ARTICLE IN PRESS
0360-5442/$ - se
doi:10.1016/j.en
�Correspond
E-mail addr
(G. Meerganz v
Energy 32 (2007) 1024–1031
www.elsevier.com/locate/energy
Modelling of water–energy systems. The case of desalination
Gregor Meerganz von Medeazza�, Vincent Moreau
Institute for Environmental Sciences and Technology, Autonomous University of Barcelona, Edifici C, 08193 Bellaterra, Spain
Abstract
The primary aim of this work is to assess the long-term sustainability of the desalination technology in alleviating the global freshwater
crisis. The Canary Islands (Spain) have a well-established experience in desalination and the Island of Lanzarote –whose water supply is
entirely dependent upon this technology—is taken as an illustrative case study. Analytical information obtained from the Material and
Energy Flow Accounts of Lanzarote’s desalination metabolism are fed into a model developed with the Vensim software to allow future
trends, prediction and evaluate different scenarios. To conclude, the main environmental impacts of the desalination technology are
addressed and some socially induced factors leading to unsustainable water management are briefly discussed.
r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Keywords: Seawater desalination; Environmental impacts; Sustainability; Modelling
1. Introduction
Considering the immense volume of available seawater,from a purely technical point of view, the potential forseawater desalination is virtually infinite. In 1961, USPresident John F. Kennedy noted that if humanity couldfind an inexpensive way to get fresh water from the oceans,that achievement ‘‘would really dwarf any other scientificaccomplishments’’ [1]. The desalination technology embo-dies such hope. However, the economic factors associatedwith its energy consumption, operation and maintenanceas well as the resulting environmental impacts stronglylimit the scale of its application. Nevertheless, in view ofthe need for alleviating freshwater scarcity and given thetechnological advances at hand, for the past 30 yearsdesalination has been increasingly perceived as a feasibleun-conventional solution to meet ever-growing freshwaterdemands.
Desalination offers indeed a great potential to the 2.4billion people (i.e. 39% of the world population) living incoastal areas. As a result, over the past 15 years, the dailywater production went from approximately 13millionm3
per day to the present 32millionm3 per day in the 15,000
e front matter r 2006 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
ergy.2006.10.006
ing author. Fax: +34 93 581 33 31.
ess: [email protected]
on Medeazza).
desalination plants operating worldwide and supplyingabout 160 million people, equivalent to around 7% of theworld’s coastal population [2]. Many of them are installedin Middle East regions where, along with other non-conventional water resources (treated waste water andirrigation drainage water), they supplement natural sourcesin the domestic and agricultural sectors. This energy-intensive technology mushrooms especially in the water-poor but energy-rich nations of the Persian Gulf, wheredesalination accounts for 40% of the municipal andindustrial water used. Nevertheless, the technology’simportance is rapidly taking off also in the EuropeanUnion, particularly in Spain. The Canary Islands have awell-established experience in desalination.
Various desalination methods exist but the overallmetabolism of the process generally presents the samecharacteristics. Freshwater production is achieved throughthe input of energy and seawater and the output ofconcentrated saline brine as well as green house gasemissions, when driven by fossil fuels - which is mostoften the case for desalination. The most commonprocesses used nowadays are distillation (thermal separa-tion, such as MSF, MED and VC processes) andmembrane technologies (such as electrodialysis and reverseosmosis), each accounting for about half the installedglobal desalination capacity. Because of its greater energyefficiency (primary energy consumption is about 5–6 times
ARTICLE IN PRESSG. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–1031 1025
lower than thermal technologies), reverse osmosis (RO)—aprocess based on physical-chemical separation has gainedthe major share of the desalination market. The energyrequired to overcome the osmotic pressure of a salinesolution is quite considerable. From thermodynamics, thetheoretical minimum to obtain fresh water is around0.7 kWh/m3 [3]. The energy requirements have beenconstantly decreasing over the past decades and nowadays,energy consumption for RO seawater desalination is in therange of 3–4 kWh/m3.
