Energy Footprint Modelling: a tool for process optimisation in Large

Wastewater Treatment Plants

D. Rosso*, L.-M. Jiang*, R. Sobhani* and B. Wett,**
,
***
* Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA. E-mail: bidui@uci.edu;
ljiang@uci.edu; reza_sobhani@hotmail.com
** Institute of Infrastructure/Environmental Engineering, University of Innsbruck, Technikerstr.13, A-6020 Innsbruck
*** ARAconsult, Unterbergerstr.1, A-6020 Innsbruck, Austria E-mail: wett@araconsult.at
Abstract
In wastewater treatment modelling, energy information is not always immediately available. More detailed
energy information on a unit process level can be used to calibrate energy balance models serving for quanti-
cation of larger energy savings. Modelling energy footprint has lower uncertainty than other greenhouse gas
equivalent footprint models, and is the prime candidate for minimising costs and environmental impact. Due
to their magnitude, and their larger number of equipment units, large wastewater treatment plants are associ-
ated with the largest margin for improvement.
Key words: energy, energy footprint, energy recovery, efciency, modelling
INTRODUCTION
Wastewater treatment is an energy intensive process with signicant margin for improvement in terms
of carbon- and energy- footprint (Rosso & Stenstrom 2008). Since the applied technologies especially
in biological wastewater and solid treatment are typically energy intensive, any energy efciency
improvement during operations provides an opportunity for energy and carbon footprint minimis-
ation on a large scale. In addition, each energy source has its own carbon-equivalent (i.e., kgCO
2
/
kWh), and since within the day the power companies vary their portfolio of employed power sources
(SCE 2010), the carbon-equivalent for energy consumption becomes time-dependent. Large potentials
for energy savings can be seen at treatment plants in the States and even in high energy prize regions
like Central Europe. For example, in North Rhine Westphalia based on the analysis of 344 plants
(Mller & Kobel 2004) an energy optimisation margin of 50% has been detected. This potential
gain is considered as a low hanging fruit investment-wise and required modications in process con-
trol and infrastructure pay back within a short period. In general, aeration systems pose as prime
candidates for energy footprint reduction due to their large contribution to the process energy foot-
print (4575% of total; Reardon 1995) and to the energy wastage due to aeration systems lack of
optimisation (e.g., IWA 2008; Leu et al. 2009) and decline in performance with time (Libra et al.
2005; Kaliman et al. 2008; Rosso et al. 2008b).
Energy information is not always immediately available, if at all. We summarise the availability of
energy information and its benets in Table 1. Oftentimes, the only energy information available to
plant managers or operators is the cumulative power consumption in a scal term (e.g., the monthly
power bill), which carries no further information on the sub-division of power drawn by unit. In very
large utilities, such as those operating large wastewater treatment plants, at times the cumulative
power consumption may not be known to the plant management and operations staff, since the
IWA Publishing 2012 Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
administrative ofces dealing with payments may be geographically distant (e.g., megacities where the
wastewater treatment plant is on the outskirts of town and the power consumption is computed and
paid for in the administrative ofces located downtown).
While the cumulative power consumption may be a very common piece of available information,
the sub-division of power by unit operation is less common and likely rare, because in large plants
the amount of equipment to be log may be daunting, and because the power grid may be sub-divided
arbitrarily at different time than plant phased expansion, thus having unit operations being partially
supported by separate power grids. The precondition for any signicant improvement of energy bal-
ances is the availability of long-term energy data on a process unit level. Therefore, when available,
power-by-unit information becomes a precious commodity for plant managers, operators, and process
modellers. Obviously numerical modelling is a tool not for replacement of insufcient energy data
acquisition but for systematic investigation of available data and of interactions between operational
parameters and energy up-take.
