Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Renewable Energy-Driven Desalination Hybrids for Sustainability

Written By

Muhammad Wakil Shahzad, Doskhan Ybyraiymkul, Muhammad Burhan and Kim Choon Ng

Submitted: 09 December 2017 Reviewed: 05 April 2018 Published: 19 September 2018

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.77019

From the Edited Volume

Desalination and Water Treatment

Edited by Murat Eyvaz and Ebubekir Yüksel

Chapter metrics overview

1,666 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics


The expansion trend of current desalination processes is expected to boost brine rejection to 240 km3 and CO2 emission to 400 million tons per year by 2050. This high brine rejection and CO2 emission rates are copping COP21 goal, maintaining temperature rise below 2°C. An innovative and energy-efficient process/material is required to achieve Paris Agreement targets. Highly efficient adsorbent cycle integration is proposed with well-proven conventional desalination processes to improve energy efficiency and to reduce environmental and marine pollution. The adsorbent cycle is operated with solar or low-grade industrial waste heat, available in abundance in water stress regions. The proposed integration with membrane processes will save 99% energy and over 150% chemical rejection to sea. In case of thermally driven cycles, the proposed hybridization will improve energy efficiency to 39% and will reduce over 80% chemical rejection. This can be one solution to achieve Paris Agreement (COP21) targets for climate control that can be implemented in near future.


  • desalination
  • hybridization
  • sustainability
  • economics
  • environmental impact

1. Introduction

The inevitable escalation in economic development has serious implications for environment as energy generation and food-processing processes are vicious to the ecosystem. Energy is extremely important for any economy to generate wealth and the key component for GDP growth. A quadruple growth in energy demand is predicted by The International Energy Outlook 2016 (IEO2016) from 2012 to 2040. It is estimated to grow from 549 quadrillion British thermal units (Btu) in 2012 to 815 quadrillion Btu in 2040, 48% increase in 28 years. The energy demand could have more than doubled without efficiency gain and suitable energy mix. The non-Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (non-OECD) countries are the major contributor in this drastic energy demand. In these countries, energy demand rises by 71% from 2012 to 2040 in contrast with only 18% in developed countries in same time span as shown in Figure 1. An average GDP growth of 4.2% per year is estimated between 2012 and 2014 in non-OECD countries as compared to 2.0% per year in OECD countries as estimated by IEO2016. In terms of energy consumption by sectors, industry is leading followed by residential and transport. This trend persists from 1971 to 2014, but overall consumption doubled during this period. Power plant sectors consume 35% of global energy, and it is estimated to grow due to urbanization in developing countries. Global electricity demand is expected to increase over 65% from 2014 to 2040, 2.5 times faster than overall energy demand [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7].

Figure 1.

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries’ energy consumption from 1990 to 2040. Asia and Middle East region show major share in the world energy consumption. IEO2016 estimated the trend from 2017 to 2040 with BAU process [1].

Even though there is a competition between countries for development, but it has severe impact on environment in terms of CO2 emission. Every drop of fuel pollutes environment and intensity depends on process efficiency. Global CO2 emission measured as 40 gigaton (Gt) per year in 2016 is almost double as compared to 1980 emission level. Energy sector are the major contributor, 68%, in CO2 emission and power generation sector sharing 42% in energy sector emission followed by transport 23% and industry 19%. A systematic diversification of the global energy mix and technology improvement driven by economics and climate policies almost flattens the CO2 emission rate in 2014, only 0.8% increase, as compared to 1.7% in 2013 and 3.5% in 2000. In the past 3 years, 2012–2014, the moderate increase in CO2 emission, 0.8–1.7%, is remarkable when global economic growth rate was 3% as compared to 4% emission annually with GDP growth rate of 4.5% in last decade. In other words, partial decoupling of economic growth and CO2 emission has been observed in last 3 years due to shift in energy production and consumption, power generation, technological improvements and policy implementation. In 2015, the milestone year, 170 countries signed an agreement at the 21st Conference of the Parties (COP21) in Paris for climate action. The Paris Agreement is the first international climate agreement extending mitigation obligations to all developed and developing countries representing over 90% of energy-related CO2 emissions and approximately 7 billion people. The agreement aim to achieve CO2 emission peak as soon as possible to cap the increase in the global average temperature to below 2°C. In addition, it also aims to pursue extra efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C. Business as usual (BAU) scenario, as most of the countries followed, can lead to over 5°C temperature increase as shown in Figure 2 [8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25].

Figure 2.

CO2 emission trends impact on environmental at three different scenarios: (i) business as usual approach will lead to 3–6°C ambient temperature increase, (ii) COP21 goal targets to control emission to maintain temperature increase below 2°C and (iii) advance processes/technologies to lower temperature increase to 1.5°C [8, 9].

In Middle East, fast economic growth along with structural changes is expected to increase energy consumption to over 90% (30 quadrillion Btu) from 2012 to 2040. In GCC countries, the electricity demand has been increased at thrice the global average over the last few years due to many factors such as (i) high economic growth rate, (ii) huge development projects encouraging policies, (iii) government subsidies and (iv) higher cooling and water demand. The United Nations Environment Program identified the GCC countries as the highest per capita energy consumption in the world and they contribute 45–50% cumulative Arab countries’ CO2 emissions. Saudi Arabia is leading in power generation as well as in CO2 emission in GCC countries followed by UAE, Kuwait, Qatar, Oman and Bahrain as shown in Figure 3. Increasing energy demand and CO2 emission inspired the regional government to improve energy efficiency, diversifying energy mix and to devise strategies for alternative renewable energy sources to conserve natural resources and environment [26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37].

Figure 3.

CO2 emissions trends in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries. Saudi Arabia is leading with 56% emission due to high electricity and water demand and poor energy-efficient process applications [5].

1.1. Energy efficiency and renewable energy targets for electricity generation

GCC countries already planned energy efficiency and renewable energy targets for 2030 as shown in Figure 4. As a global sunbelt region, solar energy has received particular attention due to abundance availability in the region and falling cost of technology, particularly photovoltaic (PV). Renewable energy plans of GCC will result in cumulative 2.5 Billion barrels of oil equivalent saving from 2015 to 2030 equivalent to USD 55–87 billion savings. Implementation of renewable energy sources and decrease of fossil fuel consumption will reduce a cumulative total of 1 gigaton (Gt) of CO2 emission by 2030. This will result in 8% reduction in the region’s per capita carbon footprint, in line with the countries’ Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) submissions to the Paris climate conference (COP21). In addition to CO2 savings, energy efficiency and renewable energy application will reduce 16% of water consumption in power generation sector. This will save 11 trillion liters of water per year that will not only have ecological benefits but will also reduce energy consumption for water desalination [38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47].

Figure 4.

Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries’ targets for renewable energy applications and processes energy efficiency. Saudi Arabia planned to inject 54 GW electricity from renewable sources by 2040 [6].

In GCC region, energy intensive desalination processes are the major contributor to satisfy the increasing water demand with the development of infrastructure. The regional water demand is expected to increase to fivefold by 2050. The water is utilized during fossil fuel extraction, industrial processing, domestic purposes, cooling and power generation. The analyst predicted that the scale of water utilized for energy production only will increase from 583 billion cubic meters (bcm) in 2010 to 790 bcm of water in 2013, resulting in even higher demand for desalination in the region [47]. Desalination technologies development and alternate energy mix are required urgently to coup the BAU trend.

