Reducing the Stress of Rural Community Desalination with Renewable Wind Energy

Ken RainwaterTexas Tech University

Water Resources Center

1

Motivation for Research

Long-term municipal water supplies Fresh Ogallala aquifer depleting

Currently pump, disinfect, distribute Recent concerns for arsenic, other chemicals

Deeper brackish Santa Rosa aquifer Water quality variations estimated Productivity unknown

More (wells + treatment) = More cost

2

Opportunities

Renewable wind energy for electricity RO/desalination – 30-50% of costs Well and distribution pumps “Store energy” in produced water Sell excess energy to power grid

Improve energy efficiency for small capacity RO systems

3

General Research Objectives

Market analysis of potential customers for wind-powered water desalination

System design and optimization analysis for a specific municipality

Evaluate issues related to intermittent wind, RO operation, and water storage

Investigate Santa Rosa productivity

4

Cooperating Organizations Department of Energy Bureau of Reclamation Texas Water Development Board State Energy Conservation Office Texas Department of Rural Affairs City of Seminole

5

Texas’ Southern High Plains

Ogallala aquifer Primary water source

~95% withdrawals for irrigated agriculture At least part of supply for all municipalities Depletion noted for several decades Water quality varies, better to north

Santa Rosa aquifer In lower Dockum formation

High TDS Local productivity unknown

6

7

Center for Geospatial

Technology, Texas Tech University,

2006,(http://

www.gis.ttu.edu/

OgallalaAquiferMaps/

MapSeries.aspx)

8

Dockum Aquifer

TDS Distributio

n

Ewing et al. (2008)

Bureau of Reclamation Project

Report 146 http://www.usbr.go

v/pmts/water/publications/reports.html

9

Municipal Supply Exceedances

10

Parameter

Number of Cities

TDS 33

Fluoride 29

Arsenic 24

Sulfate 14

Chloride 10

Nitrate 10

Gross 8

Iron 2

Market Study Conclusions

11

39 of 40 cities had exceedances Most in shallow Ogallala water A few already use Santa Rosa water Currently only provide disinfection More complex treatment eventually Wellfield depletion also impacts future supply

Community wind project potential Assist in cost of desalination Additional application for pump operation

Typical Inland Wind-RO Layout

12

Design and Control of Wind-Water System for Inland City City of Seminole, Texas

Approached team to be an early-adopter Ogallala wellfield depleting within 25 years Arsenic, fluoride, and TDS exceedances Interested in Santa Rosa alternative

Used to deep wells with oil and gas production Concentrate disposal by deep well injection?

13

Economic Analysis

Algorithm for best use of wind energy Water treatment Displacing grid power for other city loads

Assumptions Entire city water demand from Santa Rosa Santa Rosa lift 1350 ft Santa Rosa TDS 10,000 ppm No tax or renewable energy credits RO treatment with evaporation for concentrate

14

Economic Analysis

Current city water charge $1.60-2.15/1000 gal

Costs per 1000 gal for wind-RO system

15

Component

Energy (kWh)

Utility Energy

($)

Capital($)

O&M ($)

Total ($)

Wellfield 10.58 0.85 0.45 -- 1.30

RO + evap 5.63 0.45 0.24 2.56 2.80

Distribution

0.86 0.07 -- -- 0.07

Total 4.17

Seminole Demonstration

Santa Rosa well – TWDB funding Contract requires 40 gpm production

If Santa Rosa unproductive, demonstrate with local Ogallala water

Cirrus – well log search completed Lower productive zone 1540-1800 ft bgs

PSC – well permit completed, procurement underway

16

17

18

RO System

Major specifications Inflow capacity 40-50 gpm TDS likely ~3000 ppm, but maybe double Pretreatment to reduce fouling Concentrate to sanitary sewer

TTU DOE funds Crane Environmental – $90,000 Delivered to Seminole

19

Wind Turbine

Major specifications 50 kW capacity 127 ft tall or less due to airport nearby Site engineering by vendor Offsets grid power requirements

TTU SECO + TDRA funds Entegrity Wind $250,000 Construction in Spring 2011

20

Current Schedule

Complete procurements Drill and complete well later in 2011

Complete site infrastructure design Implement construction

City land purchase, other in-kind costs Install wind turbine Construct RO building and infrastructure

21

Operation Demonstration

TCEQ requires demonstration period PSC negotiating details

Operation duration – 1 year Production rates Raw and produced water quality Energy consumption from turbine, grid

Report to City and funding agencies22

Conclusions

Conceptual work began in 2005 Desire to help small municipalities Federal and state agencies want to help Connecting technologies that already

work New combination challenging to fund

Consultants team with researchers Regulatory experience required Develop new technical expertise

23

Acknowledgements City of Seminole – Mike Carter, Tommy

Phillips Bureau of Reclamation – Kevin Price,

Harry Remmers, Andrew Tiffenbach TWDB – Jorge Arroyo, Sanjeev Kalaswad TDRA – Travis Brown SECO – Pam Groce General Electric Global Research Center

24

Research Team Water Resources Center

Ken Rainwater, Andrew Jackson, Phil Nash, Lianfa Song Geetha Ganesan, Ryan Marshall Brad Thornhill

Wind Science and Engineering Center Andy Swift, Jamie Chapman, Brad Ewing, John Schroeder Dennis Noll, Vikas Doon, Will Crawford, Jason Fields Jeff Livingston, Glenn Allen

25

Consultants

Cirrus Associates, LLC™ Hydrogeologic services

Parkhill Smith and Cooper, Inc. Well and RO system

permit/procurement West Texas Consultants, Inc.