After a brief description of the modelling task in Section2, Section 3 of this paper presents the main components ofthe Vensim model. Section 4 uses the model to analyse theinsular desalination metabolism of Lanzarote and toelaborate future scenarios. To conclude, Section 5 discussesthe various environmental impacts concerning the desali-nation technology.
2. Modelling desalination processes
In this paper, the authors approach the problem of watermanagement with the formulation of a model. Looselydefined, the problems may be stated as follows: how does atechnological measure to alleviate water scarcity influencesocial and economic behaviour as well as environmentalquality? This question can be addressed in numerous waysas there are many possible uses of modern technology ortraditional techniques. Also in this case, the problemdirectly impacts large-scale environmental challenges likeclimate change or more generally the limited availability ofnatural resources. In this context of both conflicting valuesand uncertainty, aiming for the integration of variousdimensions in a model seems appropriate. Not only ismodelling relevant when the evolution of certain para-meters is uncertain but also it allows for a simplifiedrepresentation of sometimes puzzling interactions. Inpractice, the task is much more complex and the modelpresented here is certainly limited to the basic dynamics ofdesalination technology.
The general issue identified above and subsequentproblem definition quickly raise a number of questionswhich require attention before the skeleton of a model can
Fig. 1. Overall metabolism of the desa
be drawn. Given the nature of the problem, the firstquestions the model attempts to answer are the following:What would the impact on greenhouse gases emissions andbrine discharge be, should the production of water throughdesalination change? Also, what would be the effect onemissions and effluent discharges of a change in thecomposition of inputs, namely the salinity of seawaterand the different sources of power? Finally, in whatproportion a change in the consumption of water from thedomestic, industrial and agricultural sectors influence therejections of pollutants or more precisely the consumptionof energy? With this in mind, a natural approach involvesthe characterisation of the desalination process with its in-and outflows of energy and material. The model, therefore,makes the interactions in Fig. 1 more explicit.
Fig. 1 considers two main inputs to the desalinationprocess, energy and seawater, of which the characteristicsof interest are proportion of renewable and non-renewablesources and salinity, respectively. The outputs are fresh-water, greenhouse gases and brine whose salinity wouldalso be important should brine be officially designated aspollutant. With this approach the ‘energy for water’ systemis essentially described from the production side using theenergy cost (kWh/m3) and the ratio of freshwater output toseawater intake (the so-called conversion ratio). However,without going into much of the technical details, theenvironmental and—to a lesser extent—the economic andsocial aspects can be incorporated on the same level.
3. The model
A number of assumptions underlining this model,introduced for simplicity sake, do not represent the manyvariations observed in reality. First, the authors assumethat the technical process of desalination can be repre-sented satisfactorily given its energy cost and conversionratio. For the purpose of this model, these two variablesare considered independent. Second, the difference betweenproduction and losses gives the potential consumption.However, actual consumption may be lower than potentialconsumption and the former only feeds back into thesystem when exceeding the latter. For all practical
lination process (own elaboration).
ARTICLE IN PRESSG. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–10311026
purposes, losses are assumed to occur during distributionand fluctuate in direct proportion to production. Third, anumber of feedback are omitted as in the case ofgreenhouse gases or brine as we observe that legal oreconomic constraints have not kicked in yet on the releaseof such pollutants and it is a regional matter as to how theyare dealt with. This could, however, change in the future;for instance under the European Urban Waste WaterTreatment Directive (UWWTD) or the Kyoto protocol.Fourth, we accommodate changes in consumption sim-plistically through the respective changes in agricultural,industrial and domestic activities.