1.2. Energy efficiency and renewable application for desalination

Currently, GCC countries’ cumulative desalination capacity is 26 million cubic meter (mcm) per day, equivalent to 36% of total global capacity. GCC countries are set to ramp up their desalination infrastructure 6–10% annually till 2040, extending total capacity to almost twofold. These beyond limit extensions of fossil fuel operated desalination capacities will have significant impact on regional economy. For example, Saudi Arabia consuming nearly 300,000 barrels of oil for thermal desalination to fulfill daily water demand and similar challenges are faced by other GCC countries. Traditionally, in GCC region, thermal desalination processes (MSF & MED) are preferred over membrane-based (SWRO) processes due to two main reasons: (i) extensive pretreatment requirement for SWRO processes due to high salinity in Arabian Gulf and (ii) energy efficiency of thermally driven processes by utilizing residual low grade heat due to integrated water-and-power projects.

Thermal desalination processes gained confidence by operating for over 30 years in GCC region, and they are well integrated into power generation infrastructure. In terms of sea areas, Arabian Gulf is the largest intake facility for desalination capacities and producing 12.1 mcm per day. United Arab Emirates is dominating with 23% desalination capacity in Gulf followed by Saudi Arabia 11% and Kuwait 6%. In the Red Sea area, desalination plants have a total production capacity of 3.6 mcm per day, dominating by co-generation plants (72%). Saudi Arabia accounts for 92% of the desalinated capacities in the Red Sea region, thermal desalination dominating by 78% installations (2.6 mcm per day). Major desalination installations in Red Sea, their size and technology type are presented in Figure 5 [48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56].

Figure 5.

Location and size of major thermal- and membrane-based desalination installations along Red Sea, Gulf Coast and Mediterranean Sea. Thermal desalination processes are dominating due to severe feedwater conditions in GCC countries [56].

In addition to less energy efficient, conventional desalination processes have enormous impact on marine line and environmental in terms of volume of brine rejection and CO2 emissions. It is estimated that the brine rejection will increase to 240 km3 and emission will be approximately 400 million tons of carbon equivalents per year by 2050. In the Gulf, 23.7 metric tons (mt) of chlorine, 64.9 mt of antiscalants and 296 kg of copper rejection are estimated from desalination installations, and in Red Sea, these rejections are 5.6 mt of chlorine, 20.7 mt of antiscalants and 74 kg of copper [57, 58, 59, 60, 61]. The impact of conventional desalination processes on energy and environment can be judged by the developed risk matrix as shown in Table 1. It can be seen that SWRO processes are operating in severe impact zone (half elements are in the red zone) while thermal desalination processes are higher than moderate zone (two elements are in the red zone).

(I × P)(I × P)
Energy3 × 33 × 3
CO2 emission3 × 33 × 2
Chemical rejection3 × 33 × 2
Brine concentration3 × 23 × 1
Brine temperature1 × 11 × 1
Pumps noise3 × 22 × 1
Low impact
High impact
Severe impact

Table 1.

The impact matrix of conventional desalination processes. Both processes showed severe impact in terms of energy consumption, chemical rejection and CO2 emission. Impact of SWRO processes is worse than thermal processes.

Therefore, energy-efficient desalination processes (innovative hybrid cycles) and transitioning towards alternate renewable energies are two key innovation pillars needed to address future sustainable desalination water supplies in the region.

Hybrid desalination projects (SWRO/MSF, MSF/MED), for energy efficiency, were proposed and implemented to few facilities such as Jeddah-II, Fujairah II and Ras AL-Khair in the past [62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88]. Unfortunately, hybrid concept was unable to get much industrial implementation due to operational limitations. Today, industrial scale desalination processes pairing with innovative cycles are well needed to pave the way for future desalination in GCC under COP21 goal. We proposed an innovative adsorption (AD) cycle hybridization with SWRO and MED to meet COP21 accord. The proposed AD cycle utilized low-grade waste heat or renewable energy such as solar or geothermal to produce fresh water. The integration of AD cycle with conventional desalination processes will help to overcome their operational limitations. For example, in first case, RO + AD integration can boost overall recovery to over 80% as compared to 35–40% of RO alone. This will help to protect marine pollution by reducing pretreatment chemical rejection into the sea. In second case, its hybridization with thermal processes such as MED + AD will help to overcome last stage operational temperature limitations of conventional MED system by extending to as low as 7°C as compared to 40°C in conventional processes. It will help to boost water production to almost twofold with same energy input. In both cases, CO2 emission will reduce as AD cycle utilized only low-grade industrial waste heat or renewable energy. We presented detailed experimentation of both mentioned cases and their economic analysis to show the superiority of hybrid cycles over conventional processes in terms of energy efficiency, marine and environmental impact.


2. The basic adsorbent cycle

The basic adsorbent cycle consists of four major components, namely (i) evaporator, (ii) adsorbent beds, (iii) condenser and (iv) circulation pumps as shown in Figure 6. The feedwater is supplied to evaporator and saturation pressure is maintained by the adsorbent uptake capacity to achieve evaporation conditions below ambient level. Once the adsorbent bed is near saturation, adsorption process switched to second bed and regeneration heat is supplied to desorb vapor and prepare adsorbent for next cycle adsorption. The desorbed vapor is condensed in the condenser by circulating the chilled water from evaporator. It can be noticed that electricity is only supplied for pumping of liquid and major thermal energy is supplied from renewable solar or industrial process waste heat from 55–85°C. The detail of adsorption cycle can be found in published literature [89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105]. The adsorbent selection depends on application temperature. The list of most common adsorbent and their application status are provided in Table 2. We developed an advance silica gel with improved uptake by pore opening. We also developed silica gel-coated heat exchanger AD cycle that can achieve heat transfer coefficient twofold higher as compared to conventional packed bed AD cycle [106, 107]. Silica gel has many advantages such as (i) easily available, (ii) lower cost as compared to all available adsorbent, (iii) more stable and reliable and (iv) easy to modify for required application [108, 109, 110, 111].

Figure 6.

Adsorbent cycle 3D model can operate with solar or industrial waste heat from 55 to 85°C. The adsorbent is packed in the beds.

AdsorbentCostApplication status
Silica gelLowIndustrial scale
Metal organic framework (MOF)HighResearch based only
ZeoliteHighMedium pilot

Table 2.

Summary of major adsorbent, their cost and technological application status. Silica gel is most applied adsorbent because of its stability and reliability [110].

The proposed adsorbent cycle has capability to integrate with conventional desalination process to improve their performance. The detail of integration with SWRO and thermal processes and their advantages are discussed in the following sections.


3. Membrane process and their integration: energy and environmental impact

In GCC countries, 42% desalinated water is produced by membrane processes. Conventional SWRO processes consume 7–17 kWhpe/m3 primary energy (equivalent to 3–8 kWhelec/m3) for seawater desalination and they emit 3.0 kg/m3 CO2 to the environment [112]. Currently, major online SWRO plants in Saudi Arabia and future proposed projects is presented in Table 3.

Most of the SWRO plants are operated under saline water conversion cooperation (SWCC), and their overall recovery varies from 17 to 40% depending upon feedwater quality. Four major plants, namely (i) Jeddah, (ii) Rbigh, (iii) Jubail and (iv) Shuqaiq operational data were collected, and analysis results are presented.

3.1. SWRO and hybrid cycle results and discussion

Figure 7(a–c) shows the seawater, retentate and distillate concentration for four mentioned plants. It can be seen that Red seawater feed concentration varies from 37,000 ppm in Jeddah to 40,000 ppm in Jubail. The retentate maximum concentration was observed at Jeddah, 60000 ppm due to better recovery. The distillate concentration met the WHO standard, <500 ppm, except at Rbigh where it can reach to 800 pm and it mixed with thermal-driven processes distillate before distribution to end users.

Figure 7.

Six-month results of four major SWRO plants in Saudi Arabia. (a) Seawater feed concentration, (b) SWRO retentate concentration and (c) distillate concentration.

At these four locations, we also analyzed the CO2 emission and chemical rejection in the brine and applied to overall capacity in GCC according to SWRO market share. Table 4 shows the CO2 emission and chemical rejection per day in the GCC region by SWRO processes only.

