Optimizing electricity costs of wastewater treatment

plant in presence of RES and power market

Topic number: Renewable Energy and Sources/Simulation and Optimization

Abstract- The main goal of the wastewater treatment plant energy consumption point of view to reduce the annual
management consists in reducing the annual electricity costs by electricity bill, carried out in the presence of renewable
trying to supply the load demand using renewable energy
sources (such as photovoltaic panels and biogas-based energy sources (photovoltaic panels) and biogas-based
cogeneration engine). Based on real case measurements and cogeneration engine. The analysis was carried out for 4
carried on design process of the stochastic sources and seasonal characteristic days under different plant demands
cogeneration engine for covering the load demand, an and in various stochastic energy scenarios.
optimization model is implemented to minimize the annual
electricity costs. The model is tested on a characteristic day of
each year season, under various load profile and intermittent ELECTRICAL SUPPLY OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
sources production. CONSTANTA SOUTH
The wastewater treatment is based on mechanical stage
INTRODUCTION (coarse and fine screens, grit removal and primary
sedimentation), conventional activated sludge biological stage
Urban wastewater treatment plants represent a major and treatment of sludge. The wastewater line is presented in
energy consumer of the national power system [1], with Fig. 1. The designed maximum wastewater flow rate is 3600
energy costs about 35-45% of the plant operational costs [2, l/s, equally distributed on two lines [2]. The plant is under
3]. The wastewater treatment plants energy requirements rehabilitation program in order to include advanced treatment
consist both of electrical and thermal consumptions. In a for nutrients removal, ultraviolet disinfection and new
wastewater treatment plant, the energy savings are difficult to generation capacities using renewable energy resources
be achieved as the process is ongoing. Still, investments in (biogas and solar irradiation). The plant is supplied through
new generation capacities like renewable energy sources, for two 20 kV lines, entering the plant through the transforming
reducing the annual electricity costs, can be achieved [4]. point PTA, as shown in Fig. 2. Each transformation point is
Studies for reducing energy costs have been extensively equipped with two transformers 20/0.4 kV, an exception
developed worldwide in order to identify the global being the PTA transforming point equipped with three
wastewater treatment costs and the plants carbon footprint transformers. The characteristic data of the electrical loads
[5]. The biogas resulting from wastewater treatment processes illustrated in Fig. 2 are reported in Table I.
can be used in cogeneration plants for producing
simultaneously heat and power required for the operation of
the plant [6, 7].
This paper analyzes the technical feasibility of installing
renewable energy sources (photovoltaic systems) and using
biogas-based cogeneration engines for internal electrical
energy production to reduce the annual electricity bill of this
large industrial customer. The analysis is carried on for
Constanta South wastewater treatment plant, located in the Fig. 1. Layout of wastewater treatment plant Constanta South.
southern part of the Constanta city, in the industrial area. This
20 kV
plant treats 60% of domestic and industrial wastewater
collected by combined sewer system of the Constanta city, PTA
3 transf.
the most important maritime port in Romania and the most 20/0.4 kV
PT7
PT2 PT1 PTB
important seaside touristic place. The treatment process is a 2 transf. 2 transf. 2 transf.
20/0.4 kV
2 transf.
20/0.4 kV
20/0.4 kV 20/0.4 kV
mechanical-biological one, on two lines with conventional Blowers for
1TD -coarse Secondary Mixer for sludge Maneuver room,
screen, fine settling tank, anaerobic
activated sludge process and mesophilic anaerobic digestion. aeration tanks,
screen, grit tank, pumping station
storage tank
100m3 , 300m3, treatment tank,
pumping station
grease removal for technological pumps for
Nowadays, the biogas produced in anaerobic digestion is for excess
tank, automatic water, pumping
500m3, sludge
dewatering and supernatant,
activated sludge
burnt and used for heating of the four digestors and the line 2-13TGD2
valves of primary
settling tanks,
station for excess
activated sludge
thickening plant, heating plant
pumping station
administrative building [8]. mixer for aeration
tank, sludge
line 1-13TGD1 for thickened
sludge
The present paper presents the analysis results of an pumping station