Just as the assumptions on each variable are given forclarity, the relations between each one of them areformulated and take advantage of the functionality of theVensim software. Thus, mathematically and graphically(Fig. 2) the results are
D production ¼ maxðproduction change
� production; consumption change � productionÞ, ð1Þ
D consumption ¼ minðconsumption change
� consumption; D production � D lossesÞ, ð2Þ
D losses ¼ losses � D production: (3)
Similarly, we have the following relations for the rest ofthe model (Eqs. (4)–(7) and Fig. 3). Note that the figuresfor emissions used in the model are: 1 kg of CO2 per kWh
delta production
production changelo
Production
<deltaproduction>
consumption change
agriculturalchange
domesticchange
industrialchange
<consumptionchange>
Fig. 2. Vensim model of product
delta bri
seawater salinity
conversion ratio
brine salinity
Energydelta energy
energy cost <deltaproduction>
<delta ener
Fig. 3. Vensim model of energy, CO
of power generated through a conventional Rankine cycle(energy efficiency between 30–35%) with coal (b), 0.8 kg/kWh with oil (c) and 0.6 kg/kWh with natural gas (d). Bothrenewable (a) and nuclear (e) energy emissions areconsidered negligible. If instead of using a conventionalthermal plant, a combined cycle system powered by naturalgas would reduce CO2 emissions to 0.33 kg/kWh.
D energy ¼ energy cost � production; (4)
D emissions ¼ D energyða � renewable þ b � coal
þ c � oil þ d � natgas þ e � nuclearÞ, ð5Þ
D brine ¼ 1� conversion ratioð ÞD production
conversion ratio
� �, (6)
brine salinity ¼salinity
1� conversion ratio. (7)
The model can be used in various ways, but its primaryobjective is to provide a form of diagnosis for regionswhere water is supplied through desalination. Therefore,the effects of long-term greenhouse gas emissions are notdirectly included. In fact, the model assembles elements ofa puzzle at a moment in time, given a change in one of thecontrol variables. The Vensim package conveniently allowsfor simulations of this kind. Among the general aspectsthat could improve the model in the future, a number areidentified here: (a) decreasing availability of cheap fuelsand greenhouse gases fines may become determinant;
Lossesdelta losses
sses change <deltaproduction>
Consumptiondelta consumption
<delta losses>
ion, consumption and losses.
Brinene
<deltaproduction>
Emissionsdelta emissions
gy>
renewableoilcoal
natgas
nuclear
2 emissions and brine discharge.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Production, Consumption and Losses
-5
0
5
10
15
20
25
1986
1988
1990
1992
1994
1996
1998
2000
2002
2004
2006
Hm
3
Prod
Cons
Losses
Fig. 5. Evolution of Lanzarote’s water production (Prod), consumption
(Cons) and network losses (in millionm3). 2003–2006 data are projections
(own elaboration based on [5]).
G. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–1031 1027
(b) local economic and social policies may alter consider-ably the use of freshwater; (c) economic instruments suchas taxes and subsidies to influence on prices and consumerbehaviour. This justifies detailed regional studies in orderto fully equip a model that would account for suchcharacteristics. Also, since the factors considered herebest integrate at the regional level, they constitute solidfoundations for models with a wider scope [4]. Section 4will now describe a regional application.
4. Case study: Lanzarote
Lanzarote is located in the Canary archipelago and ischaracterised by its low precipitation rates (around111millionm3/year, i.e. less than 200mm/m2, among thelowest in the European Union; of this amount only 9%infiltrates, providing very few sources). Irregularities inthese already low precipitation rates, the aquifers’ greatdepths as well as their overexploitation causing salineintrusion, mean that direct natural water supplies havebecome insignificant in view of satisfying the ever-increas-ing insular demands. The experience Lanzarote gathered inthe field of water technologies throughout the ages is quiteunique in the world and within the restricted limits of itsterritory, all technological combinations can be found.Lanzarote is of particular interest when it comes to analysea socio-economic context entirely dependent on desalina-tion. First implemented in 1964, this technology nowcovers practically 100% of the insular freshwater demand.
