Upload
others
View
8
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD)Concept Evolution and Technology OptionsConcept, Evolution and Technology Options
Viatcheslav FregerWolfson Department of Chemical Engineering
Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
“Z Li id Di h ” W k h G dhi J 27 28 2014“Zero Liquid Discharge” Workshop, Gandhinagar, January 27 ‐ 28, 2014
1ZLD Feb 2014
Outline
History and motivation History and motivation
Conventional ZLD
Hybrid ZLD
E i ZLD d ZLD lt ti Emerging ZLD and near‐ZLD alternatives
Outlook
ZLD Feb 2014 2
Some History ZLD sector was apparently born in 1970s in USA, driven by
the regulator Tight federal regulations on salt discharge to surface waters
introduced, especially, due to salinity problems in the Colorado River
Regulations were mainly concerned with power plant discharges from cooling tower blowdowns and scrubbers (in the wake of previously introduced regulations on flu gas discharges)
Clean Water Act 1974, revised 1977, 1982
First ZLDs installed were 500‐2,000 GPM units based on evaporation/crystallization
Regulations are expected to keep tightening: new EPA’s guidelines (ELG) expected in 2017 and 2022 on various
f d h ( h b )Freger ZLD Feb 2014 3
types of discharges (many have to be ZLD)Sources: GWI Report, 2009; G. Maller/URS, 2013
Current Drivers and Limitations Presently, the major driver for using ZLD are
Environmental regulation on discharge of specific solutes (salt, toxic elements nitrate‐nitrite etc);elements, nitrate nitrite etc);
Water scarcity/water stress growing world‐wide along with still negligible rate of waste water recycling;
Economics: recycled water becomes more affordable as the water supply from conventional sources becomes more expensive;
G i i l ibili d d i d f Growing social responsibility and education towards awareness of environmental issues
While ZLD cost is high in most cases, it might be a more economic solution g , gwhen waste needs to be transported in large volumes over long distances
Still ZLD has drawbacks, probably, the most significant are
Very high cost (both CAPEX and OPEX)
Custom‐design on case‐to‐case basis
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 4
Difficulties to deal with complex streams (e.g., petrochemical)
Current and Potential Markets for ZLD
Treatment and recycling of industrial waste effluentsPower Petroleum and petrochemical• Power
• Synthetic fuels• Primary metals processing
• Petroleum and petrochemical• Oil refining• Steam Assisted Gravity DrainagePrimary metals processing
• Microelectronics• Chemical
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD) heavy oil recovery
• Cogeneration
• Pulp and paper• Coal mining
• Fertilizer• Solid waste (leachate and
secondary sewage effluent)• Battery manufacturing• PVC manufacturing
Uranium mining
secondary sewage effluent)• Coal liquefaction• Ethanol production
• Uranium mining
Tertiary treatment of municipal waste effluents Inland desalination
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 5
Inland desalination…
Conventional Thermal ZLD Technology
The conventional ZLD is based on evaporation and crystallization operationscrystallization operations
Evaporation (MVC or live steam) usually aims at >90% water recovery y
crystallization may achieve 100% recovery
solids can be further dewatered on a filter‐press solids can be further dewatered on a filter press for landfill
Latent heat of evaporation is partly recovered (especially, for MVC)
Operational and capital costs are still very high d t hi h ti (20 40 kWh/ 3due to high energy consumption (20‐40 kWh/m3
vs. 2‐3 kWh/m3 in desalination), use of chemicals and expensive corrosion‐resistant materials.
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 6
MVC Evaporation (Falling Film)
Potential issues: - Tboil elevation (for MVC)
Prior removal of SS and Ca required
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 7
- Prior removal of SS and Ca required- Mg(OH)2 precipitation (scaling and corrosion)- High MgCl2 and CaCl2 solubility
Crystallization
Atmospheric Crystallization with Softening Pretreatment
(Tboil may be too high for MgCl2 and CaCl2)
Vacuum crystallization(lower Tboil, higher salt concentration)
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 8K. Jenkins et al/CH2M Hill, WaterWorld, 2013
Hybrid ZLD Technologies Due to the high cost there is a strong motivation to employ more energy‐
saving process to minimize the MVC/Crystallization share. (Compare with costs of desalination technologies: RO << ED << Thermal.)
