Restricted dissemination (Service contract No. 070307/2008/496501/SER/D2) MITIGATION MEASURES TO ADDRESS ADVERSE IMPACTS OF FOUR ALTERNATIVE WATER SUPPLY OPTIONS TASK 2 REPORT Author(s): Paul Campling (VITO), Leo De Nocker (VITO), Wim Schiettecatte (VITO), Ayis I. Iacovides (IACO), Thomas Dworak (Ecologic), Eleftheria Kampa (Ecologic), Cornelius Laaser (Ecologic), Rodrigo Vidaurre (Ecologic), Manuel Álvarez Arenas (TAU), César Cuevas Pozo (TAU), Owen Le Mat (ACTeon), Verena Mattheiß (ACTeon), Fabienne Kervarec (ACTeon) Study undertaken for the European Commission – DG Environment ACTeon 2008/IMS/R/ N97DO/PCA (Task 2) VITO December 2008 Distribution list All rights, amongst which the copyright, on the materials described in this document rest with the Flemish Institute for Technological Research NV (“VITO”), Boeretang 200, BE-2400 Mol, Register of Legal Entities VAT BE 0244.195.916. The information provided in this document is confidential information of VITO. This document may not be reproduced or brought into circulation without the prior written consent of VITO. Without prior permission in writing from VITO this document may not be used, in whole or in part, for the lodging of claims, for conducting proceedings, for publicity and/or for the benefit or acquisition in a more general sense. DISTRIBUTION LIST First name, name, Company 3 Extended Summary EXTENDED SUMMARY The objective of Task 2 is to identify the most appropriate mitigation measures that resolve the adverse impacts associated with the four alternative water supply options, and assess their technical and financial feasibility. This is done on the basis of 14 case studies across Europe. They provide an overview a wide range of conditions in which alternative sources were used and mitigation measures were developed and operated. Overview of the case studies Desalination Waste water Rain water Ground water re-use harvesting recharge Spain XX X Cyprus X X Malta X X X X France X Germany X X Belgium X X Desalination Waste water Rain water Ground water re-use harvesting recharge Spain AGUA Irrigated (Desalination Agriculture development) Campo Dalías and Aquasol (Almería) (R &D project) Cyprus Larnaka Irrigated (+Dhekelia) Agriculture plants (Limassol area) Malta 3 RO plants for Irrigated RWHS for Potential mains water Agriculture households supply France Irrigating Pornic golf course Germany Irrigated Berlin: bank agriculture filtration using Wolfsburg surface waters Lower Saxony Belgium Flanders: Dual Coast: Treated water supply waste water for households infiltration to produce drinking water We discuss the case studies by water supply option, giving a description of the local conditions, listing the risks and mitigation options, and discussing the lessons to be learnt. A review of mitigation measures associated with desalination Case studies Cyprus: Cyprus, a Mediterranean island at the southernmost part of the EU, currently produces 93,000 m3/d with two RO plants of the larger typical size operating for 7 and 11 years at the coast. The operation of these plants has helped in meeting the growing water demand due to tourism and to overcome water shortage due to an extended drought. Malta: Desalination activities at a larger scale take place in Malta since the 1980s, alleviating the constant water scarcity problems on the island. Nowadays, three reverse osmosis seawater desalination plants provide around 50% of the public water supply of the island. In order to reduce its negative impacts efforts to increase energy efficiency have been undertaken. Furthermore, the use sea wells for feed water intake managed to decrease pre-treatment costs. Spain: The AGUA Programme (Actuaciones para la Gestión y la Utilización del Agua – Water Management and Use Action Programme) run by the Spanish Ministry of the Environment and Rural and Marine Affairs (Ministerio de Medio Ambiente y Medio Rural y Marino) includes two lines of intervention: reinforcement of actions to improve water management through water re-use and saving, and implementation of desalination projects to increase available water. The AGUA Programme promotes desalination in coastal towns as a general criterion for ensuring the water quality and availability required to supply the local population. Spain: The AQUASOL project is a unique R&D project (partially funded by the European Commission) that has demonstrated mitigation measures applied to a Multi Effect Distillation plant in Spain include an improved heat pump, an improved solar system and a solar dryer to produce salt from the brine. The principle risks and negative impacts linked to seawater desalination are grouped into four categories: • Environmental risks – include (i) aquifer contaminations (in the case that a desalination plant is constructed inland and seawater has to be transported through pipes that can have leakages), (ii) marine ecosystem damage due to brine discharge to the sea, (iii) noise pollution and (iv) spoiling the coastal landscape, (v) potential accumulation of boron. • Economical risks – the high investment