The highest degree of energy information is time-of-use energy consumption, i.e. the time-series of
energy used with a frequent periodicity (e.g., every 515 min) around the clock. This is the rarest form
of energy information available, but also the degree of information that is associated with the largest
margin for improvement. In urban areas of the world where time-of-use power rates are in place, on a
hot summer afternoon when the power grid is overloaded by the widespread use of air conditioners,
power utilities supplement their power generation with inefcient booster units, and relay the cost of
this inefcient power generation option to the consumer in the form of increased power rates. This,
typically, is the moment where the wastewater treatment plant experiences the peak load (Metcalf &
Eddy 2003), associated with lowest oxygen transfer efciency parameters (Leu et al. 2009), therefore
the process energy demand is maximum. Since at that time power rates are highest (e.g., SCE 2010),
the compounding effect of the two results in much inated process energy costs, or on the safeguard
solution of recurring to brownouts and bypass the ow to minimise energy demand.
Smaller plants may appear advantaged in this regard, as their manager may often have control over
all aspects of operations including energy usage and costs. Although small plants account for the
majority of plants by number, the large plants account for the bulk of the treated ow, hence the
energy consumption in wastewater treatment. Moreover, in large wastewater treatment plants typi-
cally more units are installed to guarantee redundancy, and economy of scale allows investments
for equipment with turn-up/turn-down capability, therefore enabling the operators and managers to
access larger margins for improvement in terms of energy consumption. Small plants, in general,
have fewer units and likely less equipment with turn-up/turn-down capability, therefore the effect
of unit discretisation reversely affects the ability to save energy, due to the excessive constraints, in
proportion, on the ability to reduce the units in operations or to tune their operating conditions.
We should discuss here the difference between energy footprint models and carbon-equivalent
models (often referred to as carbon footprint models), and the rationale behind this paper. Energy
footprint is an integrating component of carbon footprint models (Table 2). Due to our deeper under-
standing of the relationship between unit operations and their specic power consumption, when
compared to their respective carbon-equivalent footprints, energy footprint is viewed as one of the
carbon footprint components with the lowest uncertainty. In addition to its more conned modelling
uncertainty, energy footprint minimisation is directly linked to a reduction in operating costs, further
Table 1 | Relationship between energy information available and margin for improvement
Information available Modelling characteristic Difculty to gather Margin for improvement Data availability
Power bill Cumulative Easy Small Very common
Power by unit Static Moderate Moderate Rare
Power by Time-of-use (TOU) Dynamic Difcult Large Very rare
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
driven by rebates established by power utilities to meet their energy demand reduction targets in some
regions of the world (e.g., California). Therefore, energy footprint modelling appears as the prime can-
didate tool for immediate environmental impact minimisation.
This adds to the higher level of information available for energy dynamics than for other carbon
footprint components (e.g., aeration efciency decline, equipment loss of performance, etc.).
Energy modelling is characterised by high certainty since results are dominated by the stoichiometry
of process reactions of main mass uxes (N conversion to N
2
, C conversion to CO
2
). Carbon-
equivalent modelling has lower certainty since results are affected by the dynamic kinetics of
intermediates formation from a minor mass ux (1% N conversion to N
2
O, CH
4
stripping, etc).
Due to our lack of understanding of greenhouse gas emission dynamics in wastewater treatment pro-
cesses and the direct measurement challenges, it is difcult to model the carbon footprint from direct
greenhouse gas emission dynamically (Rosso et al. 2009; Foley et al. 2010; Mampaey et al. 2011). For
example, a 1% shift in metabolic routes can result in 100% shift in greenhouse gas emissions. More-
over, fugitive emissions of biogas are usually not measured but estimated with emission factors (i.e.,
2% of total biogas), also due to the measurement challenges associated with a potential spatially-dis-
tributed emission. Currently, no commercially available process ow meters for biogas offer such
accuracy to quantify fugitive emissions.
