0 21.8 200.0 182.4 190.5 177.0 172.4 189.9 210.6 229.6 226.9 139.0 275.7 275.4 325.7 257.2 255.3 396.6 288.7 382.5 363.5 378.0 1.9 1.7 1.8 1.6 1.6 1.3 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.4 165.9 161.5 162.9 156.2 163.4 187.9 187.7 222.1 194.6 143.0 1.25 1.19 1.20 1.13 1.01 0.82 0.61 0.55 1.10 0.51 1.49 724.2 1.48 679.3 1.45 682.6 1.45 606.7 1.33 577.6 1.48 352.4 0.82 271.6 0.94 262.1 1.72 554.1 0.94 29.3 0.62 0.60 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.61 0.53 0.48 0.36 0.27 0.76 0.75 0.76 0.78 0.79 0.87 0.68 0.56 0.60 0.48 362.8 341.4 347.8 324.1 348.8 265.1 238.6 233.9 184.3 121.5 49.7 50.3 50.7 53.4 60.7 75.3 87.0 82.7 37.0 51.7 35 32 42 37 20 58 126 243 269 336 1.41 1.34 1.38 1.28 1.24 1.35 1.74 2.17 2.74 3.01
System shut down due to scale. Worked on system 9/11 to 9/12. Conductivity probe failed around this time. 9/13/03 9/14/03 9/15/03 9/16/03 24.4 23.4 23.5 24.9 26.1 25.9 27.1 27.2 278.0 248.8 226.8 275.9 356.2 308.7 281.9 356.0 2.4 2.1 1.9 2.4 180.9 167.9 156.1 172.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.6 2.0 920.9 1.9 887.4 1.9 857.2 2.1 838.9 0.40 0.38 0.37 0.47 0.49 0.48 0.47 0.56 207.4 192.5 186.6 248.5 22.3 21.5 21.7 26.6 88 77 68 46 3.06 2.89 2.69 2.56
Average Total Average Average Max Total Average Max Total Energy Average Average Max Average Permeate Per Volume Energy Feed Feed Feed Feed Permeate Permeate Permeate Max Temp Power Power Water Conductivity Permeate Temp(C) Produced Pressure Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Produced (C) (W) (W) Recovery(%) 3 (kWh) (psi) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gallon) (kWh/m ) (S/cm) 24.1 22.8 22.5 23.1 26.3 25.0 25.8 26.1 239.9 290.2 242.3 231.6 311.8 369.9 307.1 295.5 2.1 2.5 2.0 1.9 159.1 180.4 161.6 155.4 1.7 1.9 1.8 2.0 890.9 2.2 973.3 2.0 906.6 0.43 0.48 0.43 0.42 0.53 0.57 0.50 0.52 225.7 252.5 214.7 212.4 23.9 25.0 23.6 44 38 34 37 2.46 2.62 2.46 2.37
Feed flowmeter broke 9/21/03 9/22/03 9/23/03 9/24/03 9/25/03 9/26/03 9/27/03 9/28/03 9/29/03 9/30/03 23.3 23.5 24.4 23.4 23.6 22.8 23.1 23.2 23.3 23.6 26.2 27.2 27.5 27.2 26.0 25.9 26.0 26.3 26.3 26.4 230.3 215.1 239.4 176.1 212.6 209.4 208.5 222.9 211.1 211.7 279.2 264.7 303.1 345.1 265.3 286.7 266.0 284.2 247.8 318.9 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.4 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.8 1.7 154.0 145.8 154.0 121.8 141.1 140.3 138.9 144.8 139.5 139.6 0.43 0.41 0.46 0.34 0.42 0.40 0.40 0.43 0.41 0.41 0.51 0.49 0.57 0.56 0.48 0.50 0.48 0.53 0.49 0.50 220.0 205.2 234.8 161.1 207.6 202.6 204.1 213.3 205.6 203.1 30 39 35 48 31 33 33 32 44 63 2.41 2.32 2.25 2.30 2.29 2.35 2.33 2.36 2.32 2.21
Worked on system 10/1 to 10/3. 10/4/03 10/5/03 10/6/03 22.5 22.8 21.3 24.6 25.1 23.3 250.0 242.7 187.5 295.8 303.8 320.0 2.0 2.0 157.6 153.6 125.7 1.9 1.9 1.6 2.1 934.7 2.1 922.1 2.2 320.6 0.46 0.46 0.34 0.54 0.52 0.57 224.8 223.8 23.9 24.1 20.8 137 143 193 2.35 2.36
Lift pump that lifted water to tank broke on 10/6, system shut down
Date 10/9/03
Average Total Average Average Max Total Average Max Total Energy Average Average Max Average Permeate Per Volume Energy Feed Feed Feed Feed Permeate Permeate Permeate Max Temp Power Power Water Conductivity Permeate Temp(C) Produced Pressure Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Produced (C) (W) (W) Recovery(%) 3 (kWh) (psi) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gallon) (kWh/m ) (S/cm) 23.0 24.7 230.5 295.4 146.8 1.8 2.0 589.8 0.43 0.53 23.6 152
