<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Sustainability Archive &#187; Energy Savings</title>
	<atom:link href="http://sustainabilityarchive.com/tag/energy-savings/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com</link>
	<description>a Compendium of Successful Sustainability Practices</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 27 May 2011 16:30:27 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>An Economic Approach to Off-Line Storage: A Means of Mitigating SSOs</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/an-economic-approach-to-off-line-storage-a-means-of-mitigating-ssos</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/an-economic-approach-to-off-line-storage-a-means-of-mitigating-ssos#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[100K-500K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sanitary Sewer]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Decreased SSO Volume]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Efficiency]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=818</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This paper reports on the use of a two cell 30-million-gallon (MG) equalization basin and diesel engine-driven pump station as a means of mitigating sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The ultimate capacity of the pump station, which utilizes vertical turbine solids handling pumps (VTSH) arranged in a self-cleaning trench-style wet well, is 68 million gallons per [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This paper reports on the use of a two cell 30-million-gallon (MG) equalization basin and diesel<br />
engine-driven pump station as a means of mitigating sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs). The<br />
ultimate capacity of the pump station, which utilizes vertical turbine solids handling pumps<br />
(VTSH) arranged in a self-cleaning trench-style wet well, is 68 million gallons per day (MGD).<br />
Configuring the pump station with diesel engine-driven pumps provided a 20-year, $1 million<br />
present worth savings in comparison to a conventional electrical motor driven pump station<br />
arrangement. The use of diesel engine-driven pumps eliminated the peak electrical usage of 450-<br />
horsepower (HP) electrical motors, as well as the need for variable frequency drives and<br />
redundant power generation needs during electrical outage time periods. A supplemental 150-<br />
kilowatt (kW) generator was installed to provide emergency power needs for SCADA, seal water<br />
systems, influent screen, and a 50-HP maintenance pump for wetwell cleaning.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/an-economic-approach-to-off-line-storage-a-means-of-mitigating-ssos/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Improving Nutrient Removal While Reducing Carbon Footprint at Three Swiss WWTPs Thanks to Advanced Control</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/improving-nutrient-removal-while-reducing-carbon-footprint-at-three-swiss-wwtps-thanks-to-advanced-control</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/improving-nutrient-removal-while-reducing-carbon-footprint-at-three-swiss-wwtps-thanks-to-advanced-control#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[<50K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[100K-500K]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[500K-1M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ammonia Control]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Aeration]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=829</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Aeration consumes about 60% of the total energy of a WWTP and therefore makes up for a major part of its carbon footprint. Introducing advanced process control can help plants to reduce their carbon footprint and at the same time improve effluent quality through making available unused capacity for denitrification, if the ammonia concentration is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Aeration consumes about 60% of the total energy of a WWTP and therefore makes up for a<br />
major part of its carbon footprint. Introducing advanced process control can help plants to reduce<br />
their carbon footprint and at the same time improve effluent quality through making available<br />
unused capacity for denitrification, if the ammonia concentration is below a certain set-point.<br />
Measuring and control concepts are a cost-saving alternative to the extension of reactor volume.<br />
However, they also involve the risk of violation of the effluent limits due to measuring errors,<br />
unsuitable control concepts or inadequate implementation of the measuring and control system.<br />
Dynamic simulation is a suitable tool to analyze the plant and to design tailored measuring and<br />
control systems.<br />
During this work, extensive data collection, modeling and full-scale implementation of aeration<br />
control algorithms were carried out at three conventional activated sludge plants with fixed predenitrification<br />
and nitrification reactor zones. Full-scale energy savings in the range of 16-20 %<br />