This paper presents our work on equilibrium and dynamic energy-footprint modelling of large
wastewater treatment plants. We discuss here the differences in modelling outcome for different
approaches (equilibrium or dynamic) and for different case studies. Our results help furthering the
understanding of the role of all process components in energy footprint models. These results help
the wastewater treatment community at large, for they provide opportunities for minimising process
energy footprint and improving process operations.
METHODS
Cumulative analysis
This is typically based on the accounting of power bills, and carries little of no information on the pro-
cess itself. The information needed while analysing cumulative power consumption must be
complemented by the historical and professional knowledge of site-specic information by plant man-
agers, operators, designers, modellers. This makes the cumulative analysis more an art than a science.
The only methodology that can be quantitatively described here is the time-series of cumulative power
consumption. Since this heavily relies on site-specic knowledge by engineering personnel, it is not
the subject of this paper.
Table 2 | Summary of the main carbon footprint contributions and their respective uncertainties
Emissions Uncertainty
1. Energy importation Low
2. CO
2
from Biogas Combustion Low
3. CO
2
from Microbial Respiration Low
4. Direct Green House Gas Emissions (N
2
O, CH
4
) High
5. Carbon in Biosolids High
6. Biogas Fugitive Emissions High
Credits Uncertainty
1. Biogas Energy Recovery Moderate
2. Biosolids High
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
Equilibrium energy footprint modelling by unit operation
Typically, the rst step to undertake in this methodology is an equipment census. A spreadsheet suf-
ces in its ability to algebraically sum the energy footprint contributions of all equipment units (j) for
each unit operation (i):
eFP
TOT

X
n
i1
eFP
i

X
n
i1
X
m
j1
n
j
p
j
h
j
t
j
(1)
where, eFP
TOT
total energy footprint (kWh)
eFP
i
energy footprint of each unit operation i (kWh)
n
j
number of equipment units j ()
p
j
power used by each equipment unit j (kW)

j
efciency of each unit j ()
t
j
time in operation (h)
In Equation 1, n
j
,
j
, and p
j
do not vary with time nor are functions of other process parameters. To
use Equation 1, the modeller needs preliminary labour-intensive eld data collection from motor
plates (for power used by each equipment and efciency, if available), and needs to make assumptions
for the process efciency parameters. For example, the oxygen transfer efciency in Equation 1 would
be a constant parameter, an inaccurate representation of aeration dynamics (Plano et al. 2010). Using
Equation 1, the energy ows to/from/within the operations must be quantied as frequently as pro-
cess logs allow (this is typically monthly). This methodology is more a science than an art,
although it still requires user input for the averaging of dynamic parameters (e.g., an average
oxygen transfer efciency or alpha).
Dynamic energy footprint modelling
This is an expansion of the previous methodology in that it still uses Equation 1 as its calculating
kernel, but n
j
,
j
, and p
j
do vary with time and are functions of other process parameters. The largest
contributor therefore most important component of the energy footprint model is the activated sludge
energy, illustrated in Figure 1. Dynamic full-plant model requires detailed measurement campaigns for
inuent characterisation (nutrient- and COD fractionation; daily load variation prole), spatial discre-
tisation of treatment performance for calibration of process parameters and separate digestion tests of
produced sludge (digestibility of COD-fractions and corresponding nutrient release).
Plants modelled
Plants A to F represent our previously published experience in modelling process energy in water rec-
lamation and wastewater treatment plants. Plant A is a wastewater treatment plant that underwent
upgrade to full nitrication/denitrication for water reclamation. This project, published in Rosso
& Stenstrom (2005) was modelling energy and cost components by unit operation, to demonstrate
the comparability of costs and energy usage before and after the upgrade in warm climates. Plant
B, located in Austria, operates a 2-stage system high-rate (I) for carbon and low-rate stage (II) for
N-removal. In the I-stage a COD-removal efciency of ca. 65% is achieved at a solids retention
time of typically 0.5 days. The II-stage provides 2 step-feed cascades with pre-denitrication zones.
