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