Reverse Osmosis* (RO) – rejects salt, passes water, 2‐4 kWh/m3
Nanofiltration* (NF) – similar to RO, but passes some salt
Electrodialysis* (ED) or ED reversal (EDR) – removes ion, costs i t di t t RO d MVCintermediate to RO and MVC
Natural Evaporation – slow, large footprints
Another possible motivation is presence of organics, volatiles, colloids etc., which complicates the treatment and water reuse. Available solutions:
Conventional bioremediation Conventional bioremediation
MBR/UF pretreatment
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 9*RO, NF and ED will be covered in detail on 2nd day
ZLD Combined with RO RO is presently the best and most energy‐saving available technology for desalting.
The purpose is then to use RO to recover as much water as possible before MVC. The ZLD cost drops as RO recovery increasesThe ZLD cost drops as RO recovery increases.
The recovery in RO is however limited by 3 main factors
Osmotic pressure becomes too high for TDS ~ 80 000 ppm Osmotic pressure becomes too high for TDS 80,000 ppm Scaling by sparingly soluble salts (Ca, Mg, SO4, PO4, silica), maybe alleviated
to some degree using anti‐scalants Fouling (by organics colloids biofilms etc ) Fouling (by organics, colloids, biofilms etc.)
90.0
100.0
uct BC -150
Cost of Brine Concentration for BWRO
60.0
70.0
80.0
nts
/m3
prod
u
BC -100
30.0
40.0
50.0
70 80 90 100C
en
BC - 50
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 10
70 80 90 100% Recovery
Glueckstern, Proc. 6th IDS, 2003
RO Limitations on Recovery
Brine Conc140
160180
, atm 2.5 atm
8.3 atm Conc
Scaling Onset
80100120140
pres
sure
20406080
Exit
conc
RO Recovery0
20
50 60 70 80 90 100
E
O %
Scaling Potential vs. Recovery
RO Recovery, %
Brine Osmotic Pressure vs. Recovery
Jv = Lp(P – LSI = SP/SPc ~ Cn, n ~ 2-5
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 11
Increasing RO Recovery: 2‐Stage RO/NF A simple 2‐stage (different membranes & pressures used at each stage)
Interstage softening/precipitation (more chemicals used)
Rahardianto, et al., JMS 2007; EST, 2008; Des. 2010, Sanciolo et al., Chemosphere, 2008.
Interstage softening/precipitation (more chemicals used)
Sanciolo et al., Chemosphere, 2008.
Qf
Yprimary = 85%3000 mg/L
ProductYsec = 67%
18100 mg/L
0 05 Q
A/S19440 mg/L
FB0.15 Qf
0.05 Qf54000 mg/L
Brine Treatment
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 12
FB Crystallizer
High Efficiency RO (HERO) Process
• High Silica Water• Cooling Tower
BlowdownBlowdown• Tertiary Treated Effluent
(Sewage)• High/TOC Biologically
By removing Ca and carbonate hardness RO can run at
g g yActive Water
By removing Ca and carbonate hardness RO can run atpH >10.5 High pH creates a “cleaning environment” => low fouling High pH creates a cleaning environment > low fouling Silica solubility very high, hardness removed => low scaling Salt rejection and flux are increased Salt rejection and flux are increased
Recovery >90% However high chemical costs add ~$0 13/m3 overall product
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 13
However, high chemical costs add $0.13/m overall product
Source: FEMP Bulletin, DOE/EE – 0294; aquatech.com
ZLD Combined with ED ED is not limited by osmotic pressure and thus it can achieve a
much higher recovery.T i ll ED d l i i hi h h RO b l h Typically, ED desalting cost is higher than RO but lower than MVC/crystallization. The optimal placement of ED is then between RO and evaporationbetween RO and evaporation.