All produced solids are anaerobically stabilised in 2 serial digesters at an hydraulic retention time
of about 14 days and sludge dewatering liquors are separately treated by a nitritation/denitritation
sidestream SBR. For the simulation of the mass- and energy balances a full-plant model combining
ASM1 and ADM1 set-up in the SIMBA-simulator has been used.
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
Plant C, also in Austria, is a plant where we demonstrated that energy recovery can be substantial
enough to provide energy self-sufciency to the process. Plant D is a water reclamation plant studied
in Leu et al (2009), where the variable blower control was the avenue to minimise energy usage by
modelling dynamically the effect of dissolved substrate on the oxygen transfer efciency and alpha
factors. Plant E is a large wastewater treatment plant where dynamic modelling of the aeration
system increased the ability to predict efuent concentrations and dissolved oxygen in the process
reactors. Plant F is a large water reclamation plant that when tested was evaluating process upgrade
options between activated sludge and a biolm process. This plant was analysed for oxygen transfer
efciency and substrate removal, and an equilibrium energy footprint model was developed to calcu-
late the comparative cumulative energy usage for the two process alternatives. Plant G, introduced in
this study, is our most recent experience in process energy modelling. Plant G is a large plant treating
municipal wastewater for a large metropolitan area in the United States, previously performing
carbon oxidation only using atmospheric air aeration with ne-pore diffusers. This, analogously to
plant A, recently underwent during the time of this study a process upgrade to full nitrication/deni-
trication, to produce feed water for an off-site water reuse facility. This plant had monthly process
logs and cumulative power consumption on a scal year basis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
We selected results from Plants B and G for this paper. For the results of Plants A, C, D, E, and F we
remand to the respective references, cited in Table 3. Operational experiences from Plant B show that
during the winter season at high-load periods the plant is stretched to the limit of its nitrication
capacity. Off-season, obviously lower MLSS concentrations can be applied in order to minimise
energy requirements of the activated sludge process. A model should help to develop a strategy to con-
trol sludge wasting and to operate the biological process close to the minimum sludge retention time
Figure 1 | Flowchart of dynamic energy footprint model for activated sludge process energy.
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
or the corresponding F/M ratio, respectively. The F/M ratio represents the organic load to the acti-
vated sludge process calculated as the moving average of total COD measurement from
composite inuent samples per total aerobic sludge mass in the system. The 5 days moving average
reects the period of sludge generation, discriminates outliers and smoothens the prole for the
required base-variable. Then the set-point for the current sludge loading rate is used to calculate
the target MLSS-concentration and the required daily wasting-rate. For the denition of set-point of
the optimum F/M-ratio the activated sludge model was employed. Different temperature- and load
scenarios where simulated and then for each of these scenarios the maximum sludge loading rate
was iterated at which nitrication starts to fail. Then a function for the maximum F/M ratio was devel-
oped which matches all investigated scenarios and described the observed temperature dependency.
Figure 2(a) clearly shows by historic data and the corresponding maximum F/M-ratio the optimisation
potential especially at warm temperatures.
The calibrated full-plant model was used to calculate the air requirement of various unit processes
as well as the distribution of methane produced by the two serial digesters (Figure 2(b)). Simulated
sludge compositions conrm huge differences in solids characteristics between I- and II-stage. The
II-stage sludge shows less methane potential but a higher nitrogen content of 5.8% compared to
3.0% in the II-stage (50% increase of II-sludge mass transferred to the digesters increases energy pro-
duction by 11% but also adds 7% to the N return load in sludge liquors).
Table 3 | Summary of modelled plants
Plant Project Process capacity
Plant
location Outcome Reference
A Modelling energy and cost
components of upgrades from
BOD removal only to
nitrication and full NDN
115,000 m
3
d
1
USA Equilibrium energy modelling by unit
operation demonstrated that in
warm climates upgrades to NDN
are not more energy intensive than
BOD removal only
Rosso &
Stenstrom
(2005)
B Simulated full-plant mass-ow
analysis and optimisation of
sludge processing
680,000 PE A Interactions between full-plant
operations and energy balance at
different temperature- and load
scenarios
Wett &
Eladawy
(2005)
C Energy self-sufciency as a
feasible concept for
wastewater treatment systems.