Plant nameCapacity (m3/day)Overall recovery (%)CommissioningOperatorRef
Jeddah phase-II48,848351994SWCC[113]
Ras Azzour307,000402014SWCC[116]
Shuaiba I & II76,800402003SEPCO[117]
Shuaiba III Extension,150,000402009SEPCO[118]
Medina-Yanbu Phase II127,825351995SWCC[119]
North Obhor, Jeddah12,500352006SAWACO[120]
Umm Lujj4400241986SWCC
Barge Raka,24,981SWCC[118]
Future projects
Jeddah phase (4)400,0002019SWCC[122]
Rabigh phase (3)600,0002019
Jubail phase (3)330,0002021

Table 3.

Major SWRO plants in operation and future proposed projects in Saudi Arabia. They need extensive pretreatment and still recovery is only up to 40% maximum.

Total GCC capacity26Mm3/day
SWRO share (42%)10.92Mm3/day
Total primary energy (PE) consumption*81.3GWh/day
CO2 emission**42,855.2ton/day
Total feed (30% recovery)36.4mm3/day
Disinfection, NaOCl or free chlorine (1 ppm)36.4ton/day
Acid for pH adjustment, H2SO4 (30–100 ppm)3636.4ton/day
Coagulation, FeCl3 or AlCl3 (1–35 ppm)1272.7ton/day
Flocculation, polyelectrolyte (0.2–4 ppm)145.6ton/day
Antiscaling, polycarbonic acid (2 ppm)72.8ton/day
Dechlorination, NaHSO3 (3 ppm)109.2ton/day

Table 4.

Energy consumption, CO2 emission and chemical rejection by all SWRO plants in GCC. The severe impact on environment and marine life can be observed clearly.

SWRO electricity consumption = 3.5 kWhelec/m3, Power plant conversion efficiency = 47%.

CO2 emission rate = 0.527 kg/kWhpe.

Pretreatment chemical values are taken from four plants and published literature [123, 124, 125, 126, 127].

The alarming situation, huge amount of CO2 emission to environment and chemical rejection to sea on daily basis can be clearly observed by conventional SWRO process operation. These processes cannot be terminated due to water requirement, but they can be improved.

Impact of SWRO processes can be minimized either by material development or process improvements. The variety of efficient materials have been proposed such as (i) catalytic nanoparticle-coated ceramic membranes, (ii) zeolitic, (iii) inorganic-organic hybrid nanocomposite membranes and (iv) bio-inspired membranes that includes protein-polymer hybrid biomimetic membranes, isoporous block copolymer membranes and aligned nanotube membranes for energy efficiency [128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135]. In terms of commercialization, most of the proposed materials are farthest (5–10 years) from commercial reality. On the other hand, SWRO processes [136, 137] can be integrated with proposed AD cycle to improve process performance. Both technologies are readily available and can be implemented in near future.

3.2. Membrane process integration with AD cycle

Membrane process can be integrated with AD cycle for energy efficiency and to reduce environmental impact. AD cycle can operate at high concentration, almost near crystallization zone, without fouling and corrosion chances due to low temperature operation. In addition to zero chemical injection, it also has minimal impact on environment as it operated with renewable energy. In this way, this hybridization will not only help to reduce CO2 emission but also chemical rejection to the sea.

In proposed integration, the SWRO retentate, at 50,000 to 60,000 ppm, is supplied to AD cycle operating at evaporator temperature of 5–30°C. Both heat inputs, silica gel regeneration and evaporator, are supplied from renewable solar energy. This low evaporator temperature enable AD cycle to operate more than 80% recovery, over 250,000 ppm. Experiments were conducted up to 250,000 ppm concentration to investigate salt concentration effect on heat transfer. Figure 8(a) shows salt crystallization in evaporator at 250,000 ppm. Soft scale deposition, in the form of white powder, was observed at high concentration that can be easily washed out by spraying as shown in Figure 8(b). Figure 9 shows concentration effect on heat transfer at different evaporator temperatures. It can be seen that even at high concentration the heat transfer coefficient has reasonable value that shows successful operation of AD cycle at highest concentration without fouling and scaling chances.

Figure 8.

AD cycle evaporator inside view during operation. (a) Salt crystallization at 250,000 ppm at 10°C evaporator temperature and (b) white salt deposition cleared by feed spray jet impingement. It shows AD cycle successful operation at near crystallization zone, over 80% recovery: One of the highest recovery reported up till now.

Figure 9.

Effect of salt concentration and evaporator temperature on heat transfer coefficient of AD evaporator. The AD cycle evaporator can operate as low as 7°C.

The proposed AD cycle recovering 51% more from SWRO retentate booting overall recover to 81%. The final reject concentration was observed as 185,000 ppm from AD cycle. This integration will not only help to save overall energy but also environmental pollution. The summary of savings is presented in Table 5. It can be noticed that proposed integration can save up to 100% energy and CO2 emission. In addition, it will also help to reduce chemical rejection to sea.

ParametersSWROHybrid cycle% Saving by hybridization (%)
Total PE consumption (GWhpe/day)*81.340.998.9
CO2 emission (ton/day)42,855.221,550.198.9
Pretreatment chemicals (ton/day)
Disinfection, NaOCl36.413.4170
Acid for pH adjustment, H2SO43636.41348.1170
Coagulation, FeCl3 or AlCl31272.7471.8170
Flocculation, Polyelectrolyte145.653.9170
Antiscaling, polycarbonic acid72.826.9170
Dechlorination, NaHSO3109.240.4170

Table 5.

Comparison of SWRO and its hybrid with AD cycle. The superiority of hybrid cycle can be seen clearly from summary table.

AD electricity consumption = 1.38kWhelec/m3 [137].

The impact matrix as presented in Table 1 for conventional SWRO processes can be modified for hybrid cycle as presented in Table 6. It can be observed clearly that most of the parameters impact is reduced to medium and low from initial high value. This shows that hybridization will not help to produce more water but also with minimum impact on environment and marine life along with energy efficiency.

SWROHybrid cycle
(I × P)(I × P)
Energy3 × 33 × 1
CO2 emission3 × 33 × 1
Chemical rejection3 × 33 × 1
Brine concentration3 × 23 × 2
Brine temperature1 × 11 × 1
Pumps noise3 × 23 × 2

Table 6.

The comparison of impact of conventional SWRO and proposed hybrid cycle. The hybrid cycle reduced all parameters impact to medium and low.


4. Thermal process and their integration: energy and environmental impact

The present share of thermally driven desalination processes is about 58% within the GCC countries. Typically, the energy requirements for such processes are reported as 2.0 kWhelec/m3 electricity and 60–70 kWhth/m3 of thermal energy. For energy efficiency, the thermally driven desalination processes are designed as an integral part of a cogeneration plant, producing both electricity and water from the temperature cascaded processes. The thermal energy is low-grade bleed steam extracted from the last stages of steam turbines. Based on the exergy destruction analysis of the primary energy input, the gas turbines consumed 75 ± 2% and steam turbines (via the heat recovery from turbine exhaust) extracted 21 ± 2% of input primary energy, leaving a mere 3 ± 1.5% of the total exergy input to the thermally driven desalination processes. Consequently, the overall primary energy required by thermal desalination processes is merely 6.58 kWhpe/m3 (equivalent of 4.25 kWhpe/m3 from electricity +2.33 kWhpe/m3 from the thermal input) [138, 139, 140]. We examine the major online thermal desalination plants in Saudi Arabia as well as the future proposed projects, and a summary of the analysis is outlined in Table 7.

All major integrated thermal desalination plants in Saudi Arabia are under SWCC and their recovery is about 40%. Since thermal desalination processes are robust, they need less chemicals as compared to SWRO processes. We analyzed the energy requirement, CO2 emission and chemical rejection based on total capacity of GCC.