4.1. Water for tourist services
In the mid 1960s, Lanzarote started its social andeconomic transformation as it became highly dependent onthe tourism industry. The insular population grew ex-ponentially from around 50,000 at the beginning of the1960s to around 170,000 40 years later, with almost 1/3being tourists. The main factor which triggered this suddendemographic take-off was the implementation of thedesalination technology, enabling rapid tourism develop-
Fig. 4. Total of number of tourist visiting Lanzarote each year since the
introduction of the desalination technology (own elaboration based on
[6–8]).
ment and economic growth. In 2003, to fulfil the waterdemands of this population, in 2003, 18.3Hm3 ofdesalinated water were produced [5]. From Figs. 4 and 5,it is striking to see how tourism and the water desalinationindustry simultaneously developed on the island.
Network degradation (over 30% losses in 2002) com-bined with per capita consumption increase resulted in aproduction augmentation of over 425% in just 16 years(1986–2002 period), while the resident population grew by108% and tourists by 250%. In 2001, the net consumptionper resident was 120 litres per person and per day; whiletourists consumed 460 litres [9]. The latter, however,excludes unmonitored, illegal and private water produc-tion: all in all, luxurious hotels require daily over 1000 litresper tourist in order to function.
The positive aspects of the insular water services are:high coverage of individual water metres, moderatedconsumption of residents and low seasonality of demand.The negative aspects remain the high energy and waterconsumption (and losses), extreme foreign energy depen-dency as well as greenhouse gas and brine emissions.
4.2. Different scenarios
The seawater desalination industry is the island’s great-est individual energy consumer, representing over 15.4% ofthe total insular consumption [8]. The specific averageenergy consumption for the year 2003 was 5.26 kWh/m3 [5].However, to this figure another 10,717,000 kWh should beadded for distribution and pumping services, resulting in5.88 kWh/m3 of water delivered to consumers. Table 1summarises the main characteristic of Lanzarote’s desali-nation industry for the year 2002.
Plugging those variables into the Vensim model de-scribed in Section 3 and assuming a conversion ratio of0.45 and an energy cost of 5.26 kWh/m3, the following
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 1
Lanzarote’s desalination industry (2002) (source: own elaboration based on [8,10])
Water produced
(millionm3)
Water consumed
(millionm3)
Water loss (%) %/total Lanzarote’s
electricity consumption
Oil/total electricity
consumed in
desalination (%)
Wind/total electricity
consumed in
desalination (%)
17.210 11.461 33.4 15.4 88.9 11.1
Table 2
Main model output (Lanzarote 2002) (source: own elaboration)
Losses (Hm3) Brine (Hm3) Brine salinity (ppm) Energy (GWh) Emissions (tonnes of CO2)
5.748 21.03 63,6400 90.5246 64,381.1
Production20 M
10 M
00 4 765 8 9321 10
Time (Year)
Fig. 6. Freshwater production (millionm3).
Losses6 M
3 M
00 4 765 8 9321 10
Time (Year)
G. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–10311028
outputs can be obtained from a standard model run (seeTable 2).
The main purpose of this model would be to build futurescenarios, that is observing changes in resulting impacts byaltering the system characteristics such as share of renew-able energy sources, water demand, network losses, processefficiency (energy cost), etc. For illustration, the followingscenario can be modelled, based on Estevan’s ‘‘advancedscenario conditions,’’ desalination production could bereduced by 60% over 10 years [11]. This could be achievedthrough the implementation of a sound ‘‘water demandmanagement’’ strategy. For our scenario we suggestvarious technical improvements: reducing network lossesdown to 15%; introducing state of the art processes of3 kWh/m3 with a conversion ratio of 0.55; increasing thewind energy share to 30% and switching to natural gas(40%). Figs. 6 to 11 show the evolution of the differentmodel components as the production years go by.1
Although fairly challenging, the above figures (partlybased on strategies suggested by [11]) intend to (a)demonstrate the potential for reducing environmentalimpacts and (b) to illustrate possibilities offered by themodel. Of course, the model’s control variables can bemodulated according to specific situations and deliver verydifferent results.
Fig. 7. Network losses (millionm3).