New lift pump installed. 10/10/03 10/11/03 10/12/03 10/13/03 10/14/03 10/15/03 10/16/03 10/17/03 10/18/03 10/19/03 10/20/03 10/21/03 10/22/03 10/23/03 10/24/03 10/25/03 10/26/03 22.9 21.6 24.8 24.0 22.0 23.2 23.5 23.6 23.6 24.0 23.7 24.0 24.1 22.7 24.2 23.0 22.2 24.6 23.6 32.4 29.3 29.5 30.9 31.2 31.9 30.8 30.2 30.8 31.7 31.8 28.7 29.5 26.1 27.8 266.5 269.4 199.2 212.0 202.6 199.7 195.2 191.8 194.0 184.8 191.4 185.4 187.8 189.5 191.1 198.4 196.7 326.9 332.7 229.7 231.4 228.2 223.3 223.1 223.2 216.7 215.3 220.3 211.8 212.8 211.4 209.8 210.8 211.7 2.1 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.6 1.6 159.8 161.8 93.9 97.4 96.2 95.5 92.9 91.6 90.7 88.5 91.4 87.9 88.2 86.6 86.9 87.8 87.7 1.9 2.0 1.6 1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.7 1.7 2.2 921.1 2.2 955.4 1.8 764.4 1.8 830.5 1.7 802.0 1.7 782.6 1.7 781.8 1.7 784.4 1.7 774.8 1.7 752.1 1.7 756.0 1.7 775.8 1.7 784.8 1.7 759.6 1.7 782.0 1.7 792.4 1.7 790.6 0.48 0.46 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17 0.17 0.57 0.54 0.30 0.22 0.21 0.21 0.21 0.20 0.21 0.20 0.20 0.19 0.19 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.18 226.5 224.9 94.1 100.5 95.1 93.4 90.3 89.6 89.7 87.0 88.7 84.1 84.4 81.6 81.6 80.0 79.9 24.3 23.3 12.4 12.1 11.9 11.9 11.6 11.4 11.6 11.6 11.8 10.9 10.8 10.8 10.5 10.1 10.1 140 147 160 151 141 129 123 131 149 153 156 158 174 157 152 134 144 2.45 2.59 4.50 4.47 4.73 4.53 4.69 4.72 4.42 4.56 4.47 4.72 4.70 4.86 4.86 5.29 5.30
Date
Average Total Average Average Max Total Average Max Total Energy Average Average Max Average Permeate Per Volume Energy Feed Feed Feed Feed Permeate Permeate Permeate Max Temp Power Power Water Conductivity Permeate Temp(C) Produced Pressure Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Produced (C) (W) (W) Recovery(%) 3 (kWh) (psi) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gallon) (kWh/m ) (S/cm) Worked on system for most of 10/27, 10/28, 10/29
10/30/03 10/31/03 11/1/03 11/2/03 11/3/03 11/4/03 11/5/03 11/6/03 11/7/03 11/8/03
21.9 19.8 19.3 17.8 18.9 18.6 18.5 17.6 18.3 18.1
23.0 21.0 21.7 20.2 20.7 20.7 20.7 19.7 21.6 20.8
280.4 297.7 302.2 198.4 295.9 281.2 278.9 196.2 261.8 206.0
370.4 383.7 421.3 429.1 399.0 374.1 352.9 413.4 351.3 349.8
2.3 1.9 1.7 0.8 2.4 2.2 2.3 0.8 2.1 1.4
163.1 171.8 170.9 131.8 173.0 169.5 168.8 126.5 160.0 135.2
1.92 1.89 1.89 1.61 1.89 1.93 1.90 1.57 1.84 1.67
2.25 960.7 2.24 729.2 2.24 643.4 2.15 370.1 2.22 926.8 2.29 895.8 2.14 923.3 2.23 400.0 2.12 866.1 2.13 675.6
0.67 0.64 0.63 0.47 0.63 0.62 0.60 0.44 0.57 0.48
0.81 0.79 0.79 0.75 0.79 0.76 0.74 0.75 0.70 0.71
332.6 247.4 215.0 108.8 308.0 286.4 291.9 112.5 268.4 192.9
34.0 33.2 32.9 29.1 32.5 31.5 31.0 27.6 30.6 27.9
1.86 2.04 2.11 1.85 2.08 2.01 2.04 1.96 2.02 1.91
11/9/03 System did not even turn on, not enough solar intensity 11/10/03 11/11/03 19.9 11.2 22.5 11.9 175.4 127.5 355.9 193.9 1.0 0.0 120.1 107.9 1.48 0.92 2.23 494.6 1.41 18.5 0.45 0.31 0.72 0.41 149.8 6.2 30.1 41.3 122 152 1.73 1.82
11/12/03 System turned on but not enough to power anything. 11/13/03 11/14/03 11/15/03 11/16/03 11/17/03 18.2 17.9 17.7 13.9 17.0 20.0 20.1 19.8 14.3 18.2 212.0 267.5 171.6 148.2 207.1 464.0 411.4 360.8 281.2 360.7 1.6 2.0 1.0 0.1 0.5 142.9 174.9 128.3 119.9 148.7 1.46 1.71 1.39 1.22 1.51 2.06 672.0 1.98 760.0 1.97 485.1 1.78 73.2 0.51 0.60 0.43 0.34 0.48 0.82 0.76 0.75 0.60 0.65 232.6 269.2 151.0 20.5 72.0 34.3 34.9 30.4 27.9 31.4 114 100 141 210 122 1.85 1.95 1.75 1.92 1.90
1.87 225.8
Average Total Average Average Max Total Average Max Total Energy Average Average Max Average Permeate Per Volume Energy Feed Feed Feed Feed Permeate Permeate Permeate Max Temp Power Power Water Conductivity Permeate Temp(C) Produced Pressure Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Produced (C) (W) (W) Recovery(%) 3 (kWh) (psi) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gpm) (gallon) (kWh/m ) (S/cm) 15.8 18.2 15.9 19.5 20.7 18.8 288.0 283.2 261.6 355.5 362.4 378.0 2.2 1.9 0.9 184.1 177.2 167.9 1.80 1.85 1.72 2.02 811.6 2.09 758.1 2.04 336.0 0.59 0.62 0.55 0.68 0.73 0.72 263.8 254.3 106.8 32.3 33.3 31.7 104 80 106 2.17 2.01 2.11