WSP07975

• File Number: 8278.100
• Description: Title I - Yuma Desalting Plant
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Date: 10/1/1987
• Author: USDOI/BOR
• Title: Yuma Desalting Plant Operations Study - Draft Special Report
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Publication

I

I

Plan A-6A.
Cost $23.5

Use 2/3
million,

Effective Caoacitv of the YDP.
TVS 1068 points, Category I.

I

Reject stream requirements would be 63,100 acre-feet per year.

I

Advantages:
.Same as A-6.

I

Disadvantages:
.Same as A-6.

plan A-7.
Cost $27.5

Pre-OBV Future Electrical Caoacitv Charaes.
million, TVS 996 points, Category I.

I

This plan proposes pre-paying capacity (demand) charges now in
anticipation that the charges will increase substantially by the
time the need arises. Considering current power market
conditions, the chances for negotiating a favorable contract seem
slim. Little evidence could be found for any cost savings by
prepaying capacity charges so costs and reject stream replacement
needs are the same as the base case.

I

I

I

Advantages:
.Reduces power costs, assuming a sufficiently lower rate could be
negotiated.

I

Disadvantages:
.power costs could be paid and then YDP production would not be
required.

I

Plan A-B. Install Solar Pond Power Generation to Beneficiallv
Use the Reiect Stream. (With reject stream replacement.)
Cost $28.3 million, TVS 1040 points, Category III.

I

This plan makes beneficial use of the reject stream and provides
power for the YDP. Solar ponds require very high salinity water
which is initially generated using a distillation process. The
reject stream would be a source of salt for maintaining the solar
gradient ponds which provide heat to operate the generators.
Generated power could be used as either a base load source for
the YDP or as a peaking source to reduce YDP demand charges.
Power not needed to run the YDP could be sold on the open market.

I

I

I

In addition, this plan could also provide some fresh water as a
byproduct of concentrating the brine for use in the solar ponds.
Thus, most of the reject stream could be beneficially used and
may not require replacement. However, until it can be
established that use of the reject stream is not a new demand,
analyses were made with and without reject stream replacement
requirements. Model YDPSHORT.FOR indicated about 40,200 acre-

I

I

17