1

History of Desalination Cost Estimations

Pinhas Glueckstern,
Mekorot Water Co. Tel-Aviv, Israel

Abstract
The history of desalinations cost estimations is some four decades old. Initially, at the
beginning of the 1960s, the only process for seawater desalination was distillation. The only
feasible and economical option to achieve large capacities was by dualpurpose, electric
power/seawater desalination plants, using multi-stage flash (MSF) technology. About a
decade later, two new technologies capable to desalt seawater have evolved, the low-pressure
multi-effect distillation (MED), and improved reverse osmosis (RO).
Since the seventies, these three technologies are the main processes used for seawater
desalination. MSF and MED are implemented in conjunction with power production while
RO is the only viable option for an independent application.
The two practical options, since the 1960s, for brackish water desalination are electro
dialysis (ED) and RO. ED is mainly applied for water of low salinity or for special purposes
such as nitrate removal, while RO is used for a wide spectrum of raw water sources. This
wide spectrum has recently been expanded to include also some difficult surface water
sources, including wastewater, by applying improved Integrated Membrane Systems (IMS),
integrating ultra-filtration (UF) or micro filtration (MF) with low fouling RO membranes.
Major feasibility studies and cost estimates were initiated by the US Office of Saline
Water (OSW) and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). These studies evaluated
dual-purpose plants for combined supply of power and desalinated seawater.
The aim of the present paper is to review significant cost estimations, and in some cases
actual desalination costs in the last four decades. All the costs are normalized according to a
common set of ground rules and macro-economic parameters.
1. First cost estimates
In the 1950s desalination water cost was some $
1
2/1,000 gal (~ $0.5 /m
3
). This cost was
considered very high at that time. OSW was established in 1952 to tackle this challenge and
by 1956, OSW sponsored the first study on the applicability of combining nuclear reactors
with saline water desalination processes.
The 1960s had witnessed many national programs intended to study and evaluate long-
range development of desalination, mainly in conjunction with nuclear power reactors, for
combined supply of power and water. OSW initiated large number of studies and conceptual
designs of desalination plants [1], while IAEA and Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
were active in evaluating nuclear dual-purpose plants [2- 7].
Several national programs were reported at a symposium on nuclear desalination,
organized in November 1968 by IAEA in Madrid:
H. Kronberger reviewed the U.K. desalination RO program [5] activities in
improving MSF and other desalination processes were discussed.
M. N. Edwards reviewed fifteen years of the US desalination program [1],
emphasizing the pursuing for low cost desalination technology.

1
All $ symbols refer to US dollar

2
The Japanese presented evaluation of a nuclear dual-purpose plant to produce 1,000
MWe and 500,000 m
3
/d, using MSF technology [6]. The evaluation, assuming fixed charge
rate of approximately 11% and a fuel cost of 0.18 cent/kWh, resulted in costs of $130/ m
3
- d
for construction, and 9.3 cent/m
3
overall unit water cost for this very large capacity plant.
Israel, faced with a problem of diminishing water sources and in lack of indigenous
energy sources, started, with the support of the US, a joint feasibility study of a 200 MW
100 MGD (378,500 m
3
/year) nuclear dual-purpose plant that was published in 1966 [4]. The
unit water cost was estimated to amount to 18 cent/m
3
, assuming a fixed charge rate of 10%
and an electric power cost of 0.5 cent/kWh [7]. When in 1965, an 1 MGD (3,785 m
3
/year)
MSF dual-purpose plant started operating in Eilat, the actual water cost amounted to about
$0.3/m
3
[8]. This relatively low cost was due to the very low fuel-oil prices of $10-15/ton
prevailing at the time.
2. Cost estimates in the 70s
In the 70s, especially after the 1973 war, fuel oil cost increased very sharply, affecting
strongly the desalination cost, especially in processes with high specific energy consumption.
Strenuous efforts were made in Israel and in many other places to shift from desalination of
seawater by distillation to desalination of brackish water, using ED and to a much larger
extent - RO. By the second half of the 70s the RO process was considered in many regional
developing programs as an option also for small and large seawater desalination plants, due to
improvement in RO seawater (SWRO) technology.
2.1. Investment costs
Many comparative cost estimates for sea and brackish water desalination were published
in this time period [8-18]. Cost data from References 16, 17 and 18 were chosen to represent
typical cost estimates of the 70s. Table 1 summarizes the various desalination plants
investment costs (MSF, VTE
2
, MED, SWRO for seawater and ED and RO for brackish
water). Investment costs for 1-100 MGD (3.8K 380K m
3
/d) plants by MSF and MED are
estimated according to Reference 16, as well as 0.1-5 MGD (380-19K m
3
/d) SWRO plants
and 1-25 MGD (3.8K 95K m
3
/d) brackish water (BW) desalination plants by ED and RO.
The cost estimates in References 17 and 18 covers the range of 4,000-100,000 m
3
/d MSF,
MED, SWRO, BWED and BWRO plants.
Table 1: Investment cost of desalinations plants according to 70s cost estimates
(1)
3,600 ppm TDS
(3)
2 stage easy water
(2)
600 ppm TDS
(4)
4 stage difficult water