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 14
Increasing ED recovery for ZLD As in RO, precipitation of sparingly soluble salts in the brine
limits recovery. Proposed solutions includeOff k i i i ( d d) Off‐stack precipitation (seeded)
EDM in place of regular ED
on (%
)
35
40
m O
vers
atur
atio
20
25
30
Time (Hrs)0 2 4 6 8
Gyp
sum
10
15
Time (Hrs)
Onset of precipitation
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 15
O se o p ec p oplace crystallizer in brine loop
R. Bond et al, 2011, Florida Water Res J; J. Gilron, Wetsus, 2013.
ED Metathesis
Formation of sparinglyFormation of sparingly soluble salts prevented
using a stack of 4-compartment units
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 16R. Bond et al, 2011, Florida Water Res J; T. Davis, USBR Rpt. 135.
RO+EDM+Off‐Stack Precipitation ZLD Process
T. Davis, USBR Rpt. 135.
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 17
Biological (Pre‐)Treatment( ) d l d l Removes TOC (most organics) as CO2 and sludge, may leave some
recalcitrant organicss MBR/UF is significantly more expensive, but offers a smaller footprint / g y p , p
and a more robust process
Tirupur ProjectTirupur Project Textile Effluent, 54 MLD, 2007
S. Prakash, GWI, Barcelona, 2007
Ambur–VaniyambadiTannery Effluent7 MLD, 2007
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 18
Emerging and State‐of‐the‐Art ZLD Solutions
Several alternative technologies or hybrids are in use or being i d f ZLDexamined for ZLD.
SPARRO (Seeded RO)
ARROW (O’Brien and Gere, 2007) – pH elevation + IX + RO
VSEP (by New Logic Rerearch Inc.) – membranes vibratedS (by e og c e ea c c ) e b a es b ated
HEEPM (by EET Corporation) – ED treats the feed to RO
F d O i (FO) Forward Osmosis (FO)
Molecular distillation (MD)
Wind‐assisted intensified evaporation (WAIV)
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 19Mickley, WaterReuse Foundation, 2008
SPARRO Process
Developed for treating hard waste water from mining industry.
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 20
Forward Osmosis FO is used today for treating produced water in oil industry
(generating a larger volumes of waste water – no ZLD)FO d l i RO Vi bl l h FO was proposed as an alternative to RO. Viable only when a waste energy (heat or osmotic) is available.
Gases to
Vaporcompressor
NCG
Concentrated seawater
adsorb out
Diluted
Proposed concept(M C t h t l 2005)
Feed seawater
draw solution
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 21
(McCutcheon et al., 2005) Concentrated draw solution
Product water
Sagiv and Semiat
WAIV (enhanced natural evaporation)
Evaporation ponds (EP) are widely used as part of ZLD, but their footprint may be excessively large.
WAIV may offer a 1/15 land and 1/3 CAPEX of EP for the same evaporation rate
2
1.5
2
ed
wind1
kWh/
m3
fee
Brine MgtROII
water0.5E
sp, k
ROI
Courtesy, Lesico Ltd.0
BC WAIV Evap Pond
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 22J. Gilron, Wetsus, 2013
Outlook
Efforts continue to find alternatives to energy‐intensive evaporator/crystallizer systems.
Hybrids systems with increased recovery are and will be the dominant approach
Progress is being made in lowering capital costs; a total installed cost factor is down from 5 to 1.8‐2.
“… industry analysts predict a cumulative annual growth rate for recovery/ reuse systems in excess of 200% over the next d d f hi h i ifi t ti ld b t d fdecade, of which a significant portion could be accounted for by ZLD capacity. … The economic and regulatory climate is such that ZLD or near zero discharge is going to continue tosuch that ZLD or near zero discharge is going to continue to grow rapidly…” [G. Cope, “From zero to hero”, globalwaterintel.com]
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 23
Thanks and Acknowledgements
Prof. Jack Gilron (Zukerberg Institute for Water research) Ben‐Gurion University)(Zukerberg Institute for Water research), Ben Gurion University) Prof. Rafi Semiat(Chemical Eng Department Technion – IIT)(Chemical Eng. Department, Technion – IIT)
ZLD Workshop OrganizersZLD Workshop Organizers
Freger ZLD Feb 2014 24