optimized wastewater treatment plant operation, from the Fig. 2. Layout of wastewater treatment plant Constanta South.
 TABLE I
CHARACTERISTIC DATA OF ELECTRICAL LOADS OF THE SLUDGE LINE
Category
Pumping station for primary
sludge:
Pumping station for excess
and recirculated activated
sludge:
Stirage tank 1000 m3:
Tank for thickened sludge
mixing 300m3
Tank for digested sludge
observed, even if the energy consumptions of the plant are
approximately constant, the specific consumptions increased
Characteristic data from 2008 to 2012. As shown in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4, in 2013 the
power consumption was lower as one treatment line was
- 3 pumps, 3 4.7 kW closed for rehabilitation.
- 1 sump pump, 1 kW
Nowadays, the energy consumption of the plant is satisfied
- 1 fan, 0.37 kW
- 4 pumps for recirculated sludge, 4 58 kW using the electrical energy flowing from the upstream grid.
- 3 pumps for excess sludge, 3 4.7 kW The power demand of the wastewater treatment plant depends
- 1 sump pump, 2.4 kW
- 2 fans, 1.5 kW
on the volume of wastewater treated, which varies hourly,
daily, monthly, and yearly. Fig. 5 shows the typical 24 hours
- 2 mixers, 22.5 kW
power demand of the Constanta plant, for each weather
- 2 mixers, 22.5 kW season.
7000
- 4 mixers, 42.5 kW

Energy consumptions,
mixing 2 pieces x 500m3
- 5 pumps for mixed sludge, 47.5 kW, 6000
111 kW 5000

[MWh/year]
- 5 electric motors for centrifuges, 355 kW,
2(75+22) kW 4000
- 3 hydraulic pumps for centrifuges, 27.5
3000
Sludge thickening and kW, 115 kW
dewatering plant - 4 pumps for thickened sludge conveying, 2000
5.5 kW
- 2 spiral conveyor for dewatered sludge, 1000
25.5 kW 0
- 1 valve, 0.37 kW
- 7 fans, 2.2 kW
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
- 1 spiral conveyor for sludge thickening, Year
0.12 kW
- 1 spiral conveyor for sludge dewatering, Fig. 3. Energy consumptions of the wastewater treatment plant during
0.18 kW 2008-2013.
- 3 mixers for thickening, 30.75 kW
- 3 mixers for dewatering, 32.2 kW
Polyelectrolyte preparation
- 1 polyelectrolyte dosing pump, 0.37 kW
0.20
[kWh/m3 treated water]

- 2 polyelectrolyte pumps for sludge

thickening, 20.75 kW 0.15
Specific energy
consumptions,

- 3 polyelectrolyte pumps for sludge

dewatering, 31.5 kW
- 1 sump pump, 1 kW 0.10
- 3 pumps, 318.5 kW
Pumping station for
- 1 sump pump, 0.37 kW
thickened sludge 0.05
- 2 fans, 21.6 kW
- 6 pumps for recirculated sludge, 64.7 kW
Maneuver room - 6 electrovalves, 60.37 kW
- 4 fans, 40.37 kW 0.00
Anaerobic digesters - 4 mixers, 411 kW 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
- 3 pumps, 34 kW Year
Pumping station for
- 1 sump pump, 1 kW Fig. 4. Specific energy consumptions of the wastewater treatment plant
supernatant
- 1 fan, 0.25 kW during 2008-2013.
- 3 boilers, 34 kW
Heating plant - 3 pumps for hot water, 31.1 kW
- 6 pumps for recirculation, 64 kW
1.2 Winter
Power demand [MW]

