4.4 Article

Energy benchmarking in wastewater treatment plants: the importance of site operation and layout

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY
Volume 36, Issue 2, Pages 260-269

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/09593330.2014.951403

Keywords

mechanical energy; electrical energy; chemical energy; manual energy; oxidation ditch

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Energy benchmarking is a powerful tool in the optimization of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in helping to reduce costs and greenhouse gas emissions. Traditionally, energy benchmarking methods focused solely on reporting electricity consumption, however, recent developments in this area have led to the inclusion of other types of energy, including electrical, manual, chemical and mechanical consumptions that can be expressed in kWh/m(3). In this study, two full-scale WWTPs were benchmarked, both incorporated preliminary, secondary (oxidation ditch) and tertiary treatment processes, Site 1 also had an additional primary treatment step. The results indicated that Site 1 required 2.32 kWh/m(3) against 0.98 kWh/m(3) for Site 2. Aeration presented the highest energy consumption for both sites with 2.08 kWh/m(3) required for Site 1 and 0.91 kWh/m(3) in Site 2. The mechanical energy represented the second biggest consumption for Site 1 (9%, 0.212 kWh/m(3)) and chemical input was significant in Site 2 (4.1%, 0.026 kWh/m(3)). The analysis of the results indicated that Site 2 could be optimized by constructing a primary settling tank that would reduce the biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids and NH4 loads to the oxidation ditch by 55%, 75% and 12%, respectively, and at the same time reduce the aeration requirements by 49%. This study demonstrated that the effectiveness of the energy benchmarking exercise in identifying the highest energy-consuming assets, nevertheless it points out the need to develop a holistic overview of the WWTP and the need to include parameters such as effluent quality, site operation and plant layout to allow adequate benchmarking.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available