4.1. Thermal systems and hybrid cycle results and discussion

We analyzed the operational conditions of all major MED/MSF plants in the World and in Saudi Arabia. All mentioned MED plants are operating between top brine temperature (TBT) 60°C to bottom brine temperature (LBT) 40°C. The MSF operational range is slightly wider, between 120 and 40°C. The high temperature of MED/MSF is controlled by scaling and fouling chances and lower brine temperature is by ambient conditions. Limited rage of operation put the cap on the performance of thermally driven desalination systems even they are dominating in GCC region. The detailed analysis of all thermal desalination plants in GCC and their impact are presented in Table 8.

Plant nameCapacity (m3/day)Overall recovery (%)CommissioningOperatorRef.
Ras Al Khair728,000402014SWCC[141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147]
Yanbu Phase-II68,190402012SWCC
Yanbu 1100,8001981SWCC
Yanbu 2144,0001999SWCC
Yanbu 2 expansion68, 1902007SWCC
Yanbu 3550,000402016SWCC
Jubail 1137,729401982SWCC
Jubail 2947,890401983SWCC
Khobar 2223,000401982SWCC
Khobar 3280,000402002SWCC
Jeddah 4221,575401981SWCC
Shuaiba 1223,0001989IWPP
Shuaiba 2454,5452002IWPP
Rabigh 218,0002009SWCC
AlWajh 390001979SWCC
Umluj 390002009SWCC
Farasan 29000SWCC
Rabigh 112041982SWCC
Future projects
Jubail phase (3)15,00,000402021SWCC[148, 149]
Khobar 4250,0002020
Khobar 5220,0002020
Yanbu 5100,0002020
Jubail 3150,0002021

Table 7.

Major thermal desalination plants in operation and future proposed projects in Saudi Arabia. They need only light pretreatment and can achieve 40% recovery.

Total GCC capacity26mm3/day
Thermal share (68%)17.7mm3/day
Total primary energy (PE) consumption*116.5GWh/day
CO2 emission**61,388.8ton/day
Total feed53.0mm3/day
Scale inhibitor, polyphosphate (1–8 ppm)424.3ton/day
Acid, sulfuric acid (100 ppm)5304.0ton/day
Antifoam, poly othelyne ethylene oxide (0.1 ppm)5.3ton/day
Oxidizing agent, foam of chlorine (1 ppm)53.0ton/day

Table 8.

Energy consumption, CO2 emission and chemical rejection by all thermal desalination plants in GCC. Their impact is less severe as compared to SWRO.

Electricity consumption = 2.0 kWhelec/m3, thermal energy consumption = 70kWhth/m3, power plant conversion efficiency = 47%.

CO2 emission rate = 0.527 kg/kWhpe.

Pretreatment chemical values are taken from operational plants and published literature [150, 151, 152, 153, 154].

ParametersThermal systemHybrid cycle% Saving by hybridization (%)
Total PE consumption (GWhpe/day)*116.584.238.3
CO2 emission (ton/day)61,388.822,373.138.3
Pretreatment chemicals (ton/day)
Scale inhibitor, polyphosphate424.3235.780
Acid, sulfuric acid5304.02946.780
Antifoam, poly othelyne ethylene oxide5.32.9580
Oxidizing agent, foam of chlorine53.029.4780

Table 9.

Comparison of thermal desalination and its hybrid with AD cycle. The superiority of hybrid cycle can be seen clearly from summary table.

AD electricity consumption = 1.38 kWhelec/m3.

MEDAD hybrid cycle improvement factor = 2.0 [155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173].

It can be noticed that impact of thermal desalination processes is less severe than SWRO, but still same trend will have high impact in long-term operation. To maintain secure water supply in GCC, thermal desalination processes need to improve.

The two ways for thermal process improvements are material development for high heat transfer and process improvement to overcome thermodynamic limits of conventional processes. The material development already reached to asymptotic limit, but processes improvement still have gap and need immediate research data for industrial application. We presented detailed experimentation on thermal system hybridization for industrial reference for future design.

4.2. Thermal process integration with AD cycle

Thermal desalination processes, MED/MSF, can be integrated with AD cycle to enhance their performance by extending their operational range. In these cycles, low temperature heat is supplied to first steam generator only and their performance depends on number of recoveries. The AD cycle hybridization can extend the last stage operational range to as low as 7°C as compared to conventional operational range of 40°C. This extension of LBT helps to insert more number of recoveries and hence boosts the performance.

To investigate hybrid MED performance, a four-stage MED was designed, fabricated and installed in KAUST. This MED is a miniature form of Yanbu MED plant installed by Doosan, Korea. The last stage of MED was integrated with solar thermal-driven AD cycle to extend last stage temperature to below ambient condition. Figure 10 shows AD and MED pilots installed in KAUST, Saudi Arabia.

Figure 10.

Solar-driven AD pilot and four-stage MED plant to investigate as a hybrid cycle. The pilot plant was designed for overall capacity of 10 m3/day.

The AD regeneration heat, 65°C hot water, is supplied from evacuated tube solar thermal collectors installed on one of the rooftop building. Experiments were conducted with straight MED as well as the hybridized MED + AD cycle to compare the performance. Figure 11(a) shows the control of MED pilot. For MED heat source, a small boiler is installed to inject steam into hot water circuit to maintain any set temperature. Feed is supplied parallel to all four stages after extracting condensation heat from last condenser. Distillate and brine are collected in separate tanks via u-tube to maintain the inter-stage pressure difference. Straight MED experiment was conducted for 72 hours continuously to validate the stability of operation. The temporal profile of all components showed stable operation of MED as presented in Figure 11(b). After successful MED testing, it was hybridized with AD cycle to operate as a hybrid cycle. Integration of AD cycle to the last stage of MED bring down the last stage temperature to below ambient and also inter-stage temperature was observed as 5–6°C as compared to 2–3°C in case of straight MED as shown in Figure 11(c). The excellent thermodynamic synergy of hybridization of two thermally driven cycles boosted water production to more than twofold as compared to straight MED at same top brine temperature. Figure 12 shows the water production comparison of straight MED and hybrid MEDAD. It can be clearly seen that water production improvement is more than two times by AD cycle integration with last stage of MED.

Figure 11.

MED and AD pilot results installed in KAUST. (a) Control of MED pilot and (b) straight MED components temperature profiles. Inter-stage temperature varies 2–3°C for 72-hour experiment, (c) MED hybrid cycle components temperature profiles. Inter-stage temperature increased to almost double as compared to straight MED. Also, hybrid cycle can operate below ambient temperature as can be seen last stage temperature.

Figure 12.

MED and hybrid MEDAD cycle water production comparison. Integration of AD to the last stage of MED can boost water production to twofold by extending inter-stage temperature (Table 9).

Based on thermal cycle hybrid results, the impact matrix has been revised and presented in Table 10. The hybridization greatly improved the energy efficiency and reduced the environmental impact as compared to conventional processes. In GCC, to maintain the confidence on thermally driven desalination processes, their hybridization is very important. It will help to achieve future water targets to maintain the GDP growth but following the COP21 goals for environmental emission.

ThermalHybrid cycle
(I × P)(I × P)
Energy3 × 33 x 2
CO2 emission3 × 33 × 1
Chemical rejection3 × 22 × 1
Brine concentration3 × 13 × 2
Brine temperature1 × 11 × 1
Pumps noise2 × 12 × 1

Table 10.

The comparison of impact of conventional thermal desalination system and proposed hybrid cycle. The hybrid cycle reduced all parameters impact to medium and low.


5. Conclusions

An efficient and environment-friendly hybrid desalination process has been demonstrated for the first time with different energy mix for future water supplies. The following advantages can be observed clearly by implementation of desalination hybridizations:

  1. Energy consumption and chemical discharge saving up to 99% and 150%, respectively, by the SWRO hybridization with AD cycle.