Spring
1.0 Summer
ENERGY CONSUMPTION
Autumn
The main plant energy consumers are the equipments 0.8
involved in the process of wastewater treatment. The energy
consumption during the period 2008 - 2013 is illustrated in 0.6
Fig. 3. The consumption values include the energy
consumptions of equipments for wastewater treatment 0.4
processes, lightning of the plant area and power t1 t3 t5 t7 t9 t11 t13 t15 t17 t19 t21 t23
consumptions for administrative building. Fig. 4 illustrates
Time [hours]
the specific energy consumption for the period 2008 - 2013,
Fig. 5. Typical 24 hours power demand of the Constanta plant, for each
related to the volume of treated wastewater. As it can be weather season.
 PROBLEM FORMULATION installed for supplying the plant during 8200 hours/year [10].
The optimization model seeks to minimize the costs of The cogeneration engine supplies 395 kWth for covering the
purchasing electrical energy along a year by using at heat demand of the treatment plant. Within the present paper,
maximum the photovoltaic system and the thermal engine fed only the electrical energy production of the engine was
with sewage gas. For the annual analysis, the simplifying considered.
assumption of considering one characteristic day from each The data of the model components are reported in Table II.
season (winter, spring, summer, and autumn) is taken [9]. TABLE II
The power consumption of the wastewater treatment plant CHARACTERISTIC DATA
is variable during each season, as shown in Fig. 5. The Component Power
Photovoltaic plant installed power 0.265 MW
production curve of the photovoltaic plant, during each
- 880 panels 300 W
season, is an input data of the optimization model. The Thermal engine 0.33 MWe/ 0.395 MWth
sewage gas for feeding the thermal engine is produced - biogas flow 142 Nm3/h
internally in the wastewater treatment plant, and the gas flow - operation time 8200 hours/year
(150 Nm3/h) is sufficient for engine supply. Purchased price of electricity 60 Euro/MW
Selling price of green electricity 70 Euro/MW
The operation costs of the photovoltaic plant and of the
thermal engine are considered to be negligible.
The electricity purchase price of the wastewater treatment
A. Objective Function from upstream grid is 60 Euro/MWh, constant all over the
The owner of the wastewater treatment plant seeks to year.
minimize the yearly energy costs expressed as: Considering the power demand illustrated in Fig. 5, four

MIN Cost ep,i t Pep,i t 1 es,i t Pes,i t 1 (1)

365 24 characteristic days from each season were considered:
1) winter characteristic day;
i 1 t 1 2) spring characteristic day;
3) summer characteristic day;
where is the purchasing price of electricity 4) autumn characteristic day.
[Euro/MWh], is the power purchased from the main
grid during period t (positive if the power is purchased from Figs. 6-10 show the obtained results of the optimization
the grid), is the selling price of electricity model under the afore mentioned assumptions. As the
[Euro/MWh], is the power sold to the main grid during cogeneration engine is operating 8200 hours/year, it was
period t (negative if the power is sold to the main grid), and i assumed that during the summer season the engine is
is the current day within the annual analysis period. scheduled for maintenance for 24 days. The rest of the
B. Supply-demand balancing constraint season, the engine is operating for supplying the load together
The supply-demand balancing at each time period t can be with the photovoltaic system.
expressed as: As shown in Fig. 8, when the load demand is reduced, the
power exchange is becoming positive (the plant is injecting
Pep|s t D t TE t PV t (2)
power into the upstream grid). During this period, the plant
owner receives the same electricity price per each MWh
where is the power demand at time t, is the
thermal engine production at time t, and is the injected.
photovoltaic plant output power at time t. The cost reduction obtained along a year by using
renewable energy sources and biogas-based cogeneration
engine, with the engine under maintenance for 560 hours
CASE STUDIES during the summer period, is illustrated in Fig. 11.
The optimization model for each 24 hours operation, within 1.5
each season, of the wastewater treatment plant was Load profile
implemented and tested using the software environment Power engine
1
PV output
GAMS/Matlab on a 2.9 GHz Intel Core i7 processor with
Power [MW]

Power exch
16 GB of RAM. The optimization model is solved 0.5
minimizing the yearly costs of the energy purchased.
The rooftop surface of the administrative buildings of the 0
wastewater treatment plant is 2300 m2. This can be used for 1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
installing photovoltaic panels for covering a share of the -0.5
energy consumption. Considering the sizes of a 300 W PV
panel, the orientation angle and distance between the PV Time [hours]
-1
panel rows, it results a number of 880 panels.
Fig. 6. Optimization model results for 24 hours power demand during
The biogas flow rate of the plant is 150Nm3/h; thus a the winter season.
cogeneration engine Jenbacher 208 of 330 kWe can be
 1.5 Load profile Winter 42168 Euro
Power engine Spring 42093 Euro
1 PV output Summer w engine 28393 Euro
Power exch
Power [MW]

