Is is thermodynamically possible to heat a salt-water solution to
boiling by injecting steam?

In a paper I read, the author claims that given an aqueous solution in which
the solute raises the boiling point to 102°C (@ 1 atm), injecting
steam to try to boil the solution is impossible because the injected
steam condenses at 100°C and is therefore thermodynamically incapable
of raising the solution to the 102°C boiling point.

I agree that injecting wet steam could heat the solution only to
100°C, because above that the injected steam would become superheated
by the hotter solution.  The resulting drying action would prevent
condensation and the release of latent heat.  But if higher temperature
superheated steam is injected, wouldn't the steam bubble dissipate
heat into the solution?

I tried to calculate the heat transferred, using the following thinking:

1. Operating at atmospheric pressure, superheated steam at 130°C is injected.
2. The pressure remains roughly constant, the temperature drops to 100°C and
the steam bubble shrinks.
3. Tables of superheated steam show that the specific volume drops
from 1.8 to 1.675 m^3/kg and the enthaply drops from 2720 to 2680
kJ/kg.

Wouldn't this 40 kJ/kg heat the solution?  I realize that this may be
a poor way to heat, because without heat from condensation, the
heating is small, but is it thermodynamically impossible?

FYI, the paper is "Furfural production needs chemical innovation" and
appeared in the journal Chemical innovation, April 2000, Vol. 30, No.
4, p, 29.  The example he gave was actually a pentose-water solution. 
 I can provide a pdf copy.

I'm reasonably familiar with thermodynamics but I'm not a chemist or a
chemical engineer.  So please keep that in mind.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but this looks like a no-brainer.

Apply the second law of thermodynamics and there you have it - if the
steam is hotter that the boiling point of the solution, the solution
will eventually boil.  Heat must pass to the solution from the steam -
it's temperature must rise to boiling point, and beyond.

Steam can have any temperature you like - until it becomes plasma I guess.
Perhaps the author assumed that steam is always 100 °C - in which
case, the solution could not be boiled, but I'd be prepared to bet
that steam at 1000 °C would boil a cup of water in a hurry!

Thanks for your comment.  I think that your note will help clarify my
question.  First though, I want to reply to your statement that "Heat
must pass to the solution from the steam -
it's temperature must rise to boiling point, and beyond," specifically
the "beyond" part.  The temperature of the solution will never rise
above the boiling point (at the specified pressure) as long as any
liquid solution remains.  I don't believe that the paper's author
intended to heat the entire reactor contents to complete dryness.

But, I do agree with you that 1,000°C steam will boil the water--just
inefficiently.  This shown by the comparing heating with condensing
steam to your example, and is actually a pretty good case of how high
temperature differences do not lead to good heat transfer efficiencies
-- thermodynamics can be counterintuitive.  The main assumption is
that that the heat transfer takes place at a constant pressure.  This
is fair as I don't believe the author intended to inject high pressure
steam into an liquid at one atmosphere.  The heat transfer would be
very turbulent and not quasi-static:

1. Heating water with steam having no difference in temperature can be
quite efficient:  heating 100°C saturated liquid water with 100°C dry
saturated steam (given enough time for the steam to diffuse into the
liquid) releases 2675-425 = 2250 kJ for each kg of steam. Given that
it takes 2575 kJ/kg to make the steam from room temperature water in
the first place, you're transfering 87% of the input heat.

2. Heating 102°C saltwater with 1000°C superheated steam (your
example)  at 1 atm releases 4640 - 2675 = 1965 kJ for each kg.   As
4540 kJ/kg is used to generate the steam in the first place, the heat
transfer efficiency is 43.5% of the input heat.  Note that the steam
density increases from .17 to .6 kg/m^3 in the process -- about 25% of
the heating is generated by compressing the steam bubble.

When you consider the low efficiency, heat losses and large diameter
piping needed to move low density, 1000°C steam, maybe the author
meant "practically impossible" rather than "thermodynamically
impossible."  So given a limited volume flow rate an a limited amount
of fuel to burn, your "in a hurry" is a relative term.  That is the
essence of my question.

It's a shame that we cannot ask him.  Karl Zeitsch, a renown expert on
furfural production, died on the day after the 9/11 terror attacks
(but no direct relation to the plane crashes).

Oops - quite right about the "and beyond".
As I was writing that I was thinking about heat versus temperature and
the energy needed to bring about the phase transition of the liquid. 
More heat would be transferred, but as you rightly point out, the
temperatur would not increase beyond boiling point.  Sorry for the
goof.

I guess, once I saw the basic flaw in the reasoning - that is - that
steam could certainly carry and transfer sufficient energy to the
liquid to boil it - I got lazy with the details.