2
Vertical Tube Evaporator [16]
[16] [17] [16] [18] [16] [17]
- MGD 1.0 1.1 5.0 5.3 25.0 26.4
- m
3
/day 3,785 4,000 18,925 20,000 94,625 100,000
MSF 2,260 1,650 - 2,200 1,570 - 1,130 1,020 - 1,080
VTE/MED 2,050 1,375 1,390 - 1,020 825
SWRO 1,290 1,130 - 1,650 1,165 1,120 - 1,275 - 870
BWRO 388 360
(1)
-410
(2
) 260 - 220 240
(1)
- 300
(2)
BWED 338
(3)
- 447
(4)
- 285
(3)
- 390
(4)
- 240
(3)
- 330
(2)
-
S
E
A
W
A
T
E
R
B
R
A
C
K
I
S
H
W
A
T
E
R
Reference
Capacity
Investment, $/m
3
-d

3
It should be noted that the investment costs cited in Reference 16 are based on 1979
prices while prices cited in Reference 17 - on mid-1975 prices.
2.2. Unit water costs
The calculated water cost in Reference 17 assumes fixed charge rate of 16.5% while in
Reference 18 - 12.5% fixed charge rate is employed. Other factors to be normalized are as
follows:
Reference 16 Reference 17
Dual purpose
& SWRO
BWRO & ED Dual purpose
& SWRO
BWRO & ED
Plant factor 85% 95% 80% 90%
Fuel price 2.2 $ /106 BTU (88 $/TOE) 120 $/TOE
Electricity price 2.5- 4.0 cent/kWh 3.0-5.0 cent/kWh
In order to present all the comparative costs on the same basis, the following economic
parameters were applied:
Dual purpose SWRO RO & ED for BW
Fixed charge rate: 12.5%
Plant factors: 85% 85% 90%
Fuel Price $100/TOE
Electricity: 4.0 cent/kWh
The unit water costs by the various technologies according to References 16 and 17 are
summarized in Table 2.

Table 2: Unit water cost according to 70s cost estimate [cent/m
3
]
Reference [16] [17] [16] [17]
Capacity: - MGD
- m
3
/d
1
3,785
1.1
4,000
25
94,625
26.4
100,000
MSF 143 171 76 89
VTE 138 - 70 -
MED - 151 - 74
SWRO 120 119 - 74
BWRO 38 41-51 28 24-37
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y

BW - ED 26-35 - 20-26 -

Comparison between the two references shows that:
Unit water cost by MSF technology is 20% higher if calculated according to
Reference 17.
Concerning VTE vs. MED the difference in the results is less than 10%.
All other costs are in reasonable agreement.
Comparative unit water cost breakdown as estimated in Reference 18 for a 100,000 m
3
/d
plant, using projected advanced technology, is shown in Figure 1.


