## 3 Results  
The results of the 25 case studies are presented in detail in Table 3. Figure 5 presents the cost of water for the best system in each interconnection type (grid-connected, grid connected with a net-metering renewables installation, autonomous), and water consumption profile, excluding the results of case study 25 of the geothermal ORC engine system. This was decided due to the assumptions made on the existence of a geothermal well. Furthermore, Appendix A presents the optimization search space for each of the autonomous system case studies, along with the optimal values. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c} \hline Topology & lbest \\ \hline Neighborhood size & 3 \\ \hline Particles & 20 \\ \hline Generations & 100 \\ \hline Seed & 0 \\ \hline Constriction gain & 0.729 \\ \hline Cognitive acceleration constant & 2.05 \\ \hline Social acceleration constant & 2.05 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: PSO parameters. It has to be stated again that the net present costs per m\({}^{3}\) of desalinated water presented do not include supporting works and brine treatment and disposal costs, while installation costs are considered as a lump sum. At the same time, these costs would be comparable for all investigated systems in any given location and as such they do not affect the outcomes drawn from this analysis. The key insights these results highlight can be summarized as: \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Case Study No.**} & **Water** & \begin{tabular}{c} **Nominal Water** \\ **Production of** \\ **Desalination Plant** \\ **(m\({}^{3}\)/Day)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Type of** \\ **Desalination Plant** \\ **(m\({}^{3}\)/Day)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Water Tank** \\ **Interconnection** \\ **(Days)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **PV Power** \\ **(KW)** \\ \end{tabular} & \begin{tabular}{c} **Wind** \\ **Power (kW)** \\ \end{tabular} & \
\begin{tabular}{c} **Battery Bank** \\ **(QWh)** \\ \end{tabular} &
\begin{tabular}{c} **Net Present** \\ **Cost (\(\ell\)/m\({}^{3}\) of** \\ Water)** \\ \end{tabular} \\ \hline
1 & 100 & 100 & Grid-connected & 1 & - & - & - & 0.69 \\ \hline
2 & 100 &
\begin{tabular}{c} 100 No Energy \\ Recovery \\ \end{tabular} & Grid-connected & 1 & - & - & - & 0.95 \\ \hline
3 & 100 & 100 &
\begin{tabular}{c} Grid-connected/Net- \\ metering \\ \end{tabular} & 1 & 28.5 & - & - & 0.51 \\ \hline
4 & 100 & 100 & connected/Net- & 1 & - & 18.5 & - & 0.62 \\ \hline
5 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 1 & 20.6 & - & 384.0 & 1.35 \\ \hline
6 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 1 & 55.5 & 281.6 & 1.17 \\ \hline
7 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 1 & 103.1 & 37 & 128 & 0.95 \\ \hline
8 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 3 & 290.6 & - & 332.8 & 0.96 \\ \hline
9 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 3 & 55.5 & 281.6 & 1.12 \\ \hline
10 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 3 & 112.5 & 37 & 76.8 & 0.91 \\ \hline
11 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 10 & 271.9 & - & 230.4 & 1.20 \\ \hline
12 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 10 & 55.5 & 281.6 & 1.18 \\ \hline
13 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 10 & 103.1 & 18.5 & 128 & 0.91 \\ \hline
14 & 100 & 200 & Autonomous & 4 & 37.5 & 37 & 25.6 & 0.78 \\ \hline
15 & 100 & 100 & Autonomous & 1 & Geothermal: 13.4 kW & 12.8 & 0.52 \\ \hline
16 & 600 & 600 & Grid-connected & 1 & - & - & 0.59 \\ \hline
17 & 600 & 600 & connected/Net- & 1 & 450.8 & - & - & 0.48 \\ \hline
18 & 600 & 600 & Autonomous & 1 & 1743.80 & - & 2355.2 & 1.26 \\ \hline
19 & 600 & 600 & Autonomous & 1 & - & 600 & 3020.8 & 1.14 \\ \hline
20 & 600 & 600 & Autonomous & 1 & 740.63 & 400 & 499.20 & 0.78 \\ \hline
21 & 600 & 600 & Autonomous & 3 & 1751.3 & - & 2099.2 & 1.23 \\ \hline
22 & 600 & 600 & Autonomous & 3 & 600 & 1945.6 & 1.00 \\ \hline
23 & 600 & 600 & Autonomous & 3 & 740.63 & 400 & 499.20 & 0.79 \\ \hline
24 & 600 & 900 & Autonomous & 3 & 159.38 & 400 & 102.4 & 0.60 \\ \hline
25 & 2000 & 2000 & Grid-connected & 1 & - & - & 0.58 \\ \hline  & & & Grid-connected/Net- & 1 & 1495 & - & - & 0.47 \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 3: Optimization results.