Reducing the Stress of Rural
Community Desalination with
Renewable Wind Energy
Ken Rainwater
Texas Tech University
Water Resources Center
1
Motivation for Research

Long-term municipal water supplies

Fresh Ogallala aquifer depleting



Deeper brackish Santa Rosa aquifer



Currently pump, disinfect, distribute
Recent concerns for arsenic, other chemicals
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
Center for
Geospatial
Technology,
Texas Tech
University, 2006,
(http://www.gis.
ttu.edu/Ogallala
AquiferMaps/Ma
pSeries.aspx)
7
Dockum
Aquifer TDS
Distribution
Ewing et al.
(2008)
8
Bureau of Reclamation Project

Report 146

http://www.usbr.gov/
pmts/water/publicatio
ns/reports.html
9
Municipal Supply Exceedances
Parameter Number of Cities
TDS
33
Fluoride
29
Arsenic
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Gross a
Iron
24
14
10
10
8
2
10
Market Study Conclusions

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
11
Typical Inland Wind-RO Layout
12
Design and Control of WindWater 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


$1.60-2.15/1000 gal
Costs per 1000 gal for wind-RO system
Component
Wellfield
Energy
(kWh)
Utility Energy
($)
Capital
($)
O&M
($)
Total
($)
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
15
Seminole Demonstration

Santa Rosa well – TWDB funding

Contract requires 40 gpm production


Cirrus – well log search completed


If Santa Rosa unproductive, demonstrate with
local Ogallala water
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


Operation duration – 1 year




PSC negotiating details
Production rates
Raw and produced water quality
Energy consumption from turbine, grid
Report to City and funding agencies
22
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™


Parkhill Smith and Cooper, Inc.


Hydrogeologic services
Well and RO system permit/procurement
West Texas Consultants, Inc.

Surveying and local infrastructure
26
Communities with
EPA Primary (bold
italics) and
Secondary (bold)
Exceedances (worst
well reported)
Texas Secondary
•TDS 1000
•Chloride 300
•Sulfate 300
City
County
Hereford
Levelland
Lamesa
Andrews
Seminole
Tulia
Denver City
Crane
Tahoka
Stanton
Wolfforth
Seagraves
Shallowater
Morton
Lorenzo
Plains
Booker
O'Donnell
Silverton
Meadow
Lefors
Vaughn
Wilson
Turkey
Smyer
Quitaque
Wickett
New Home
Texhoma
Welch
Floyd
Loop
Goldsmith
Wellman
Elida
Opdyke West
Whitharral
Dodson
Grassland
Flomot
Deaf Smith
Hockley
Dawson
Andrews
Gaines
Swisher
Yoakum
Crane
Lynn
Martin
Lubbock
Gaines
Lubbock
Cochran
Crosby
Yoakum
Lipscomb
Lynn
Briscoe
Terry
Gray
Guadalupe
Lynn
Hall
Hockley
Briscoe
Ward
Lynn
Sherman
Dawson
Roosevelt
Gaines
Ector
Terry
Roosevelt
Hockley
Hockley
Collingsworth
Lynn
Motley
Population
14400
12866
9942
9652
5910
5200
3985
3191
2910
2900
2710
2334
2300
2245
1372
1350
1200
1011
780
750
560
540
532
500
480
463
455
440
371
354
350
300
250
225
189
180
175
120
75
40
Qavg
MGD
2.750
1.448
1.570
2.388
1.847
0.795
0.852
1.053
0.405
0.329
0.442
0.328
0.380
0.379
0.172
0.931
0.282
0.100
0.111
0.110
0.093
0.198
0.045
0.065
0.053
0.105
0.118
0.047
0.100
0.049
0.031
0.079
0.038
0.022
0.050
0.054
0.030
TDS
mg/L
500
1150
714
1150
660
531
2020
948
464
1020
1111
652
788
725
1050
351
1124
785
1262
358
930
3666
1336
1237
1000
1124
586
859
330
1295
657
654
494
823
897
628
1040
335
1732
749
F
As
Cl
SO4 NO3
Fe Gross a
mg/L
mg/L mg/L
mg/L mg/L mg/L pCi/L
0.01 250
4, 2
250
10
0.3
15
0.003
210
209
5.5 0.05
4.2
18.7
0.008 86.9
202
2.6 0.12
13.5
4.4
0.018
315
2.2
327
5.3 0.00
7.2
0.038
157
4.4
116
2.2 0.00
3.4
0.017
116
4.1
99
3.4 0.15
5.4
0.003
0.4 0.13
7.1
389
5.3
436
0.014
316
2.3
169
2.6 0.00
4.5
0.013
59
1.5
147
2.2 0.00
4.8
0.003
321
1.0
225
1.0 0.01
4.8
0.020
302
2.4
425 10.1 0.00
2.0
131
2.2 0.00
10.7
0.015 76.5
5.8
0.049
120
223 10.9 0.00
6.7
4.7
0.012
67
2.9
177
7.6 0.09
47.3
0.015
217
3.6
342
5.1 1.00
6.4
0.016
24
2.5
32
1.5 0.00
9.8
184
3.2 0.01
6.3
0.015
4.3
446
0.005
239
1.4
105
2.6 0.21
9.6
0.003
1.0
0.0 0.00
352
348
0.012
19
3.5
19
1.1 0.02
0.028
164
4.8
274
6.8 0.01
17.9
0.010 1926
0.2
4
1.5 0.07
0.0
0.009
3.2
50.1
0.009
275
4.0
350 11.0 0.00
16.9
0.005
157
1.5
437 17.1 0.01
10.8
0.012
92
5.2
176
3.0 0.01
23.6
0.004
231
1.9
286 14.6 0.01
0.006
83
1.9
169
1.3 0.02
6.7
135
171
5.0 0.00
10.0
0.026
5.0
0.004 11.6
2.0
72
2.1 0.01
13.8
0.027
298
4.6
408 17.2 4.08
14.6
0.012
135
290
4.5 0.00
4.2
0.031
27
4.9
197
7.0 0.00
72
83
2.6 0.03
0.017
3.2
0.037
108
241
5.3 0.01
8.8
5.7
0.012
2.3
0.014
53
127
6.7 0.11
8.1
5.9
0.007
107
4.4
395 11.0 0.16
17.0
0.002
9
0.7
40 13.8 0.02
2.9
0.020
659
332 13.0 0.00
16.6
5.0
0.007
131
2.0
168 19.0 0.00
4.6
27
Dockum TDS Levels
28
29