4



Figure 1: Breakdown of comparative projected unit water cost of
advanced 100,000 m
3
/day desalting systems [18] (1975 prices)
3. Cost estimates in the 80s
A work by Leitner [19] was aimed to evaluate implementation of the three tentative
technologies: SWRO, MSF and MED for 23,000 m
3
/d desalination plants in the Arabian Gulf
[19] (high design temperature of feed water - 32
0
C). Capital and operating costs for the three
competing processes were made according to the format proposed in the cost study made by
ORNL for the US Office of Water Research and Technology (OWRT) in 1981[19].
The estimates were based on 1989, 2
nd
quarter, $ US costs, using the following
parameters:
Fixed charge rate: 11.7% (10% interest, 20 years depreciation)
Plant load factor: 90% (330 operating days/year)
Energy cost: Electricity: $0.05/kWh
Fuel price: $18/bbl (5.8 M BTU)~ $124/TOE
Indirect capital costs: Interest during construction: 10%
Provisional sums: 10%
Contingency +A&E charges: 16%
Working capital: 5%
The investment costs evaluated in this study are shown in Figure 2 and the unit water cost
is shown in Figure 3.
A similar capacity plant costs (SWRO 20,000 m
3
/d) for a Mediterranean site (design
temperature: 23
0
C), evaluated by Mekorot Water Co. [20] are also shown in Figure 2 and
Figure 3. The comparison shows 15% lower unit water cost in the SWRO at the
Mediterranean site compared with the cost of water in the plant desalting higher salinity
seawater in the Arabian Gulf (Figure 3)

5



Figure 2: Comparative investment costs of MSF, MED and SWRO (1980 1990)


Figure 3: Breakdown of comparative unit water cost (1980 - 1990)

6
4. Cost estimates in the 90s and early 2000s
Three major developments characterize this era:
Indication of preference of MED and RO over MSF
Remarkable technological performance improvements accompanied by cost
reduction in SWRO (especially in the later years of the 90s)
Dramatic cost reduction in large international tenders, mainly using the BOOT
project approach
The cost estimates published in the first part of the decade were still based on late 80s
technology and/or performance data. Leitner [29], presented a cost comparison of three
SWRO plants in the range of 10,000-57,000 m
3
/d put on operation in 1988-1989, in Malta,
Las Palmas and Jeddah. Normalizing the reported cost on 11.58% fixed charge rate,
0.05$/kWh and five year membrane replacement rate resulted in total water cost between 0.95
and 1.19 $/m
3
. This cost range was reported at 1991 Malta International Conference on
Destination and Water Reuse.
Another study in the same cost format, presented by Mekorot at the above conference
[30], evaluated costs for 20,000 and 200,000 m
3
/d SWRO plants. This study resulted in an
estimated cost range of $0.88-$1.10/m
3
was for the 20,000 m
3
/d plant. Normalized (see
normalized costs in 5.1) costs breakdown of the above estimates is shown in Figure . Three
references [31, 32, 33] were chosen out of the many other projects cost estimates [31-42] to
represent on a normalized basis, cost estimates in the mid - 90s. The evaluated projects are as
follows:


Figure 4: Breakdown of SWRO unit water cost - actual operating [29] and estimated
[30] (early 90s based on late 80s technology)
4.1. Projects of brackish and seawater desalination by IPTS [31]
Comparative normalized cost estimate based on the 10,000-20,000 m
3
/d MSF, MED,
SWRO and BWRO plants in the referred evaluation, results in the following unit water costs:

7
Technology: MSF MED SWRO BWRO
Unit water cost, cent/m
3
101-150 76-120 69-117 21-53
Obviously, the low end of the range referrers to the lowest investment and operating cost
estimates. The high end refers to average values of investment and operating cost. Breakdown
of unit water costs are shown in Figure 5.
Figure 5: Comparative unit water of medium size (10,000 - 20,000 m
3
/d) according to low
and average cost estimates in 1996 [31]
4.2. Nuclear desalination for water supply in North Africa by IAEA [32]
Two dual-purpose electric power seawater desalination plants of about 130,000 m
3
/d
for a Moroccan site are analyzed on the normalized basis. Resulting unit water costs are:
Technology: MED SWRO
Unit water cost, cent/m
3
105 95
The cost components: capital, energy and O&M are shown in Figure 6.
4.3. SWRO plants for various water types [33]
Desalination of five seawater types of different salinity and temperature has been
evaluated in this work:
A. Oceanic sea water (35 Kmg/l, 18
0
C)
B. Caribbean (36 Kmg/l 26
0
C)
C. Mediterranean (38 Kmg/l 26
0
C)
D. Red sea (41 Kmg/l, 24-32
0
C)
E. Arabian Gulf (45 Kmg/l 16-35
0
C).

8

Figure 6: Comparative unit water cost (1994 prices) according to a IAEA feasibility study for
a 130,000 m
3
/day capacity for Morocco [32]
Six plant capacities were evaluated: the smallest is 1 MGD (3,785m
3
/d) for water source
A, and the largest - 24 MGD (90,840 m
3
/d) for water source E. Capital cost of the SWRO
plants ranges between 722-1085 $/m
3
-d (excluding indirect capital cost), 25% indirect capital
cost was assumed and a 10% fixed charge rate was used. Unit water costs were evaluated for
the sites prevailing power costs, varying from a low cost of 4.0 cent/kWh at the Arabian Gulf
to a high of 10 cent/kWh at the Caribbean. The normalized costs for these plants are
summarized in Table 3.

Table 3: Capital cost and unit water cost for various seawater types
(1)

(1)
Based on reference [32] (1996), normalized as follows:
Indirect capital cost = 45%
Fixed charge rate = 10%
Power cost = 5.0 cents/kWh
Investment:
- M $
- $/m
3
-d
- $/m
3
-year
Seawater type Oceanic Caribbean Medit. Red
Case A B C D E1 E2
Capacity MGD 1 3 6 12 6 24
m
3
/d 3,785 11,355 22,710 45,420 22,710 90,840
Direct capital cost $/m
3
-d 859 722 865 807 1,085 875
Sp. energy consumption kWh/m
3
4.47 4.32 5.01 6.16 7.39 7.35
Unit water cost
- Fixed charges 37.7 31.7 38 35.5 47.7 38.4
- Energy 22.4 21.6 25 30.8 37.5 36.8
- O&M 20.5 13.8 17.6 16.6 21.7 19.2
TOTAL 80.6 67.1 80.6 82.9 106.9 94.4
Arabian Gulf
cent/m
3

9
4.4. End of Century estimations
4.4.1. SWRO in Spain and Israel
In the latter part of the 90s, lower actual unit water costs were reported in Israel [35] and
Spain [36]. The unit water cost of Lanzarote III in the Canary Islands, operating since 1994,
amounted to 81 cent/m
3
on a normalized basis. The unit water cost in 10,000 m
3
/d Sabha C
plant in Eilat, Israel, operating since 1997 amounted to some 80 cent/m
3
. The expected
estimated cost in the same plant after expanding its capacity to 20,000 m
3
/d will be some 72
cent/m
3
. The breakdown of these SWRO plants costs is shown in Figure 7.
Figure 7: Unit water costs of two operating SWRO plants 90s
4.4.2. International BOO&BOOT tenders in the turn of the Century
In the latter part of 90s and the beginning of the new third Millennium, construction of
large desalination plants in the US, Cyprus, Israel and other places by BOO (Build, Own,
Operate) and BOOT (Build, Own, Operate, Transfer) project management and financing were
initiated, following an international bidding procedure.
Subsequent to large technological improvements, mainly in SWRO technology, favorable
financial conditions, such as low interest rates and in some cases use of tax-exempt private
activity bonds or other taxable financing (Tampa, [40]) and strong competition, extremely low
cost figures were reported: 45 cent/m
3
for the 25 MGD (94,625 m
3
/d) Florida West Coast
(Tampa) SWRO seawater desalting plant [40] and 52 cent/m
3
for the 50 million m
3
/year
SWRO plant in Ashkelon, Israel [45].
The original offers of total capitalization for the Tampa plant ranged between $98
million to $129 million, and the power requirements ranged between 3.7 to 4.88 kWh/m
3
[40].
Detailed cost breakdown was not published. However, by using the lower investment cost of
$98 million for 94,625 m
3
/d capacity (1,036$/m
3
-d), the 3.7 kWh/m
3
power requirement and
O&M derived from tables presented in [40], normalized unit water cost (cent/m
3
)

