Giving Wastewater a Boost with Breakthroughs in Secondary Treatment Brent Giles Research Director About Lux Research Coverage Areas
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Giving Wastewater a Boost with Breakthroughs in Secondary Treatment Brent Giles Research Director About Lux Research Coverage areas . Advanced Materials Helps clients find new business opportunities from . Agro Innovation emerging technologies in physical and life sciences . Alternative Fuels Offers ongoing technology and market intelligence, as . Autonomous Systems 2.0 well as market data and consulting services . Bio‐based Materials & Chemicals . Bioelectronics Over 250 clients on six continents – multinational . Efficient Building Systems corporations, investors, governments, and SMEs . Energy Electronics . Energy Storage Global reach,with offices in Boston, New York, . Exploration and Production Amsterdam, Singapore, Shanghai, and Tokyo . Food and Nutrition . Printed, Flexible, and Organic Combines deep technical expertise with business analysis Electronics to support strategic decisions . Solar . More at www.luxresearchinc.com Sustainable Building Materials . Water 2 Contents Problems with existing wastewater treatment A picture of the “average” activated sludge plant Six innovative technologies go head to head Stickney Water Reclamation Plant, Chicago 3 Contents Problems with existing wastewater treatment A picture of the “average” activated sludge plant Six innovative technologies go head to head Stickney Water Reclamation Plant, Chicago 4 Wastewater treatment gobbles energy and produces large volumes of sludge The dominant process for treating the world’s wastewater, activated sludge, faces three major issues: High energy Mountains of The squeeze consumption waste sludge for space 5 Anaerobic digestion reduces, but doesn’t eliminate waste sludge Does not scale down well Many facilities need to combine sludge with other waste streams Reduces sludge volume by about 40%, but you still have to do something with the remaining stabilized biosolids 6 Many U.S. wastewater plants will look to expand capacity due to population and climate pressures 80 The largest annual largest storms have increased 75 in in size by about 30% (mm) station 70 each at 65 precipitation storm 60 hour ‐ 24 annual y = 0.0954x ‐ 124.53 55 R² = 0.277 Average 50 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 Year Source: Environment America Research & Policy Center (2012). 7 Many U.S. wastewater plants will look to expand capacity due to population and climate pressures Change in frequency of extreme storm events, 1948 to 2011 New England Extreme storms now occur 85% more frequently 8 In the United States, a few mega‐systems treat a large portion of the water Breakdown of WWTP's in U.S. by Size 100% 90% 80% By number of WWTPs 70% 60% 50% By volume of water 40% Chemicals: treated 30% need to target plants treating 20% 100,000 10% m3/day or 0% more 0Up to 378 Up to 3780 Up to 37,800 Up to 378,000 Total m3/day m3/day m3/day m3/day 9 In the United States, a few mega‐systems treat a large portion of the water Breakdown of WWTP's in U.S. by Size 100% 90% Hardware: need to target 80% plants treating By number of WWTPs 70% 650 m3/day or 60% more 50% By volume of water 40% treated 30% 20% 10% 0% 0Up to 378 Up to 3780 Up to 37,800 Up to 378,000 Total m3/day m3/day m3/day m3/day 100,000 m3/day 10 Contents Problems with existing wastewater treatment A picture of the “average” activated sludge plant Six innovative technologies go head to head Stickney Water Reclamation Plant, Chicago 11 The “average” wastewater treatment plant Population vs. wastewater volume 500,000 450,000 400,000We compiled a representative sample of activated sludge wastewater350,000 treatment plants throughout the U.S. (m3/day) 300,000 flow 250,000 Actual and minimum footprint 50 daily 200,000 For each plant, we collected data on 150,000 45 100,000 40 Average Average daily flow 50,000 35 Sludge production 16,000 0 Volume of sludge30 generated (acres) Actual 0 200,000 400,00025 600,000 800,000 14,000 