Books > Professional & Technical > Environmental engineering & technology > Sanitary & municipal engineering > Water supply & treatment
|
Buy Now
Striking the Balance between Nutrient Removal in Wastewater Treatment and Sustainability (Paperback)
Loot Price: R3,218
Discovery Miles 32 180
|
|
Striking the Balance between Nutrient Removal in Wastewater Treatment and Sustainability (Paperback)
Series: WERF Research Report Series
Expected to ship within 12 - 17 working days
|
This study focuses on sustainability impacts as wastewater
treatment plants implement treatment technologies to meet
increasingly stringent nutrient limits. The objective is to
determine if a point of "diminishing returns" is reached where the
sustainability impacts of increased levels of nutrient removal
outweigh the benefits of better water quality. Five different
hypothetical treatment trains at a nominal 10 mgd flow were
developed to meet treatment targets that ranged from cBOD mode
(Level 1) to four different nutrient removal targets. The nutrient
removal targets ranged from 8 mg N/L; 1 mg P/L (Level 2) to the
most stringent at <2 mg N/L; <0.02 mg P/L (Level 5). Given
that sustainability is a broad term, the industry-accepted three
pillars of sustainability were evaluated and discussed, and
particular emphasis was placed on the environmental and economic
pillars. The following variables received the most attention:
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, a water quality surrogate that
reflects potential algal growth, capital and operational costs,
energy demand, and consumables such as chemicals, gas, diesel, etc.
The results from the GHG emissions metric are shown below. Note
that biogas cogeneration is represented by negative values as
biogas production can be used to offset energy demands. The nitrous
oxide (N2O) emissions values are based on the average biological
nutrient removal (BNR) and non-BNR plants evaluated in the United
States national survey by Ahn et al. (2010b). The error bars
represent the data range of the national survey. The GHG emissions
results suggest that a point of diminishing return is reached at
Level 4 (3 mg N/L; 0.1 mg P/L). The GHG emissions show a steady
increase from Levels 1 to 4, followed by a 65% increase when moving
from Level 4 to 5. Despite a 70% increase in GHGs, the discharged
nutrient load only decreases by 1% by going from Level 4 to 5. The
primary contributors to GHG emissions are energy related (aeration,
pumping, mixing). The GHG emissions associated with chemical use
increases for the more stringent nutrient targets that required
chemical treatment in addition to biological nutrient removal. In
terms of cost, the total project capital cost increases
approximately one-third from $9.3 million to $12.7 million for
changing from Level 1 to 2, followed by a more than doubling in
cost when changing from Level 1 to 5. Total project capital costs
in this report are for a Greenfield plant. The operational cost
increase between levels is more pronounced than total project
capital cost with more than five-times increase from Level 1 to 5
($250/MG treated to $1,370/MG treated, respectively). This report
focused on in-plant (point source) options for nutrient removal and
the implications for cost and sustainability. Other approaches,
such as addressing non-point sources, could be added to the
assessment. Rather than focusing strictly on point source
dischargers and requiring Level 4 or 5 treatments, Level 3 or 4
treatments complimented with best management practices of non-point
sources might be a more sustainable approach at achieving
comparable water quality.
General
Is the information for this product incomplete, wrong or inappropriate?
Let us know about it.
Does this product have an incorrect or missing image?
Send us a new image.
Is this product missing categories?
Add more categories.
Review This Product
No reviews yet - be the first to create one!
|
|
Email address subscribed successfully.
A activation email has been sent to you.
Please click the link in that email to activate your subscription.