  2. Thermal process integration with AD cycle will save up to 38% energy and up to 80% chemical rejection to sea.

  3. CO2 emission saving by SWRO+AD up to 99% and by MEDAD up to 30%.

  4. Overall recovery up to 80% can be achieved without scaling and fouling chances due to low temperature operation.

  5. Integration will help to reduce overall impact to low or moderate level, acceptable level under COP21 goal.

  6. Integration will help to secure future water demand for expected GDP growth rate with minimal impact on environment and by implementing different energy mix for higher energy efficiency.

We opine that the higher energy efficiency of hybridized seawater desalination cycles can contribute to meeting the goals of sustainable seawater desalination as outlined under a subsection of the COP21.



The author would like to thank to King Abdullah University of Science and Technology (KAUST) for financial support for MED and AD pilots.



COPConference of parties
IEOInternational Energy Outlook
OECDOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development
BtuBritish thermal unit
BAUBusiness as usual
GCCGulf Cooperation Council
SWROSeawater Reverse Osmosis
MEDMultieffect desalination
MSFMultistage flash
ADAdsorption cycle


  1. 1. International Energy Outlook 2016 with Projections to 2040. A report by U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2016. [Accessed: Dec 15, 2017]
  2. 2. International Energy Outlook 2017 with Projections to 2040. A report by U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2017. [Accessed: Feb 05, 2018]
  3. 3. Key World Energy Trends, Excerpt from World Energy Balance (2016), A Report by International Energy Agency (IEA); 2016
  4. 4. Key world energy statistics, A report by International Energy Agency (IEA). 2017. [Accessed: Jan 05, 2017]
  5. 5. BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2017. [Accessed: Feb 15, 2018]
  6. 6. World Energy Resources, A report by World energy council (WEC). 2016. [Accessed: Nov 15, 2017]
  7. 7. Chien T, Hu J-L. Renewable energy and macroeconomic efficiency of OECD and non-OECD economies. Energy Policy. 2007;35-7:3606-3615
  8. 8. Key CO2 Emission Trends, Excerpt from CO2 Emissions from Fuel Combustion (2016), A report by International Energy Agency (IEA). 2017. [accessed: Dec 24, 2017]
  9. 9. Olivier JGJ, Janssens-Maenhout G, Muntean M and Peters JAHW. Trends in Global CO2 emissions, PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency Report 2016. [accessed: Feb 10, 2018]
  10. 10. Concept Chapter, Global Clean Water Desalination Alliance “H2O minus CO2”. [accessed: Sep 10, 2017]
  11. 11. Redrawing the Energy-Climate map, World Energy Outlook Special Report, International Energy Agency (IEA). 2013. [accessed: Oct 11, 2017]
  12. 12. Friedlingstein P et al. Persistent growth of CO2 emissions and implications for reaching climate targets. Nature Geoscience. 2014;7:709-715
  13. 13. COP 21: UN Climate Change Conference, Paris 2015. and [Accessed: July 12, 2017]
  14. 14. Francey RJ et al. Atmospheric verification of anthropogenic CO2 emission trends. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3:520-524
  15. 15. Raupach MR, Le Quéré C, Peters GP, Canadell JG. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3:603-604
  16. 16. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Center for climate and Energy Solutions. 2016
  17. 17. Francey RJ et al. Reply to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3:604-604
  18. 18. Raupach MR et al. Global and regional drivers of accelerating CO2 emissions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA. 2007;104:10288-10293
  19. 19. Pielke R. The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won’t Tell You About Global Warming; NewYork. 2011; ISBN 978-0-455-02519-0
  20. 20. Le Quéré C et al. Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature Geoscience. 2009;2:831-836
  21. 21. Friedlingstein P et al. Update on CO2 emissions. Nature Geoscience. 2010;3:811-812
  22. 22. Peters GP et al. Rapid growth in CO2 emissions after the 2008-2009 global financial crisis. Nature Climate Change. 2012;2:2-4
  23. 23. Peters GP et al. The challenge to keep global warming below 2°C. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3:4-6
  24. 24. Desalination for Water Supply (FR/R003), Foundation for Water Research Report. 2015. [Accessed: Oct 12, 2017]
  25. 25. Aquilina L et al. Impact of climate changes during the last 5 million years on groundwater in basement aquifers. Nature Scientific Reports. 2015;5, Article number: 14132
  26. 26. Qader MR. Electricity consumption and GHG emissions in GCC countries. Energies. 2009;2:1201-1213
  27. 27. Magazzino C. The relationship between real GDP, CO2 emissions, and energy use in the GCC countries: A time series approach. Cogent Economics & Finance. 2016;4:1152729
  28. 28. Reiche D. Renewable energy policies in the Gulf countries: A case study of the carbon-neutral “Masdar City” in Abu Dhabi. Energy Policy. 2010;38:378-382
  29. 29. Hammamet. Overview of CO2 emissions in the Arab Region: National versus Sectoral Emissions, Economic Development and Globalisation Division 2013. ( [Accessed: Feb 25, 2018]
  30. 30. Farhani S, Shahbaz M. What role of renewable and non-renewable electricity consumption and output is needed to initially mitigate {CO2} emissions in {MENA} region? Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2014;40:80-90
  31. 31. Alshehry AS, Belloumi M. Energy consumption, carbon dioxide emissions and economic growth: The case of Saudi Arabia. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;41:237-247
  32. 32. Jammazi R, Aloui C. On the interplay between energy consumption, economic growth and {CO2} emission nexus in the {GCC} countries: A comparative analysis through wavelet approaches. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2015;51:1737-1751
  33. 33. Saidi K, Hammami S. The impact of energy consumption and {CO2} emissions on economic growth: Fresh evidence from dynamic simultaneous-equations models. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2015;14:178-186
  34. 34. Salahuddin M, Gow J. Economic growth, energy consumption and {CO2} emissions in gulf cooperation council countries. Energy. 2014;73:44-58
  35. 35. Salahuddin M, Gow J. Economic growth, energy consumption and CO2 emissions in gulf cooperation council countries. Energy. 2014;73:44-58
  36. 36. Meltzer J, Hultman N, Langley C. Low carbon energy transition in Qatar and the GULF cooperation council region, 2014. [Accessed: on Feb 15, 2018]
  37. 37. CO2 emission data, World bank data. [Accessed: Feb 05, 2018]
  38. 38. Griffiths S. Renewable energy policy trends and recommendations for GCC countries. Energy Transitions. 2017;1(3):1-15
  39. 39. Eckart W. GRC Report: Alternative Energy Trends and Implications for GCC Countries. 2008. [Accessed: Aug 2017]
  40. 40. Kazim A, Veziroglu TN. Utilization of solar-hydrogen energy in the UAE to maintain its share in the world energy market of the 21st century. Renewable Energy. 2001;24:259-274
  41. 41. Wogan D, Pradhan S, Albardi S. GCC Energy System Overview–2017, A report by King Abdullah Petroleum Studies and Research Center (KAPSARC). ( [accessed: Feb 25, 2018]
  42. 42. Al-Enezi FQ, Sykulski JK, Ahmed NA. Visibility and potential of solar energy on horizontal surface at Kuwait area. Energy Procedia. 2011;12:862-872