Brine40 M
20 M
5. Discussion
5.1. Environmental concerns of desalination
From the above example, it can be seen that whencarrying out an integrated environmental assessment of thedesalination technology, various aspects are to be takeninto account. Not necessarily in chronological order:
00 4 765 8 9321 10
Time (Year)
Fig. 8. brine discharge (millionm3).
1From Figs. 6–11, one can see how the ‘‘advanced scenario’’ brings all
components to decrease, except the salinity of the discharged brine which
increase due to the change in the membrane conversion ratio. This
increased salinity may be the only undesired aspect of this scenario, but
could be tackled by introducing remediation methods (supported and
standardised by a possibly forthcoming European legislation).
ARTICLE IN PRESS
brine salinity80,000
70,000
60,0000 4 765 8 9321 10
Time (Year)
Fig. 9. Brine salinity (ppm).
Energy100 M
50 M
00 2 4 6 8 97531 10
Time (Year)
Fig. 10. Energy consumption (in million kW).
Emissions80 M
40 M
00 1 2 3 5 6 8 94 7 10
Time (Year)
Fig. 11. CO2 emissions (in million kg).
G. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–1031 1029
(1)
Feedwater salinity is fundamental since the requiredenergy to drive the desalination process will be highlydependent on its grade. Seawater salinity ranges usuallybetween 35,000 ppm and 38,000 ppm, whereas brackishwater salinity ranges typically between 2000 ppm and10,000 ppm. Under European legal requirements,potable water has a saline content of less than500 ppm. However, if designed for irrigation purposes,in many cases higher salinities could be allowed(especially when integrative regional policies encouragesaline resisting crop agriculture). A fundamentalquestion is, therefore, to determine which quality levelsare to be obtained and for what use.(2)
Also, feedwater salinity will partly determine thesalinity of the effluent brine discharge that may heavilyaffect marine biota [12]. With massive development ofthe desalination activity in the Gulf coastline, environ-mental damage rapidly became evident and a firstreport on this matter has been published by the UNEP,highlighting the gravity of the problem [13]. So far nolegal requirements oblige the treatment of the residuebefore dumped back into sea (no limits to brine salinityhave therefore been set in the Vensim model). However,a debate is being held on whether brine dischargesshould be regarded as industrial waste or not. Accord-ing to current economic calculus, untreated sea dump-ing seems the most cost-effective way to discharge theproduced brine. This calculus might well change, ifvaluable ecosystem loss (in terms of environmental-service pricing) was to be accounted for. Also, one maywonder what the repercussion on desalination waterprices would be if brine was required to undergostandardised treatment before discharge. Nevertheless,in view of minimising environmental impacts of brineemissions, technical options exist to either diffuse thebrine more efficiently or simply to reduce its salinitydown to levels where such concentrations would bebeneficial to other sectors say, aquaculture.(3)
Desalination is still to be considered as a fairly energyintensive and expensive way of supplying freshwater.Consequently, one major drawback remains the pro-duction of greenhouse gases as well as other airbornecontaminants associated with the required powergeneration. Raluy et al. [14] carried out a life cycleassessment of various desalination technologies, whichrevealed that environmental loads and airborne emis-sions associated with RO are one order of magnitudelower than those corresponding to thermal MSFand MED processes. For membrane technologies, oneof the greatest contribution lie in energy recoveryand pressure exchanger devices; re-injecting theremaining pressure of the effluent brine solution, anotable reduction of the consumed energy is achieved.Reaching water production at an energy cost of2.5–3 kWh/m3 at global level within the next 10 yearsand thereby considerably reduce environmental im-pacts becomes feasible. This promise may be fulfilled inlimited territories such as Lanzarote, if combined withactive ‘‘demand management’’ schemes striving to-wards reducing insular production; but may well fail inabsolute terms on global scale, since current trendsseem to indicate a massive increase in overall desalina-tion production.(4)
Ultimately, the impact arising from this energyconsumption are very much dependent on the energyshare. Water being an essential and scarce resource,and in the case of desalination, closely related toenergy, which in turn is also a limited resource, it seemsobvious that both should be considered and dealt within an integrated way by cogeneration or combined
ARTICLE IN PRESSG. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–10311030
cycles. Indeed, can a method transforming a non-renewable good (i.e. tending towards physical scarcity)into a socially scarce one (subjected to growingdemands) at high environmental costs ever be sustain-able? The contribution potential of renewable energiesin the desalination industry should be further explored.Arid coastal regions usually feature high solar radiationand wind speeds and therefore present great potentialto cover their water needs with autonomous, stand-alone desalination systems powered by renewableenergy units [15,16]. In the case of remote andunconnected locations, one advantage of a coupledrenewable energy-desalination system may lie in thefact that while power can hardly be stored, water can.