breakdown
could be calculated:
Fixed charges: 31.4 (330 operating days/year)
Energy: 18.5
O&M: 10.1 (from [40], Table 3)
Total, cent/m
3
: 60.0
Site / Ref Site/Ref.
Capacity, m
3
/d
- Fixed charges on capital: 10%
- Power cost: 5.0 cent/kWh
- Membrane life time: 5 years

10
The unit water cost breakdown of the 50 million m
3
/year SWRO Ashkelon plant is not
available, but from a cost evaluation made by Mekorot for a plant of the same capacity [43],
the following cost breakdown (cent/m
3
), based on normalized basis, can be derived:
Specific investment cost: 800 $/m
3
-d
Capital cost (10% fixed charge rate): 24.2
Energy (3.7 kWh/m
3
@ 5 cent kWh) 18.5
O&M: 12.9
Boron reduction
3
+ re-mineralization: 8.0
Total, (cent/m
3
): 63.6
The reduced quoted price of 52 cent/m
3
is most probably due to a lower power cost via
power supply from an incorporated natural gas power-station and to favorable project
financing.

5. Evolution of desalination cost in the last four decades
5.1. Normalized costs
The unit water cost evolution for medium and large capacities is shown in Figure 8 and
Figure 9 respectively. In order to enable presentation of the evolution in the last four decades
due to technological improvement, all cost estimates in the previous decades were
recalculated at the same fixed charge rate on the investment (10%) and the same power cost
(5 cent/kWh).
Three inflation indexes of each one of the referred years are indicated: the Building Cost
Index (BCI), the Chemical Plant Cost Index (CE) and the US Consumer Price Index (CPI).
The CPI permits evaluation of the unit water cost in real terms.
5.2. Analysis of the normalized costs
The 60s are characterized by very low energy prices and by euphoria regarding the future
of low nuclear energy. The only satisfactorily demonstrated seawater desalination technology
was MSF. The investment cost for small 3,000 4,000 m
3
/d capacities was in the range of
250 350 $/m
3
-d. At the prevailing low fuel-oil prices of 10 20 $/ton, the unit water costs
were 0.5 $/m
3
or somewhat less. This cost was considered too high for large-scale water
supply. However, considerable cost reductions were foreseen due to large capacities and
implementation of some projected technological improvements.
In the 70s, prior to the improvements in SWRO technology, the two competing seawater
desalination technologies were MSF and MED. At sites with prevailing low energy prices
(Arabian Gulf), the MED with its lower energy requirements had little advantage. It was
preferred mainly in locations with high-energy prices.

3
Recently, the Israeli Water Commission has dictated 0.4 mg/l - maximum content of boron in desalinated
water. Therefore, for seawater using RO technology, boron has to be reduced either by using a second RO pass
or by ion exchange system using boron selective resins [44].