footprint Energy consumedPopulation 20 12,000 Footprint 15 Number of staff (tons/yr) 10,000 Minimum 10 footprint Footprint and unused space 8,000 sludge 5 6,000 0 solids 0 200,000 400,000 4,000 600,000 800,000 Average daily flowDry (m3/day) 2,000 0 0 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 Average daily flow (m3/day) 12 The “typical” U.S. 100,000 m3/day plant Wastewater volume: 100,000 m3/day Population: 180,000 people Energy consumption: 0.4 kWh/m3 Staff: 46 Sludge production: 3150 tons/year dry, or 12,600 tons/year at 25% solids Minimum footprint: 12.5 acres Annual operating cost: $4 million/year 13 13 Operating cost breakdown for wastewater treatment 10% About 60% of sludge ends up in landfills, with 3% 25% tipping fees on the order 5% Plants often of $35/ton need 6% supervision around the clock 9% ~2% of all electricity 23% generated in 19% developed countries Source: EPA Sludge transport/disposal Electricity Staff Discharge fees Chemicals Administration Maintenance Other 14 Energy breakdown for wastewater treatment 7% 3% 7% 13% Aeration efficiency is limited by the need to pressurize 57% air in order to pump Includes all it into several water and 13% meters of water sludge pumping Source: American Electric Power, Hazen & Sawyer Aeration Pumping Anaerobic digestion Lighting/building maintenance Belt press Other 15 Contents Problems with existing wastewater treatment A picture of the “average” activated sludge plant Six innovative technologies go head to head Stickney Water Reclamation Plant, Chicago 16 How we compared these technologies Based in Founded Revenue Employ ‐ees Australia 2009 $2 12 million Australia 1996 $4 12 million U.S. 2004 $7 20 million Israel 2007 Pre‐ 25 revenue U.S. 2006 $10 12 million Ireland 2013 $500,000 27 17 1 BioGill Ceramic “gill” material supports biofilm Gills create passive aeration and allow biofilm to slough off due to gravity 18 1 BioGill 19 2 AquaCell Membrane bioreactors provide high‐quality effluent Focus on graywater and blackwater recycling systems within a building or campus 20 2 AquaCell 21 3 Baswood Separates secondary treatment into three reactors “Dry cycle” reduces sludge volume and removes old biomass 22 3 Baswood 23 4 Emefcy Sabre (Spiral Aerobic Biofilm Reactor) Another take on passive aeration Spiral shape with biofilm on inside Incorporates a backwash cycle 24 4 Emefcy Sabre (Spiral Aerobic Biofilm Reactor) 25 5 Aquarius Technologies Incorporates many different zones with slightly different conditions 18 to 24 hours of aeration 26 5 Aquarius Technologies 27 6 OxyMem Membrane Aerated Biofilm Reactor (MABR) provides air through the inside of hollow fiber membrane Monitors biofilm growth by nitrogen production Developing easy‐ retrofit solution 28 6 OxyMem 29 The next generation of secondary wastewater treatment 500% 450% Energy consumption 400% Sludge production 350% Minimum footprint 300% Number of staff 250% Energy Operating consumption of cost 200% typical MBR 150% Operating cost of typical MBR 100% 50% 0% Activated sludge BioGill AquaCell Baswood Sabre Aquarius OxyMem 30 Most promising current technologies Lowest electricity Least sludge consumption Smallest staff $4,000,000 $3,500,000 Over $800,000 $3,000,000 in operating $2,500,000 costs savings $2,000,000 per year from a $1,500,000 combination of $1,000,000 energy and $500,000 sludge $‐ Activated sludge Emefcy reduction 31 Most promising current technologies Lowest electricity Least sludge consumption Smallest staff $4,000,000 $3,500,000 Over $900,000 $3,000,000 in operating $2,500,000 costs savings $2,000,000 per year, $1,500,000 mostly from $1,000,000 $500,000 savings on $‐ sludge disposal Activated sludge Aquarius 32 Most promising current technologies Lowest electricity Least sludge consumption Smallest staff $4,000,000 Over $1 million in $3,500,000 operating cost $3,000,000 savings from staff $2,500,000 reduction, sludge $2,000,000 reduction, and $1,500,000 energy savings $1,000,000 $500,000 $‐ Activated sludge Baswood OxyMem 33 Questions? Brent Giles Research Director [email protected] 917.484.4878 34.