5.2. Socially induced impacts
Beyond the above exposed brine and energy concerns liemore impalpable and, therefore, more vicious issues thathave been largely developed in [17] and will be brieflyoutlined in this subsection.
The global freshwater scarcity crisis we are facing is theconsequence of both population and consumption growthcombined with declining natural water resources mainlydue to pollution and unsustainable resource exploitation.As a response to this, on the one hand, there is an urge toincrease water supply capacities; desalination technologypartly solves this issue. On the other hand, there is agrowing recognition of the need for ‘‘Demand WaterManagement’’ (as suggested by the European WaterFramework Directive [18]) to provide sound options. Suchdemand-side approaches aim at minimising the need foradditional supplies, trying to avoid ‘‘supply createsdemand’’-type of vicious circles. Indeed, it seems thatincreasing supplies will always be insufficient because theyincrease demands even faster and that ultimately, supplieswill always be fully used up. Jevons [19], in his book on theCoal Question, pointed out back in 1865, that the higherefficiency of steam engines did paradoxically lead to anincreasing use of coal by making it cheaper relative tooutput. In such context, it would also be interesting to seeto what extent the so-called Jevons’ paradox [20] applies towater desalination: do we automatically use more water asdesalination gets cheaper? Decreasing production energycosts seem indeed to trigger a rebound effect on waterconsumption [21].
In Lanzarote, the change from water scarcity toabundance occurred with the introduction of the desalina-tion technology in 1964; since then, water for touristservices have continuously increased demands. Further-more, the for-long unquestioned success of hydraulic
structuralism produced the sensation that water scarcityproblems could be entirely solved by increasing supplies.Ironically, additional supplies seem to create a seriouscontradiction in which a ‘‘water squander’’ culture—subsequently triggering socially constructed water calami-ties—increasingly emerges in a natural context of absolute
scarcity. As pointed out by Naredo [22], the principalimbalance between water availability and its uses originatewhen human activities are imported to zones without anyconsideration for their inherent capability to host suchsocial habits. Under Spain’s new Hydrological Plan, theadditional water to be provided by a dozen new desalina-tion plants will quench the thirst not only of the intensiveplastic-tented irrigation agriculture of Almeria but also ofthe numerous new tourist developments and golf courses.
The main concerns of this paper relates to (a) the indirectgrowth and consumption stimulation effect that newdesalination facilities can hold, (b) the purpose served bythose facilities and (c) the additional energy requirementsthey imply (d) potentially triggering salient environmentaland socio-economic issues described above. When produc-tion scales are excessive and uses inadequate, do desalina-tion technology lock-ins not turn physical scarcities intosocial ones? To conclude, as reported in [23], desalinationshould primarily serve its lofty function of meeting humanneed rather than human greed, in other words sustaininglivelihood rather than satisfying luxury.
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank Dr. Luis Serra and Dr. JoanMartinez-Alier as well as two anonymous reviewers fortheir comments and suggestions. Gregor Meerganz vonMedeazza thanks the IQUC scholarship for providing thefinancial support enabling this research.
References
[1] Kennedy JF. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States
1961. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1962.