11

Figure 8: Evolution of seawater desalination unit water costs in medium size plants (10 -
40 K m
3
/d) 1979 - 1997

Figure 9: Evolution of seawater desalination unit water costs in large capacity
(90 150 K m
3
/d) plants, 1975 - 2002

12
Figure 10: Membrane replacement cost Vs. specific membrane capacity cost and membrane
life time


13

Figure 11: SWRO plants specific energy consumption Vs. pump-turbine efficiency, process
pressure and recovery percent
In the 90s, the continuous improvement and cost reduction in RO technology increased,
in most cases, the economic benefits of SWRO over the distillation process. The largest cost
reduction was related to the much lower membrane replacement cost (see Figure 10) and to
the reduced specific energy consumption (see Figure 11). A very significant cost reduction is
observed in current prices of the SWRO, regardless the large inflation rate. For medium size

14
capacities (Figure 9) the cost reduction from about more than 1 $/m
3
at the end of the 70s to
about 0.8 $/m
3
in 1996 is more than 20% in current prices and more than 60% in real terms
(inflation of 216% in CPI). A much lower cost reduction, in current prices, has occurred in the
other technologies, but in real terms, the technological improvements in MSF and MED have
also resulted in cost reduction.

6. Summary and conclusions
6.1. Scope
The review of desalination cost estimates presents and analyzes data from three sources:
Selection of published cost estimates made by various organizations by use of
costing models and/or specific feasibility studies.
Normalized cost data from operating desalination plants.
Recently published quoted desalination prices in large international BOT or
BOO tenders.
Three major seawater desalination processes were analyzed for this review. It should be
noted that vapor compression (VC) process, that has not been analyzed here, is one of the
oldest distillation process and energetically the most efficient. Despite of large improvements
in the technology and reduction in its cost, this process cannot compete with SWRO in large
capacities plants.
6.2. Present-day status
6.2.1. RO preferred technology for seawater desalination
In the 90s after very significant improvements in SWRO technology, SWRO became, in
most cases, the preferred seawater desalination process, with continuously decreasing costs,
from about one dollar or more for one cubic meter, to a figure around $ 0.5/m
3
for large
capacities. A part of the cost reduction is due to change in macro-economic parameters, such
as lower electric power prices and lower interest rates. Changes in the approach to project
management, by publishing international tenders for Built Operate Transfer (BOT) projects or
by similar procedures, triggering strong competition also served as an important tool for cost
reduction.
The technology improvements were expressed in all three cost categories: capital cost,
energy cost and O&M cost as follows:
Capital costs: larger train capacities, improved membranes at a lower cost and
reduced cost of control equipment.
Energy cost: improved efficiencies in large size high-pressure pumps and
energy recovery turbines, along with higher RO membrane permeability expressed in
reduced specific energy requirement (kWh/m
3
) see Figure 11.
O&M cost: reduced membrane replacement cost, lower cost of pretreatment
chemicals, lower labor and maintenance cost in large capacities systems and use of
better construction materials. A real dramatic cost reduction was achieved in the
membrane replacement cost (Figure 10): from 200-250$/m
3
-d of hollow fiber SWRO
membranes in 1990 to 50-60$/m
3
-d of spiral-wound SWRO membrane in 1998. The
lower price along with increased guaranteed life span, reduced the membrane
replacement cost from about 10-16 cent/m
3
to about 2.5-3.5 cent/m
3
.

15
6.2.2. Brackish water desalination is advantageous when brine rejection is not
problematic
It is well known that brackish water desalination is a lot cheaper than seawater
desalination. The prevailing cost of brackish water desalination in medium size plants
(10,000-20,000 m
3
/d), excluding feed water supply and brine disposal, is about 20-40 cent/m
3
.
Problematic water supply and brine reject can raise the cost to a higher than seawater
desalinations. Brackish water, as well as wastewater desalination, are however very
important issues, especially for inland locations, and must therefore be investigated
specifically for each case.
6.3. All means & sources of data for desalination cost estimation have drawbacks
It should be emphasized that each source for desalination cost data: costing models, cost
analysis of existing desalination plants, and published tenders bids prices, have significant
drawbacks:
General cost estimates based on pre-design data may have according the
American Association of Cost Engineers (AACE) accuracy limits of 30% to -15%.
Therefore these cost estimates are mainly useful for comparing design alternatives.
Analyses of operating plants costs are very site specific and are therefore most
suitable to assess the cost of an additional plant using the same technology, at the same
site.
Bid prices are generally believed to represent market prices of high reliability.
This may be correct for the customer receiving the product at a defined price. These prices
may also indicate some trends in desalination costs. However, in some cases, the project
cannot be realized because of a variety of reasons and the published price has no meaning.
In some other cases the low price stems from a damping price by contractors eager to
enter the market or by some special, and not generally objective, financing conditions.
This should not disturb the customer, but the published price cannot indicate a real cost of
an objective market.
6.4. Conclusion
It may be concluded, that any published cost estimate cannot and should not replace a
specific feasibility study including pilot testing for each new or not fully recognized water
type.