  43. 43. Al-Nassar W, Alhajraf S, Al-Enizi A, Al-Awadhi L. Potential wind power generation in the State of Kuwait. Renewable Energy. 2005;30:2149-2161
  44. 44. El-Katiri L, Husain M. Prospects for Renewable Energy in GCC States: Opportunities and the Need for Reform, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies; 2014, ISBN 978-1-78467-009-2
  45. 45. Alnaser WE, Alnaser NW. Solar and wind energy potential in GCC countries and some related projects. Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy. 2009;1:022301
  46. 46. Ahmad A, Babar M. Effect of energy market globalization over power sector of GCC region: A short review. Smart Grid and Renewable Energy. 2013;4:265-271
  47. 47. Renewable Energy Market Analysis. The GCC Region, The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) Report 2016. ISBN: 978-92-95111-81-3
  48. 48. Renewable Energy Desalination: An Emerging Solution to Close the Water Gap in the Middle East and North Africa. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank; 2012. ISBN (electronic): 978-0-8213-7980-6
  49. 49. Howells M et al. Integrated analysis of climate change, land-use, energy and water strategies. Nature Climate Change. 2013;3:621-626
  50. 50. Rothausen SGSA, Conway D. Greenhouse-gas emissions from energy use in the water sector. Nature Climate Change. 2011;1:210-219
  51. 51. Renewable Energy Powered Desalination Systems: Technologies and Market Analysis. Mestrado Integrado em Engenharia da Energia e do Ambiente; 2014
  52. 52. Shatat M, Worall M, Riffat S. Opportunities for solar water desalination worldwide: Review. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2013;9:67-80
  53. 53. Papapetrou M et al. Roadmap for the development of desalination powered by renewable energy. Promotion of Renewable Energy for Water Production through Desalination, Fraunhofer Information-Centre for Regional Planning and Building Construction IRB; 2010. ISBN 978-3-8396-0147-1
  54. 54. Moser M, Trieb F, Fichter T, Kern J. Renewable desalination: A methodology for cost comparison. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2013;51:1171-1189
  55. 55. Abusharkh AG, Giwa A, Hasan SW. Wind and geothermal energy in desalination: A short review on progress and sustainable commercial processes. Industrial Engineering & Management. 2015;4:1-5; ISSN: 2169-0316
  56. 56. Lattemann S. Development of an environmental impact assesment and decision support system for seawater desalination plants. Doctoral thesis, Delft University of Technology and UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education. 2010
  57. 57. El-Naas MH, Al-Marzouqi AH, Chaalal O. A combined approach for the management of desalination reject brine and capture of CO2. Desalination. 2010;251:70-74
  58. 58. Lattemann S, Höpner T. Environmental impact and impact assessment of seawater desalination. Desalination. 2008;220:1-15
  59. 59. Rao NS, Venkateswara RTN, Rao GB, Rao KVG. Impact of reject water from the desalination plants on ground water quality. Desalination. 1990;78:429-437
  60. 60. Sadhwani JJ, Veza JM, Santana C. Case studies on environmental impact of seawater desalination. Desalination. 2005;185:1-8
  61. 61. Dawoud MA, Al Mulla MM. Environmental impacts of seawater desalination: Arabian gulf case study. International Journal of Environment and Sustainability. 2012;3:22-37
  62. 62. Kuentle K, Brunner G. An integrated self-sufficient multipurpose plan for seawater desalination. Desalination. 1981;39:459-474
  63. 63. El-Banna Saad Fath H. Combined multi stage flash-multi effect distillation system with brine reheat, Patent No. 2,190,299; 1998
  64. 64. Awerbuch L, Sommariva C. MSF distillate driven desalination process and apparatus, Patent No. PCT/GB2005/003329
  65. 65. Helal AM, Al-Jafri A, Al-Yafeai A. Enhancement of existing MSF plant productivity through design modification and change of operating conditions. Desalination. 2012;307:76-86
  66. 66. Nafeya AS, Fathb HES, Mabrouk AA. Thermoeconomic investigation of multi effect evaporation (MEE) and hybrid multi effect evaporation-multi stage flash (MEEMSF) systems. Desalination. 2006;201:241-254
  67. 67. Junjie Y, Shufeng S, Jinhua W, Jiping L. Improvement of a multi-stage flash seawater desalination system for cogeneration power plants. Desalination. 2007;217:191-202
  68. 68. Nasser GED. Apparatus for the distillation of fresh water from seawater, Patent No. 4,636,283; 1987
  69. 69. Mabrouk ANA. Techno-economic analysis of once through long tube MSF process for high capacity desalination plants. Desalination. 2013;317:84-94
  70. 70. Mabrouk A-NA. Techno-economic analysis of tube bundle orientation for high capacity brine recycle MSF desalination plants. Desalination. 2013;320:24-32
  71. 71. Al-Rawajfeh AE, Ihm S, Varshney H, Mabrouk AN. Scale formation model for high top brine temperature multi stage flash (MSF) desalination plants. Desalination. 2014;350:53-60
  72. 72. Borsani R, Sommariva C, Superina R, Wangnick K, Germana A. MSF desalination: the myth of the largest unit-some technical and economical evaluations. Proceedings, International Desalination Association Conference; 1995. pp. 293-325
  73. 73. Tusel GF, Rautenbach R, Widua J. Sea water desalination plant “Sirte” — An example for an advanced MSF design. Desalination. 1994;96:379-396
  74. 74. Helal AM. Once-through and brine recirculation MSF designs, a comparative study. Desalination. 2004;171:33-60
  75. 75. Mabrouk ANA. Technoeconomic analysis of once through long tube MSF process for high capacity desalination plants. Desalination. 2013;317:84-94
  76. 76. Helal AM, El-Nashar AM, Al-Katheeri E, Al-Malek S. Optimal design of hybrid RO/MSF desalination plants part I: Modeling and algorithms. Desalination. 2003;154:43-66
  77. 77. Hamed OA, Hassan AM, Al-Shail K, Farooque MA. Performance analysis of a trihybrid NF/RO/MSF desalination plant. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2009;1:215-222
  78. 78. Hamed OA. Overview of hybrid Desalintion systems-current status and future prospects. Desalination. 2005;186:207-214
  79. 79. Helal AM, E1-Nashar AM, A1-Katheeri ES, A1-Malek SA. Optimal design of hybrid RO/MSF desalination plants part III: Sensitivity analysis. Desalination. 2004;169:43-60
  80. 80. Al-Mutaz IS. Hybrid RO MSF: A practical option for nuclear desalination. International Journal of Nuclear Desalination. 2003;1:47-57
  81. 81. Calì G, Fois E, Lallai A, Mura G. Optimal design of a hybrid RO/MSF desalination system in a non-OPEC country. Desalination. 2008;228:114-127
  82. 82. Cardona E, Culotta S, Piacentino A. Energy saving with MSF-RO series desalination plants. Desalination. 2002;153:167-171
  83. 83. Hassan MA et al. A new approach to membrane and thermal seawater desalination process using Nanofiltration membranes, part 1. Desalination. 1998;118:35-51
  84. 84. Al-Mutaz IS. Coupling of a nuclear reactor to hybrid RO/MSF desalination plants. Desalination. 2003;175:259-268
  85. 85. Hamad A, Almulla A, Gadalla M. Integrating hybrid systems with thermal desalination plants. Desalination. 2005;174:171-192
  86. 86. Al-Mutaz IS, Soliman MA, Daghthem AM. Optimum Design for a Hybrid Desalting Plant. Desalination. 1989;76:177-189
  87. 87. Alardin F, Andrianne J. Thermal and membrane process economics: Optimized selection for seawater desalination. Desalination. 2002;153:305-311
  88. 88. El-Sayed E et al. Pilot study of MSF/RO hybrid systems. Desalination. 1998;120:121-128