[2] Schiffler M. Perspectives and challenges for desalination in the 21st
century. Desalination 2004;165:1–9.
[3] MacHarg J. The evolution of SWRO energy recovery systems.
Desalination Water Reuse 2001;11:49–53.
[4] Easterling WE. Why regional studies are needed in the development
of full scale integrated assessment modeling of global change
processes. Global Environmental Change 1997;7(4):337–56.
[5] Inalsa. Statistical data. 2003. Datos Estadısticos 2003. Technical
Office. Lanzarote: Inalsa; 2004.
[6] FCM. Cesar Manrique: Nueva York—Exhibition guide (Guıa de la
exposicion). Lanzarote: FCM; 1996.
[7] Antena. Around five thousands tourists visited Lanzarote in 1956.
(Cerca de cinco mil turistas visitaron Lanzarote en 1956.) Lanzarote:
Semanario Deportivo-Cultural, 27-05-1958.
[8] Centro de Datos. Statistical yearbook 2002 (Anuario estadıstico
2002). Lanzarote: Cabildo de Lanzarote; 2003.
[9] Inalsa. Report to the Biosphere Council (Informe para Consejo de la
Biosfera), Lanzarote: Inalsa; 2001.
[10] Inalsa. Statistical data 2002 (Datos Estadısticos 2002).Technical
Office. Lanzarote: Inalsa; 2003.
[11] Estevan A.–Gea 21. Lanzarote and the biosphere: a strategy for the
sustainable development of the island; application of the local agenda
21 (Lanzarote en la Biosfera: Una Estrategia hacia el Desarrollo
Sostenible de la Isla; Aplicacion de la Agenda Local 21), Programa
LIFE de la Union Europea–Documento de Trabajo, Lanzarote:
Cabildo de Lanzarote, 1998.
[12] Einav R, Harussi K, Perry D. The footprint of the desalination
processes on the environment. Desalination 2002;152:141–54.
ARTICLE IN PRESSG. Meerganz von Medeazza, V. Moreau / Energy 32 (2007) 1024–1031 1031
[13] United Nations Environment Programme–Mediterranean Action
Plan MED POL. Sea water desalination in the Mediterranean:
assessment and guidelines. MAP Technical reports series, no.139,
Athens: UNEP/MAP; 2003.
[14] Raluy RG, Serra L, Uche J, Valero A. Life-cycle assessment of
desalination technologies integrated with energy production systems.
Desalination 2004;167:445–58.
[15] Lindemann JH. Wind and solar powered seawater desalination:
applied solutions for the Mediterranean, the Middle East and the
Gulf Countries. Desalination 2004;168:73–80.
[16] Epp C, Papapetrou M. Co-ordination action for autonomous
desalination units based on renewable energy systems–ADU-RES.
Desalination 2004;168:89–93.
[17] Meerganz von Medeazza G. ‘Direct’ and socially-induced environ-
mental impacts of desalination. Desalination 2005;185:57–70.
[18] European Parliament and Council of the European Union. Directive
2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the council establish-
ing a framework for the community action in the field of water policy.
Brussels: Official Journal of the European Communities, OJ L 327;
2000.
[19] Jevons WS. The coal question: an inquiry concerning the progress of
the nation, and the probable exhaustion of our coal mines. London:
Macmillan; 1865.
[20] Martinez-Alier J. Ecological economics. Oxford: Blackwell; 1987.
[21] Meerganz von Medeazza G. Water desalination as a long-term
sustainable solution to alleviate global freshwater scarcity?
A North–South approach. Desalination 2004;169:287–301.
[22] Naredo JM. The crossroads in water management in Spain (La
encruijada de la gestion del agua en Espana). Archipielago 2003;57:
17–33.
[23] Meerganz von Medeazza G. Desalination: meeting need or greed?
An ecological economic reflection on freshwater scarcities. MSc
thesis, Autonomous University of Barcelona (UAB), Barcelona,
2004.