and recurrent costs, mainly linked to energy requirements. The cost to produce 1 m3 of desalted water is often much more expensive than the direct abstraction of fresh water, ranging from around €0.70/m3 (reverse osmosis) to more than €1/m3 (thermal processes). Investments in an added distribution network arise if the desalination plant is located far from urban areas and the existing main water supply. • Social risks – concerns about the palatability of desalinated water and the effect on household goods are now largely dispelled. The higher costs of desalted water will increase the global water price, which puts lower income households at risk. • Global warming risks - Desalination is probably the option that has the highest green-house gas emissions amounts per m3 of water produced. This is linked to the higher amounts of energy needed to desalt water (between 3.5 and 24 kWh/m3 according to the technology), especially with thermal processes. The mitigation measures that deal with the adverse impacts of seawater desalination include: • Plant location – ensuring that the desalination plant is located in the most appropriate position so that noise pollution does not effect local residents, that areas of great natural beauty are not spoilt. • Discharge of brine – if brine is discharged at sea the outlet should be positioned so that there is sufficient wave action and sea currents to disperse it. In the Aquasol project a solar dryer is used to produce salt from the brine for selling. 5 Extended Summary • Improved efficiency – in all steps of the desalination process is used to decrease the amount of energy needed and keep recurrent costs low. Improving the heat pump (e.g. double-effect absorption pump) reduces both costs and green house gas emissions. GHG impacts per kWH electricity can be further reduced using less CO2- intensive fuels and renewables, which will depend on factors outside water supply management. Linking solar energy with desalination is a specific technology combination for this purpose. Mitigation measures associated with desalination Table A provides a matrix of mitigation options versus case study to indicate, which mitigation options are prevalent and which are particular. Table A. Mitigation options identified in each case study concerned with desalination Case Study Desalination in Desalination in Desalination in Southern Spain Cyprus Malta (AGUA and AQUASOL projects) Mitigation Reducing measure adverse impact X X on land use Reducing adverse impact X X of brine discharge Improved efficiency to X X X reduce energy Leakage control to rivers and X nr X aquifers Use of sea wells for feed water X intake nr = not relevant in that area Discussion A mitigation option to reducing the adverse impact of desalination plants on land use is used in Spain and Cyprus, but not in Malta. This could be related to the fact that in Malta, the options for locating a desalination plant are so limited that this is not a serious consideration. In Spain and Cyprus special planning permission has to be sought to ensure the location is appropriate, and is not contravening conservation laws for Natura 2000 sites. There are also mitigation options to reduce the adverse impact of brine discharge in Spain and Cyprus, but not in Malta. In Cyprus a discharge pipe for brine is installed that transfers the brine to a point in the sea where it can easily disperse. In Malta a recent study (World Bank, 2004) indicates that the rapid dispersion at the sea outlet is rapid enough to ensure few environmental impacts. In Spain (Aquasol Project) an experiment is demonstrated to use a solar dryer to produce salt from the brine, which is then sold on the local market. In all three case study areas there have been considerable efforts to improve (or upgrade) technology which is more efficient and so reduce the energy demand. There are a number of technical options implemented that improve plant efficiency. In some cases the use of renewable energy sources (such as solar energy) has been investigated. The long term economic costs of using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels are difficult to estimate due to the large fluctuations and uncertainty in fossil fuel prices and the extent to which external environmental costs are recovered in the consumer prices. The estimation of the reduction in GHG emissions is more clear-cut. The European CASES project1 provides estimates of both internal and external costs of energy production for different energy sources for the period 2005 – 2010. Private costs for electricity from fossil fuels varies from 0.03 tot 0.05 €/kWh (for hard coal, lignite and gas). The total costs of electricity from fossil fuels, including environmental damage costs are around 0.06€/kWh. The total costs of renewable electricity varies a lot between technologies. Total costs of electricity from wind or hydro are estimated to vary around 0.06 to 0.11 €/kWh. The total costs of electricity from solar systems are significantly higher, and especially for Photo Voltaic (0.36 €/kWh for PV open space).