200,000 PE A Full-plant mass- and energy balances
(based on both caloric and
thermal energy) showing a net-
electricity production from
municipal WW
Wett et al
(2007)
D Modication of variable blower
control to minimise energy
usage
70,000 m
3
d
1
USA Dynamic monitoring and modelling
of the energy used by the aeration
system allowed optimisation of the
control system and minimisation of
energy wastage
Leu et al
(2009)
E Improved dynamic aeration
model to increase accuracy of
efuent parameters
estimation
750,000 PE NL Dynamic aeration modelling allowed
improved simulation of efuent
parameters concentration
Plano et al
(2010)
F Evaluation of process
alternatives to activated
sludge
300,000 m
3
d
1
USA Equilibrium energy footprint
modelling of the aeration system
allowed calculation of cumulative
differential energy footprint
between the alternatives
Rosso et al
(2011a)
G Upgrade from BOD removal
only to full NDN
320,000 m
3
d
1
USA Equilibrium energy modelling by unit
operation allowed prediction of
energy variations in the unit
operations affected by the upgrade
Rosso et al
(2011b)
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
Figure 2 | Measured F/M ratio at varying seasonal wastewater temperatures vs. maximumF/M (left); Simulated energy balance
involving main components of air supply (I-stage and both cascades of II-stage) and methane production (two digesters in
series) (right).
Figure 3 | Equilibrium energy footprint breakdown before (top) and after (bottom) an NDN upgrade.
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
For Plant G, we rst developed an energy footprint model and calibrated it to the carbon-oxidation
mode ASP. The model dynamically links process variables to mass and energy ows, and outputs
energy footprint as function of time for each process components. The model output has the same
frequency of the model input, in this case a monthly basis. This is obviously not the more desirable
dynamic output, and is dictated by the availability of process data. The process had been upgraded
and stabilised at increased sludge retention time (from 1 to 5 days, approximately) and higher DO
(from 0.5 to 4 ppm, approximately), fully nitrifying and denitrifying. Note that in warm temperatures
nitrication/denitrication can be performed with lower sludge retention time, thereby without the
constraint of necessarily larger tankage. This process was down rated during the upgrade by 10%
of its hydraulic load (sent to another biolm operation within the same plant).
We adapted the model to reect the upgrade, and compared the two scenarios. The following pie
charts (Figure 3) illustrate these comparative scenarios in terms of relative contribution at equili-
brium. The graphs illustrate the modest redistribution of energy footprint components after this
upgrade, because of two compensatory factors: 1) the oxygen requirements increased due to
oxygen uptake by AOB/NOB; 2) improved oxygen transfer efciency and denitrication credit
after the NDN upgrade. The overall effect was a comparable energy footprint.
CONCLUSIONS
We described here the value of accessing more detailed energy information, its benecial effects on
modelling, and its relationship with energy savings. Modelling energy footprint has lower uncertainty
than carbon footprint and is the immediate step for minimising costs and environmental impact.
Models for prediction of carbon-equivalent emissions need further development in order to nd an
acceptable consensus in the community (e.g., IWA- taskgroup report on GHG-footprint modelling;
www.iwataskgroupghg.com). Large wastewater treatment plants, due to more equipment units and/
or larger and tunable equipment, typically have larger margin for improvement.
REFERENCES
Foley, J., de Haas, D., Yuan, Z. & Lant, P. 2010 Nitrous oxide generation in full-scale biological nutrient removal wastewater
treatment plants. Water Res. 44, 831844.
Kaliman, A., Rosso, D., Leu, S.-Y. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2008 Fine-pore aeration diffusers: accelerated membrane ageing studies.