Summer wo engine 21729 Euro

0.5 Autumn 43979 Euro
Cos ion
ts reduct Existing costs 360000 Euro/year
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Fig. 11. Optimization model minimizing annual costs for electricity
-0.5 purchase of the wastewater treatment plant.
Time [hours]
-1 CONCLUSIONS
Fig. 7. Optimization model results for 24 hours power demand during the The optimization model minimizing the operational costs
spring season.
of the plant owner is proposed and analyzed for 4
1.5 characteristic days of the year seasons. The analysis is
Load profile performed for 24 hours for determining the power exchange
1 Power engine between the plant and upstream grid under stochastic energy
PV output
production sources. As the biogas continuously produced by
Power exch
Power [MW]

0.5 the plant is sufficient for 8200 hours operation of the

cogeneration engine, the motor is under operation throughout
0
the year except for 560 summer days when is turned off for
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23
-0.5 maintenance. The obtained results show that, during summer,
days when the photovoltaic production is large, the plant can
-1 Time [hours] inject power within the grid, receiving green certificates for
each 1 MWh produced from renewable sources. By applying
-1.5 the optimization model, the obtained annual electricity costs
Fig. 8. Optimization model results for 24 hours power demand during the
summer season, with the cogeneration engine in operation.
are 178362 Euro compared to the existing annual costs of
360000 Euro. The cost reduction of 181638 Euro is obtained
1.5 each year during the 20-25 years lifetime of the new installed
Load profile generation capacities. The reduction is achievable with an
1 Power engine initial investment of 479000 Euro in the photovoltaic system
PV output and 215000 Euro in the cogeneration engine.
0.5 Power exch
Power [MW]

REFERENCES
0 [1] D. Robescu, G.C. Lazaroiu, C. Bulac, Power quality and energy
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 efficiency analysis in a wastewater treatment plant, in Proc. IEEE
-0.5 2014 16th Int. Conf. on Harmonics and Quality of Power, pp. 453-457
[2] L.D. Robescu, F. Stroe, A. Presura, D.N. Robescu, Technologies for
waste water treatment, Technical Ed., Bucharest 2011, pp. 40-87
-1 [3] G.Venkatesh, Helge Bratteb, Energy consumption, costs and
Time [hours] environmental impacts for urban water cycle services: Case study of
-1.5 Oslo (Norway), Energy, vol. 36, pp. 792-800, 2011
Fig. 9. Optimization model results for 24 hours power demand during the [4] F. Hernndez-Sancho, M. Molinos-Senante, R. Sala-Garrido, Energy
summer season, without the cogeneration engine in operation. efficiency in Spanish wastewater treatment plants: A non-radial DEA
approach, Sci. Total Environ., vol. 409, pp. 2693-2699, 2011
[5] K. Mizuta and M. Shimada, Benchmarking energy consumption in
1.5 municipal wastewater treatment plants in Japan, Water Sci. Technol.,
Load profile vol. 62, pp. 22562262, 2010.
Power engine [6] A. Stillwell, D. Hoppock and M. Webber Energy Recovery from
1 PV output Wastewater Treatment Plants in the United States: A Case Study of the
Power exch Energy-Water Nexus, Sustainability, vol. 2, pp. 945-962, 2010.
Power [MW]

[7] P. McCarty, J. Bae, and J. Kim, Domestic Wastewater Treatment as a

0.5 Net Energy ProducerCan This be Achieved?, Environ. Sci. Technol.,
vol. 45, pp. 71007106, 2011
[8] R. Petcu, D. Robescu, G. Vlad, J. Popescu, . Calinoiu, D. Robescu, I.
0 Mandi, Modern solutions for biogas efficient use,
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 Environment&Progress, vol. 12, pp. 339-346, 2008
-0.5 [9] C. Ionescu, H. Necula, G.C. Lazaroiu, V. Dumbrava, G. Vlad, Power
quality investigation in a passive house, in Proc. IEEE 2014 16th Int.
Time [hours] Conf. on Harmonics and Quality of Power, pp. 463-466.
-1 [10] http://www.cogeneration.com.ua/img/zstored/J208V25_en.pdf

Fig. 10. Optimization model results for 24 hours power demand during the
autumn season.