  89. 89. Saha BB, El-Sharkawy II, Shahzad MW, Thu K, Ang L, Ng KC. Fundamental and application aspects of adsorption cooling and desalination. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;97:68-76
  90. 90. Thu K, Yanagi H, Saha BB, Ng KC. Performance investigation on a 4-bed adsorption desalination cycle with internal heat recovery scheme. Desalination. 2017;402:88-96
  91. 91. Thu K, Saha BB, Chua KJ, Ng KC. Performance investigation of a waste heat-driven 3-bed 2-evaporator adsorption cycle for cooling and desalination. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2016;101:1111-1122
  92. 92. Saha BB, El-Sharkawy II, Shahzad MW, Thu K, Ang L, Ng KC. Fundamental and application aspects of adsorption cooling and desalination. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;97:68-76
  93. 93. Jun WW, Eric JH, Mark JB. Thermodynamic cycles of adsorption desalination system. Applied Energy. 2012;90:316-322
  94. 94. Zejli D, Benchrifa R, Bennouna A, Bouhelal OK. A solar adsorption desalination device: First simulation results. Desalination. 2004;168:127-135
  95. 95. Mosry H, Larger D, Genther K. Anew multiple-effect distiller system with compact heat exchanger. Desalination. 1994;96:59-70
  96. 96. Wang XL, Ng KC. Experimental investigation of an adsorption desalination plant using low-temperature wasted heat. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2005;25:2780-2789
  97. 97. Wang XL, Chakraborty A, Ng KC, Saha BB. How heat and mass recovery strategies impact the performance of adsorption desalination plant: Theory and experiments. Heat Transfer Engineering. 2007;28:147-153
  98. 98. Ng KC, Chua HT, Chung CY, Loke CH, Kashiwagi T, Akisawa A, Saha BB. Experimental investigation of the silica gel-water adsorption isotherm characteristics. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2001;21:1631-1642
  99. 99. Ng KC, Saha BB, Chakraborty A, Koyama S. Adsorption desalination quenches global thirst. Heat Transfer Engineering. 2008;29:845-848
  100. 100. Thu K, Ng KC, Saha BB, Chakraborty A, Koyama S. Operational strategy of adsorption desalination systems. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2009;29:1811-1816
  101. 101. Ng KC, Thu K, Chakraborty A, Saha BB, Chun WG. Solar-assisted dual-effect adsorption cycle for the production of cooling effect and potable water. International Journal of Low-Carbon Technology. 2009;4:61-67
  102. 102. Chua HT, Ng KC, Wang W, Yap C, Wang XL. Transient modelling of a two-bed silica gel-water adsorption chiller. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2004;47:659-669
  103. 103. Wang XL, Chua HT. Two bed silica gel-water adsorption chillers: An effectual lumped parameter model. International Journal of Refrigeration. 2007;30:1417-1426
  104. 104. Chua HT, Ng KC, Malek A, Kashiwagi T, Akisawa A, Saha BB. Multi-bed regenerative adsorption chiller-improving the utilization of waste heat and reducing the chilled water outlet temperature fluctuation. International Journal of Refrigeration. 2001;24:124-136
  105. 105. Ng KC, Saha BB, Chakraborty A, Koyama S. Adsorption desalination quenches global thirst. Heat Transfer Engineering. 2008;29:845-848
  106. 106. Li A, Thu K, Ismail AB, Shahzad MW, Ng KC. Performance of adsorbent-embedded heat exchangers using binder-coating method. International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer. 2016;92:149-157
  107. 107. Li A, Thu K, Ismail AB, Ng KC. A heat transfer correlation for transient vapor uptake of powdered adsorbent embedded onto the fins of heat exchangers. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;93:668-677
  108. 108. Cevallos ORF. Adsorption Characteristics of Water and Silica Gel System for Desalination Cycle, Master of Science Thesis. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology; 2012
  109. 109. Sharma RK, Gaba G, Kumar A, Puri A. Chapter 6, Functionalized Silica Gel as Green Material for Metal Remediation. UK: RSC Publishing; 2013. pp. 105-134; ISBN 978-1-84973-621-3
  110. 110. Yang RT, John A. Adsorbents: Fundamentals and Applications. USA: Willey & Sons, Inc., Publications; ISBN 0-471-29741-0
  111. 111. Wang LW, Wang RZ, Oliveira RG. A review on adsorption working pairs for refrigeration. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2009;13(3):518-534
  112. 112. Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Li A, Ng KC. Energy-water-environment nexus underpinning future desalination sustainability. Desalination. 2017;413:52-64
  113. 113. Jeddah Reverse Osmosis Desalination Phase 2, A Project Report by ABB, 2009. [Accessed: Jan 05, 2018]
  114. 114. Tanaka K, Matsui K, Hori T, Iwahashi H, Takeuchi K, Ito Y. Mitsubishi heavy industries technical review. 2009;46:12-14. [Accessed: Dec 15, 2017]
  115. 115. Mantilla D. Feasibility for Use of a Seabed Gallery Intake for the Shuqaiq-II SWRO Facility. Saudi Arabia, Master of Science thesis: King Abdullah University of Science and Technology; 2013
  116. 116. Fried A, Serio B. Water Industry Segment Report for Desalination, A report by World Trade Center San Diego (WTCSD); 2012
  117. 117. Shuaibah Independent Water & Power Project (IWPP), Saudi Arabia. [Accessed: July 20, 2017]
  118. 118. Water Desalination Report, Mott MacDonald. [Accessed: July 21, 2017]
  119. 119. Kishi M, Kawada I, Ohta K, Furuichi M, Tamura M, Fussaoka Y, Nakanishi Y. Practical aspects of large-scale reverse osmosis applications. Encyclopedia of Desalination and Water Resources (DESWARE).
  120. 120. Kammourie N, Dajani TFF, Cioffi S, Rybar S. SAWACO north Obhor SWRO plant operational experienced. Desalination. 2008;221:101-106
  121. 121. Hassan AM, Abanmy AM, Al-Thobiety M, Mani T. Performance evaluation of SWCC SWRO plants part II, IDA World Conference on Desalination and Water Reuse; August 25-29, 1991
  122. 122. Al-Breakeit A. Investment Opportunities for New Projects in KSA, A Saline Water Conversion Corporation’s report, Singapore International Water Week; 2016
  123. 123. Tularam GA, Ilahee M. Environmental concerns of desalinating seawater using reverse osmosis. Journal of Environmental Monitoring. 2013;8:805-813
  124. 124. Darwish M, Hassabou AH, Shomar B. Using seawater reverse osmosis (SWRO) desalting system for less environmental impacts in Qatar. Desalination. 2013;309:113-124
  125. 125. Khan MT. Fouling of Seawater Reverse Osmosis (SWRO) Membrane: Chemical and Microbiological Characterization ; Doctoral thesis. King Abdullah University of Science and Technology; 2013
  126. 126. Münk WF. Ecological and Economic Analysis of Seawater Desalination Plants, ; Diploma thesis. Germany: University of Karlsruhe; 2008
  127. 127. Desalination for Safe Water Supply. Guidance for the Health and Environmental Aspects Applicable to Desalination, Public Health and the Environment World Health Organization Geneva; 2007
  128. 128. Hummer G, Rasaiah JC, Noworyta JP. Water conduction through the hydrophobic channel of a carbon nanotube. Nature. 2001;414:188-190
  129. 129. Holt JK et al. Fast mass transport through sub-2-nanometer carbon nanotubes. Science. 2006;312:1034-1037
  130. 130. Pendergast MTM, Hoek EMV. A review of water treatment membrane nanotechnologies. Energy & Environmental Science. 2011;4:1946-1971
  131. 131. Agre P, Sasaki S, Chrispeels MJ. Aquaporins: A family of water channel proteins. American Journal of Physiology - Renal Physiology. 1993;265:265-270
  132. 132. Kaufman Y, Berman A, Freger V. Supported lipid bilayer membranes for water purification by reverse osmosis. Langmuir. 2010;26:7388-7395