Water Res. 42, 467475.
Leu, S.-Y., Rosso, D., Larson, L. E. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2009 Real-Time aeration efciency monitoring in the acvivated sludge
process and methods to reduce energy consumption and operating costs. Water Environ. Res. 81, 24712481.
Libra, J. A., Sahlmann, C., Schuchardt, A., Handschag, J., Wiesmann, U. & Gnirss, R. 2005 Evaluation of diffusers with dynamic
off-gas. Water Environ. Res. 77 (5), 447454.
Mampaey, K. E., Beuckels, B., Kampschreur, M. J., Kleerebezem, R., van Loosdrecht, M. C. M. & Volcke, E. I. P. 2011
Modelling nitrous and nitric oxide emissions by autotrophic ammonium oxidizing bacteria. In Proc. Nutrient Recovery and
Management Conf., Water Environment Federation International Water Association, Miami, FL.
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. 2003 Wastewater Engineering: Treatment and Reuse - 4th edition. (Tchobanoglous, G., Burton, F. L.,
Stensel, H. D. eds). McGraw-Hill series in civil and environmental engineering, New York.
Mller, E. A. & Kobel, B. 2004 Energy-analysis at utilities in Nordrhein-Westfalen representing 30 millions PE energy-
benchmarking and saving potentials (in German). Korrespondenz Abwasser 51/6, 625631.
Plano, S., Rosso, D., Benedetti, L., Weijers, S., De Jonge, J. & Nopens, I. 2010 Towards dynamic activated sludge modelling
without the need for calibration. In Proc. IWA World Water Congress, Montreal, QC.
Rosso, D. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2005 Comparative economic analysis of the impacts of mean cell retention time and
denitrication on aeration systems. Water Res. 39, 37733780.
Rosso, D. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2006 Economic implications of ne pore diffuser aging. Water Environ. Res. 78, 810815.
Rosso, D. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2007 Energy-savings benets of denitrication. Env. Eng. 43 (3), 2938.
Rosso, D. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2008 The carbon-sequestration potential of municipal wastewater treatment. Chemosphere 70,
14681475.
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018
Rosso, D., Libra, J. A. & Stenstrom, M. K. 2008b Membrane properties change in ne-pore aeration diffusers: Full-scale
variations of transfer efciency and headloss. Water Res. 42, 26402648.
Rosso, D., Desai, A. S. & Tseng, L. Y. 2009 Effects of Nitrous Oxide Emissions on Process Carbon Footprint of Wastewater
Treatment Plants. In Proc. 2nd IWA BNR Conf., Krakow, Poland.
Rosso, D., Lothman, S. E., Jeung, M. K., Pitt, P., Gellner, W. J., Stone, A. L. & Howard, D. 2011a Oxygen transfer and uptake,
nutrient removal, and energy footprint of parallel full-scale IFAS and activated sludge processes. Water Res. 45 (18), 5987
5996.
Rosso, D., Sobhani, R., Jiang, L.-M., Chau, A. M., Brown, J., Torres, E. & Shao, Y. J. 2011b Carbon footprint analysis of the
nitrication/denitrication upgrade at Orange County Sanitation Districts Plant 1. In Proc. WEFTEC 2011,
Los Angeles, CA.
SCE. 2010 Southern California Edison, Schedule Time-Of-Use Tiered Domestic Report (U 338-E), p.2.
Wett, B., Buchauer, K. & Fimml, C. 2007 Energy self-sufciency as a feasible concept for wastewater treatment systems. Proc.
IWA LET Conf., Singapore. Asian Water 09/07, 2124.
Wett, B. & Eladawy, A. 2005 Simulated full-plant mass-ow analysis and optimisation of sludge processing of WWTP Salzburg.
Unpublished Report.
Water Practice & Technology Vol 7 No 1
doi:10.2166/wpt.2012.018