Surveying and local infrastructure

26

City County PopulationQavg

MGD

TDSmg/L500

Asmg/L0.01

Clmg/L250

Fmg/L4, 2

SO4

mg/L250

NO3

mg/L10

Femg/L0.3

Gross

pCi/L15

Hereford Deaf Smith 14400 2.750 1150 0.003 210 4.2 209 5.5 0.05 18.7Levelland Hockley 12866 1.448 714 0.008 86.9 4.4 202 2.6 0.12 13.5Lamesa Dawson 9942 1.570 1150 0.018 315 2.2 327 5.3 0.00 7.2Andrews Andrews 9652 2.388 660 0.038 157 4.4 116 2.2 0.00 3.4Seminole Gaines 5910 1.847 531 0.017 116 4.1 99 3.4 0.15 5.4Tulia Swisher 5200 0.795 2020 0.003 389 5.3 436 0.4 0.13 7.1Denver City Yoakum 3985 0.852 948 0.014 316 2.3 169 2.6 0.00 4.5Crane Crane 3191 1.053 464 0.013 59 1.5 147 2.2 0.00 4.8Tahoka Lynn 2910 0.405 1020 0.003 321 1.0 225 1.0 0.01 4.8Stanton Martin 2900 0.329 1111 0.020 302 2.4 425 10.1 0.00 2.0Wolfforth Lubbock 2710 0.442 652 0.015 76.5 5.8 131 2.2 0.00 10.7Seagraves Gaines 2334 0.328 788 0.049 120 4.7 223 10.9 0.00 6.7Shallowater Lubbock 2300 0.380 725 0.012 67 2.9 177 7.6 0.09 47.3Morton Cochran 2245 0.379 1050 0.015 217 3.6 342 5.1 1.00 6.4Lorenzo Crosby 1372 0.172 351 0.016 24 2.5 32 1.5 0.00 9.8Plains Yoakum 1350 0.931 1124 0.015 184 4.3 446 3.2 0.01 6.3Booker Lipscomb 1200 0.282 785 0.005 239 1.4 105 2.6 0.21 9.6O'Donnell Lynn 1011 0.100 1262 0.003 352 1.0 348 0.0 0.00 Silverton Briscoe 780 0.111 358 0.012 19 3.5 19 1.1 0.02 Meadow Terry 750 0.110 930 0.028 164 4.8 274 6.8 0.01 17.9Lefors Gray 560 0.093 3666 0.010 1926 0.2 4 1.5 0.07 0.0Vaughn Guadalupe 540 0.198 0.009 3.2 50.1Wilson Lynn 532 0.045 1336 0.009 275 4.0 350 11.0 0.00 16.9Turkey Hall 500 0.065 1237 0.005 157 1.5 437 17.1 0.01 10.8Smyer Hockley 480 0.053 1000 0.012 92 5.2 176 3.0 0.01 23.6Quitaque Briscoe 463 0.105 1124 0.004 231 1.9 286 14.6 0.01 Wickett Ward 455 0.118 586 0.006 83 1.9 169 1.3 0.02 6.7New Home Lynn 440 0.047 859 0.026 135 5.0 171 5.0 0.00 10.0Texhoma Sherman 371 0.100 330 0.004 11.6 2.0 72 2.1 0.01 13.8Welch Dawson 354 0.049 1295 0.027 298 4.6 408 17.2 4.08 14.6Floyd Roosevelt 350 657 0.012 135 4.2 290 4.5 0.00 Loop Gaines 300 0.031 654 0.031 27 4.9 197 7.0 0.00 Goldsmith Ector 250 0.079 494 0.017 72 3.2 83 2.6 0.03 Wellman Terry 225 0.038 823 0.037 108 5.7 241 5.3 0.01 8.8Elida Roosevelt 189 0.022 897 0.012 2.3 Opdyke West Hockley 180 0.050 628 0.014 53 5.9 127 6.7 0.11 8.1Whitharral Hockley 175 0.054 1040 0.007 107 4.4 395 11.0 0.16 17.0Dodson Collingsworth 120 0.030 335 0.002 9 0.7 40 13.8 0.02 2.9Grassland Lynn 75 1732 0.020 659 5.0 332 13.0 0.00 16.6Flomot Motley 40 749 0.007 131 2.0 168 19.0 0.00 4.6

27

Communities with EPA Primary

(bold italics) and Secondary

(bold) Exceedances (worst well reported)

Texas Secondary•TDS 1000•Chloride 300•Sulfate 300

Dockum TDS Levels

28

29