7. References
1. M.N. Edwards, Fifteen years of progress A review of the United States Desalting
Program, Nuclear Desalination, Proceedings of a Symposium on Nuclear Desalination
Held by the IAEA in Madrid, 18-22 Nov.1969, Elsevier Scientific Publishing Company,
1969.
2. Guide to the Costing of Water from Nuclear Desalination Plants, IAEA Technical
Reports Series No. 80, Vienna 1967.
3. J.K. Franzreb, I. Spiewak, Flexibility in production of power and water in nuclear power
- desalting plants ORNL-TM-1561.
4. U.S. Department of the Interior, Engineering Feasibility and Economic Study for dual-
purpose electric power water desalting plant for Israel, Washington, D.C., Jan.1966.
5. H. Kronenberg, United Kingdom desalination research and development program (SH-
113/50), Proceeding of IAEA Madrid Symposium, 1969.
6. S. Ishizuka et al, Technical aspects of desalination in Japan present and future, IAEA
Madrid Symposium, 1969.

16
7. P. Glueckstern, I. A. Streifler, Influence of recent developments on the design of dual-
purpose plant and the forecast for the Israeli project, Proceedings of the Fifth National
Symposium on Desalination, Jerusalem, Dec. 1968.
8. P. Glueckstern, A water utilities experience regarding the reliability and operating costs
of various desalination technologies over the past decade, Tenth Annual Water Supply
Improvement Association (WSIA) Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, July 1982.
9. B.M. Watson, History, status and future of distillation process, Report to OWRT,
USDI, Washington, D.C., December 1977.
10. P. Glueckstern, S. A. Reed, A comparative investigation of the economics of seawater
desalting based on current and advanced distillation concepts, Oak Ridge National
Laboratory ORNL/TM-5232, October 1976.
11. P. Glueckstern, S. A. Reed, J. V. Wilson, Parametric study and preliminary evaluation
of reverse osmosis desalination plant, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-5229,
1976.
12. S.A. Reed, The impact of increased fuel costs and inflation on cost of desalting seawater
and brackish waters, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-5070 December 1975.
13. S.A. Reed and J.V. Wilson, Desalting seawater and brackish waters, a cost update, Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, ORNL/TM-5926, November 1977.
14. F.C. Wood, The status of desalting, Associe de Binnie & Partners, Hong Kong, Aqua,
4, 1978.
15. Fluor Engineers Constructors, Inc., U.S.A., Desalting plans and progress an evaluation
of the state-of-the-art and future research and development requirements, Final report to
OWRT, January 1978.
16. T.J. Larson, G.F. Leitner, Desalting seawater and brackish water cost update, U.S.
OWRT ORNL/TM-6912, 1979. Also: Intt, Congress on Desalination and Water Reuse,
Nice, France, 1979.
17. P. Glueckstern, Comparative economics of current and advanced desalting systems,
Ibid, 1,223.
18. P. Glueckstern, Comparative energy requirements and economic of desalting processes
based on current and advanced technologies, Desalination, 40, 63-74, 1982.
19. G.F. Leitner, Costs of seawater desalination in real terms, 1979 through 1989, and
projections for 1999, Desalination, 76, 201-213, 1989.
20. S.A. Reed, Desalting seawater and brackish waters: 1981 Cost update, Office of Water
Research and Technology, U.S.A., 1982.
21. D.C. Brandt & R.F. Battey Dual-purpose desalting, RO versus MSF An economic
comparison, 10
th
Annual Conference of Water Supply Improvement Association, Vol. I,
1982.
22. D.C. Brandt, Seawater reverse osmosis an economic alternative to distillation,
Desalination, Vol. 52, 177, 1985.
23. N.M. Wade, R. Heaton & D.G. Boulter, Desalination and water reuse comparison of
MSF and RO in dual-purpose power and water plants, Desalination, Vol. 55, 373, 1985.
24. B. Ericsson & B. Hallmans, A comparative study of the economics of RO and MSF in
the Middle East, Desalination, Vol. 55, 441, 1985.
25. G.F. Leitner, Economic feasibility of the reverse osmosis process for seawater
desalination, Desalination, Vol. 63, 135, 1986.

