Wastewater Recycling Using a Hygroscopic Cooling System
This project by the Energy & Environmental Research Center (EERC), Baltimore Aircoil Company (BAC), and Great River Energy (GRE) evaluated the concept of recycling wastewater at a coal-fired power plant using a hygroscopic cooling system, which is an evaporative cooling technology analogous to conventional cooling towers, except that sparingly soluble dissolved solids are precipitated and removed as waste solids instead of purging them with a liquid blowdown stream. This technology can maximize the use of plant makeup water by obtaining useful evaporative cooling from wastewater while minimizing the volume of wastes needing disposal. Experimental activities were conducted in two phases, a laboratory-based evaluation of the properties of wastewater from the host site, GRE’s Coal Creek Station near Underwood, North Dakota, and a field test of a small pilot hygroscopic cooling system at the host site power plant. Findings from the laboratory study informed the design of the pilot system and the system’s field test performance served as the basis for a techno-economic analysis (TEA) of the hygroscopic recycling concept. At the preferred operating conditions identified during the TEA, the wet-bulb approach temperature of the tower was 7.3°C (13°F) and the volume of blowdown produced by the plant was reduced to 5.4% of its incoming volume. Waste solids produced during field testing were classified as nonhazardous waste based on the measured hazardous element content and evaluation of their leaching potential. However, to qualify as a solid for landfill disposal i.e., as determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s paint filter test, it appears that a dewatering step beyond hydrocyclone separation is needed. The baseline levelized cost of wastewater disposal (LCWD) for hygroscopic wastewater recycling was estimated to be $\$ $3.69–$\$ $3.72 per m3 of plant blowdown. Capital cost was estimated to contribute over 54% to the LCWD, and parameters that impact capital cost such as the heat exchange coil material of construction and the tower’s wet-bulb approach temperature were identified as having the greatest impact on overall LCWD. A LCWD estimate prepared for the same application but using thermomechanical brine evaporation was almost 40% higher than that calculated for hygroscopic cooling, despite recovering distilled-quality water for reuse, while the LCWD for disposal-only, deep well injection was estimated to be 30% lower compared to hygroscopic wastewater recycling.