  133. 133. Fane T. Overview and roadmap for membrane process development in desalination. DesalTech 2015, San Diego, USA Aug 28-29 2015
  134. 134. Wei QJ, McGovern RK, Lienhard V JH. Saving energy with an optimized two-stage reverse osmosis system, Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology 3-4 (2017) 659-670
  135. 135. Warsinger DEM, Lienhard V John H, Tow EW, McGovern RK, Thiel GP, Batch Pressure-Driven Membrane Separation with Closed-Flow Loop and Reservoir, US patent # 15350064; 2017
  136. 136. Ali ES, Alsaman AS, Harby K, Askalany AA, Diab MR, Ebrahim Yakoot SM. Recycling brine water of reverse osmosis desalination employing adsorption desalination: A theoretical simulation. Desalination. 2017;408:13-24
  137. 137. Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Ng KC. Pushing desalination recovery to the maximum limit: Membrane and thermal processes integration. Desalination. 2017;416:54-64
  138. 138. Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Son HS, Seung Jin O, Ng KC. Desalination processes evaluation at common platform: A universal performance ratio (UPR) method. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2018;134:62-67
  139. 139. Ng KC, Shahzad MW, Son HS, Hamed OA. An exergy approach to efficiency evaluation of desalination. Applied Physics Letters. 2017;110:184101
  140. 140. Lienhard JH, Mistry KH, Sharqawy MH, Thiel GP. Thermodynamics, Exergy, and Energy Efficiency in Desalination Systems, Chapter 4, Desalination Sustainability. Elsevier, ISBN: 9780128098967; 2017
  141. 141. Ras Al Khair Desalination Plant, Saudi Arabia. [Accessed: July 25, 2017]
  142. 142. Yanbu Phase 2 MED Seawater Desalination Plant Expansion, Saudi Arabia. ( [Accessed: July 25, 2017]
  143. 143. Yanbu 3 MSF plant in Saudi Arabia. [Accessed: July 26, 2017]
  144. 144. Hamed OA, Sofi MAKA, Imam M, Mustafa GM, Mardouf KB, Washmi HA. Thermal performance of multi-stage flash distillation plants in Saudi Arabia. Desalination. 2000;128:281-292
  145. 145. Desalination in the GCC: The History, the Present & the Future, A Report by Desalination Experts Group, Originating from the Water Resources Committee; 2014
  146. 146. Doosan Water Plants. A Doosan Heavy Industries & Construction Report 2013. [Accessed: July 05, 2017]
  147. 147. Taher N, Hajjar BA. Energy and Environment in Saudi Arabia: Concerns & Opportu-nities. USA: Springer Publisher; 2014. ISBN: 978-3-319-02981-5
  148. 148. Gashlan A. The Saudi Water Sector: Upcoming Projects and Investment Opportunities. [Accessed: June 15, 2017]
  149. 149. Alarifi A. Desalination in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia: Current Practice and Future Trends; 2013.
  150. 150. Budhiraja P, Fares AA. Studies of scale formation and optimization of antiscalant dosing in multi-effect thermal desalination units. Desalination. 2008;220:313-325
  151. 151. Warsinger DM, Swaminathan J, Guillen-Burrieza E, Arafat HA, Lienhard JH. Scaling and fouling in membrane distillation for desalination applications: A review. Desalination. 2015;356:294-313
  152. 152. Tijing LD, Woo YC, Choi J-S, Lee S, Kim S-H, Shon HK. Fouling and its control in membrane distillation—A review. Journal of Membrane Science. 2015;475:215-244
  153. 153. Budhiraja P, Fares AA. Studies of scale formation and optimization of antiscalant dosing in multi-effect thermal desalination units. Desalination. 2008;220:313-325
  154. 154. Mi B, Elimelech M. Gypsum scaling and cleaning in forward osmosis: Measurements and mechanisms. Environmental Science & Technology. 2010;44:2022-2028
  155. 155. Ng KC, Shahzad MW. Sustainable desalination using ocean thermocline energy. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews. 2018;82 (240-246
  156. 156. Shahzad MW, Burhan M, Ghaffour N, Ng KC. A multi evaporator desalination system operated with thermocline energy for future sustainability. Desalination. 2018;435:268-277. DOI: 10.1016/j.desal.2017.04.013
  157. 157. Shahzad MW, Ng KC. An improved multi-evaporator adsorption desalination cycle for GCC countries. Energy Technology. 2017;5:1663-1669. DOI: 10.1002/ente.201700061
  158. 158. Shahzad MW, Ng KC. On the road to water sustainability in the Gulf. Nature Middle East. 2016. DOI: 10.1038/nmiddleeast.2016.50
  159. 159. Shahzad MW, Ng KC, Thu K. Future sustainable desalination using waste heat: Kudos to thermodynamic synergy. Environmental Science: Water Research & Technology. 2016;2:206-212
  160. 160. Missimer TM, Ng KC, Thuw K, Shahzad MW. Geothermal electricity generation and desalination: An integrated process design to conserve latent heat with operational improvements. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2016;57(48-49):23110-23118
  161. 161. Shahzad MW, Thu K, Ng KC, WonGee C. Recent development in thermally activated desalination methods: Achieving an energy efficiency less than 2.5 kWhelec/m3. Desalination and Water Treatment. 2016;57:7396-7405
  162. 162. Saha BB, El-Sharkawy II, Shahzad MW, Thu K, Li A, Ng KC. Fundamental and application aspects of adsorption cooling and desalination. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2016;97:68-76
  163. 163. Shahzad MW, Ng KC, Thu K. Future energy benchmark for desalination: Is it better to have a power (electricity) plant with RO or MED/MSF? International Journal of Modern Physics. 2016;42:166-172
  164. 164. Shahzad MW, Ng KC, Thu K. An improved cost apportionment for desalination combined with power plant: An Exergetic analyses. Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2016;819:530-535
  165. 165. Thu K, Kim Y-D, Shahzad MW, Saththasivam J, Ng KC. Performance investigation of an advanced multi-effect adsorption desalination (MEAD) cycle. Applied Energy. 2015;159:469-477
  166. 166. Shahzad MW, Thu K, Kim Y-d, Ng KC. An experimental investigation on MEDAD hybrid desalination cycle. Applied Energy. 2015;148:273-281
  167. 167. Ng KC, Thu K, Seung Jin O, Li A, Shahzad MW, Ismail AB. Recent developments in thermally-driven seawater desalination: Energy efficiency improvement by hybridization of the MED and AD cycles. Desalination. 2015;356:255-270
  168. 168. Shahzad MW, Ng KC, Thu K, Saha BB, Chun WG. Multi effect desalination and adsorption desalination (MEDAD): A hybrid desalination method. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2014;72:289-297
  169. 169. Ng KC, Thu K, Shahzad MW, Gee CW. Progress of adsorption cycle and its hybrids with conventional multi-effect desalination processes. IDA Journal of Desalination and Water Reuse. 2016;6(1):44-56
  170. 170. Shahzad MW, Thu K, Saha BB, Ng KC. An Emergin hybrid multi-effect adsorption desalination system. EVERGREEN Joint Journal of Novel Carbon Resource Sciences & Green Asia Strategy. 2014;1(2):30-36
  171. 171. Shahzad MW, Myat A, Gee CW, Ng KC. Bubble-assisted film evaporation correlation for saline water at sub-atmospheric pressures in horizontal-tube evaporator. Applied Thermal Engineering. 2013;50:670-676
  172. 172. Shahzad MW. The Hybrid Multi-Effect Desalination (MED) and the Adsorption (AD) Cycle for Desalination, Doctoral Thesis. National University of Singapore; 2013
  173. 173. Thu K, Kim YD, Shahzad MW, Saththasivam J, Ng KC. Performance investigation of an advanced multi-effect adsorption desalination (MEAD) cycle. Applied Energy. 2015;159:469-477

Written By

Muhammad Wakil Shahzad, Doskhan Ybyraiymkul, Muhammad Burhan and Kim Choon Ng

Submitted: 09 December 2017 Reviewed: 05 April 2018 Published: 19 September 2018