17
26. P.K. Tewari, M.S. Hanra & M.P.S. Ramani, Relative techno economics of multistage
flash distillation and reverse osmosis for seawater desalination a case study,
Desalination, Vol. 64, 201, 1987.
27. B. Ericsson, B. Hallmans & P. Vinberg, Optimization for design of large seawater
desalination plants, Desalination, Vol. 64, 459, 1987.
28. M.A. Darwish et al, Technical and economical comparison between large capacity MSF
and RO desalting plants, Desalination, Vol. 76, 291-304, 1989.
29. G.F. Leitner, Total water costs on a standard basis for three large, operating SWRO
plants, 12
th
International Symposium on Desalination and Water Reuse, Malta, 15-18,
April, 1991.
30. P. Glueckstern, Cost estimates of large RO systems Desalination, 81, 49-56, 1991.
31. J. Ribeiro, Desalination technology Survey and prospects, European Joint Research
Center, IPTS, Seville, Spain, August 1996.
32. IAEA TECDOC 917, Potential for nuclear desalination as a source of low cost potable
water in North Africa, IAEA, Nov. 1996.
33. C.P. Shields, I. Moch, Jr., Evaluation of global seawater reverse osmosis capital and
operating costs, ADA Conference, Montrey, California, August 1996.
34. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Advanced concept of large desalination systems in Israel,
International Water Service Association Conference Membranes in Drinking and
Industrial Water Production, Amsterdam, 1998.
35. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Hybrid SWRO/BWRO desalination plant, Desalination, Vol.
115, No. 2, 1998.
36. A. Gomez Gotor (reviewed by G.F. Leitner), Desalination, a bridge to a prosperous
economy for the Canary Island, The International Desalination and Water Reuse
Quarterly, Vol. 5, No.3, Nov./Dec. 1995.
37. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Hybridization of sea and brackish water desalination plants,
IDA International Conference on Desalination and Water Reuse, San Diego, 1999.
38. G.F. Leitner Breaking the cost barrier for seawater desalting International Desalination
and Water Reuse Quarterly, Vol. 8/1, 14-20, 1998.
39. C. Pappas, For Cyprus, 10 year BOOT Contract, Desalination and Water Reuse
Quarterly, Vol. 7/3, Nov./Dec. 1997.
40. G.F. Leitner, Project report no.5 Developer selected for 25 MGD (94,625 m3/d),
Florida West Coast Seawater Desalting Plant, Desalination and Water Reuse Quarterly,
Vol.9/1, May/June 1999.
41. G. Kronenberg, Larnaca A BOOT project study, Israel Desalination Society
Conference, 48-55, Dec. 1999.
42. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Experience, capability and plans for erecting large seawater
desalination plants Ibid, 21-34, Dec. 1999.
43. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Potential cost reduction in large SWRO systems, 5
th
IWA
Conference on Membranes in Drinking Water and Industrial Water Production,
Muelheim an der Ruhr, Germany, September 2002.
44. P. Glueckstern, M. Priel, Optimization of boron removal in old and new SWRO
systems, Desalination 156, 219-228, 2003.
45. F. Lokiec, G. Kronenberg, South Israel 100 million m
3
/year seawater desalination
facility: build, operate and transfer (BOT) project, Desalination 156, 29-37, 2003.