Using Salt Water in Cooling 

John S. Maul

Michael N. Di

Once-through C

Results Symp

University of C

Davis, Califo

January 16, 
Motivation & Increasing In

• Increasing use of non-fresh waters• Retrofit pressures---

– once-through plants on ocean– U.S. and EU
Issues to Consider

• Experience with salt/brackish towe• Thermo-physical properties• Performance• Cost• O & M• Environmental effects
Seawater Towers

(m3/hr) gpm 

1973 AtlanticCityElectricCo.(NJ) Beesley'sPoint 14,423 63,351 

1976 PublicServiceElectric&Gas HopeCreek 250,760 1,101,43

1981 JacksonvilleElectricAuthority Jacksonville 112,520 494,230 

1990 FloridaPower Corp. St. Petersburg 156,000 685,210 

1992 AtlanticCityElectricCo.(NJ) B. L. England 16,280 71,508 

1999 FloridaPower Corp. Crystal River 67,229 295,295 

2000 St. John'sRiverPowerPark Jacksonville(FL) 56,258 247,106 

Flow Year Owner Site
Brackish Water Tower

Year Owner Site

(m3/hr) gp

1953 Oklahoma Gas & Electric Oklahoma 13,680 60,0

1964 American Salt Co. Kansas 1,140 5,0

1968 Exxon Chemical New Jersey 5,016 22,0

1971 Gulf Power Florida 37,620 165,

1973 Dow Chemical Texas 13,680 60,0

1974 Potomac Elctric Chalk Point 3, MD 59,280 260,

1975 Virginia Electric Virginia 75,240 330,

1975 Pfizer North Carolina 12,442 54,6

1976 Dow Chemical California 2,736 12,0

1976 Italco Aluminum Washington 9,348 41,0

1976 Pacific Gas & Electric Pittsburg, CA 84,816 372,1977 Houston Lighting & Power Texas 54,720 240,

1980 Mississippi Power Plant Jackson 39,444 173,

1981 Potomac Electric Chalk Point 4, MD 59,280 260,

1985 Palo Verde I Arizona 133,836 587,

1986 Palo Verde II Arizona 133,836 587,

1986 Stanton Energy #1 Florida 45,600 200,

1987 Palo Verde III Arizona 133,836 587,

1987 Houston Lighting & Power Texas 54,948 241,

1989 Delmarva Power & Light Delaware 46,170 202,

1991 Delano Biomass California 4,423 19,4

1995 Stanton Energy #2 Florida 45,600 200,

Flow
Vapor Pressure Comparison - 80F to 100

0.4

0.45

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

80 90 

Temperature, deg F

VaporPressure,psi

FresSea 2 xS
Rho-CpProduct

5960616263

20 40 60 80 100 120 

Temperature,F

Rho-Cp,Btu/cu.ft.-F

PureWater 1xSeawater 2xSeawa
Surface Tension - 40F to 140F

64.00

66.00

68.00

70.00

72.00

74.00

76.00

78.00

20 40 60 80 100 120 1

Temperature, F

SurfaceTension,dynes/cm

P12
Thermal Conductivity
Performance Correctio

Salt Water Correction Factor

1.010

1.020

1.030

1.040

1.050

1.060

1.070

1.080

0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4

L/G

CorrectionFactor

2x Seawater 50,000 ppm CTI Calculations for 50,000 ppm

from Ting and Suptic, 1973

Linear corr

seawater c
Performance Related Cost Inc

Low First Cost Evalua

Make-up Water Cost ($1,000) Impact (%) Cost ($1,000) 

Fresh water 1,100 Base 1,400 Brackish (54,000 ppm) 1,149.5 4.5% 1,498 
Materials Related Cost Incre

Low First Cost Evalua

Item

Douglas Fir FRP Douglas Fir 

“Base Tower” 1,100 1,287 1,400 Increase for

salinity

-- 58 -- 

Silicon Bronze

fittings

-- 112 -- 

Epoxy coatings -- 28 -- Total 1,100 1,485 %increase -- 35% 
Other System Compone

CoolingSystemComponent Cost Comparisons(fromWGIreport)

Item Freshwater Salt water 

Cooling tower $24/TU $33.6/TU 

Circ. water pump $130 - $260/BHP $210 - $416/BHP 

Make-upwater pump $337/BHP $539/BHP 

Make-up system $150/gpm $200/gpm 
O&M Issues
Copyrighted page(s) have been removed from 

this document. 

Please contact the EPA Docket Center, Public 

Reading Room to view this document. 

Address: 

1301 Constitution Ave, NW 

Room 3334 

Washington, DC 20004 

Telephone: 

202-566-1744 

Fax: 

202-566- 9744 

Email: 

docket-customerservice@epa.gov
Plant Smith, Unit 3---Fill Support/Stru
Plant Smith, Unit 3---Fill Support/Divi
Plant Smith, Unit 3---Fan Deck an
Plant Watson, Unit 5---Failed Fill S
Plant Watson, Unit 5---Concrete D
Plant Smith, Unit 3---Basin Concret
St. Johns River---Real Concrete D
St. Johns River---Concrete and 
Watch where the water comes 
Environmental Issues

• Drift

–PM10–Salt deposition

• on-site• off-site

• Discharge of blowdown
Drift---PM10

Assume:

Sea water @ 35,000 ppm

1.5 cycles of concentration

0.0005% drift eliminators

Circ. water flow = 500 gpm/M

All drift solids are PM10

For a 250 MW steam plant operating 7,50

PM10 emissions are ~ 60 tons per 
Drift---Nearby Corrosio
Drift---Nearby Corrosio
An old environmental stu
Conclusions from Environmental 

Sources---

– Chalk Point

– St. Johns River Power Park

– Marley inquiries---CTI paper
Consistent Conclusion

Some increased NaCl concentratio

deposition samples

No significant increases in soil or

vegetation samples.

Vegetation off the site with highest

deposition was apparently unaffect
Summary

• It can be done• Tower is a little bit bigger and costs a li

more

• Choose materials wisely• Be careful with concrete• Be aware of PM10 issues• Expect on-site drift-related maintenanc• Off-site drift issues probably OK