Laserfiche WebLink
<br />other locations may be lower, but since the study involved only battery- <br /> <br />limit plants ~nd did not include land areas for water storage, land costs <br /> <br />did not exceed one percent of the water conversion cost for any of the <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />CO <br /> <br />processes studied. <br /> <br />'Other Economic Considerations <br /> <br />The equipment costs shown in the estimates are installed costs and <br />include the costs for placing and connecting the required equipment. <br /> <br />No provisions were made in the estimates of contingency expenses during <br /> <br />construction. <br /> <br />Conversion plants using seawater as a feed were considered to be on <br /> <br />a shore location, but the cost of feed water intake and brine disposal <br /> <br />lines were not included in the capital and operating costs. Desalination <br />plants using brackish feed waters (RO and ED) were considered to be <br /> <br />battery-limit plants at an inland location and ~ provision was made for <br />the cost of collecting feed water or disposal of the brine concentrate. <br /> <br />No provisions were made for storing or pumping the feed water, product <br /> <br />water, or discarded brine beyond the battery limits of the conversion <br /> <br />plant, but these costs can constitute a significant portion of the total <br />cost of desalting.;~ With the exception of the VC-VTE-MSF process, plant <br /> <br />investments do not include steam plant investment, and electric power <br /> <br />is assumed to be purchased from an outside utility. <br /> <br />* <br /> <br />This was brought out in the preliminary assessment studies of desalting <br />economics which OSW is making jointly with the Texas Water Development <br />Board. R&o Report No. OSW-250 provides the results of the 1965-66 <br />study and OSW-273 reports on the results of the 1966-67 study. <br /> <br />7 <br /> <br />