could be achieved together with an increase of total nitrogen removal of 40%.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/improving-nutrient-removal-while-reducing-carbon-footprint-at-three-swiss-wwtps-thanks-to-advanced-control/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Optimizing Energy Harvest in Wastewater Treatment Using Hydrogen Producing Biofermentor (HPB) and Microbial Fuel Cell (MFC)</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/optimizing-energy-harvest-in-wastewater-treatment-using-hydrogen-producing-biofermentor-hpb-and-microbial-fuel-cell-mfc</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/optimizing-energy-harvest-in-wastewater-treatment-using-hydrogen-producing-biofermentor-hpb-and-microbial-fuel-cell-mfc#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:47:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Enhanced COD Removal Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=832</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Two clean technologies, namely, “Anaerobic hydrogen production” and “Microbial fuel cells (MFC)”, hold great potential for producing energy from wastewater, which can provide economic and environmental benefits. Although 1 mole of glucose can theoretically produce 12 moles of hydrogen, the experimental hydrogen yields obtained are only 0.9-2.0 moles [1, 2]. The liquid fermentation products in [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Two clean technologies, namely, “Anaerobic hydrogen production” and “Microbial fuel cells<br />
(MFC)”, hold great potential for producing energy from wastewater, which can provide economic<br />
and environmental benefits. Although 1 mole of glucose can theoretically produce 12 moles of<br />
hydrogen, the experimental hydrogen yields obtained are only 0.9-2.0 moles [1, 2]. The liquid<br />
fermentation products in the anaerobic treated wastewater cause the high chemical oxygen demand<br />
(COD) in the effluent. It is desired to further treat these liquid products using MFCs to improve<br />
effluent quality and harvest energy. By converting the chemical energy stored in wastewater to<br />
electricity, MFCs can substantially reduce the operational cost in wastewater treatment plants [3].<br />
Due to the limitation of current technologies, the operation of hydrogen bioproduction and MFC<br />
individually in wastewater treatment is not suitable. Although hydrogen production is a good energy<br />
resource, the COD removal efficiency remains low. On the other hand, MFC could achieve high<br />
COD removal efficiency, but the power densities are low. In this study, the HPB and SCMFC were,<br />
for the first time, operated in series to increase overall energy recovery from wastewater and enhance<br />
COD removal efficiency for potential reclamation.﻿</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/optimizing-energy-harvest-in-wastewater-treatment-using-hydrogen-producing-biofermentor-hpb-and-microbial-fuel-cell-mfc/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>MAKING ENERGY FROM BIOSOLIDS, FATS, OILS AND GREASE</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/making-energy-from-biosolids-fats-oils-and-grease</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/making-energy-from-biosolids-fats-oils-and-grease#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[500K-1M]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heat Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Energy Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=859</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center (FWHWRC), owned and operated by the Gwinnett County, GA, Department of Water Resources (DWR), is an advanced wastewater treatment plant which currently discharges into the Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier. The FWHWRC maximum month design flow is 60 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently about 30 mgd [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The F. Wayne Hill Water Resources Center (FWHWRC), owned and operated by the Gwinnett<br />
County, GA, Department of Water Resources (DWR), is an advanced wastewater treatment plant<br />
which currently discharges into the Chattahoochee River and Lake Lanier. The FWHWRC<br />
maximum month design flow is 60 million gallons per day (mgd) and currently about 30 mgd of<br />
wastewater is received.<br />
In light of rising energy costs and declining revenues reflective of the continuing, severe<br />
economic downturn that began in 2007, the Gwinnett County DWR began an initiative to make<br />
the best possible use of resources under DWR control, including renewable energy resources.<br />
DWR retained CH2M HILL to identify and evaluate opportunities to improve resource<br />
utilization and reduce energy costs at the FWHWRC. The results of the evaluations, procedures<br />
for capturing stimulus funding, and technologies employed are discussed in this paper.<br />
The energy types considered for the FWHWRC were biogas derived from anaerobic digestion,<br />
solar, wind, and low-head hydropower. A screening analysis concluded that biogas combustion<br />
to produce power and heat was the optimum alternative.<br />
Next, a Business Case Evaluation (BCE) was conducted to determine if the construction and<br />
operation of a gas-to-energy facility would be economically feasible. The BCE considered<br />
several different scenarios for generating power from biogas, including biogas production with<br />
and without addition of fats, oil &amp; grease (FOG) and high strength waste (HSW) to the existing,<br />
anaerobic sludge digesters.<br />
The BCE concluded that a gas to energy facility based on an internal combustion engine (ICE)<br />
was feasible. The proposed system, in addition to continuously generating electrical energy for<br />
use at the FWHWRC, would be capable of producing sufficient heat to keep the anaerobic<br />
digesters operating in the mesophilic temperature range of 95-100 degrees Fahrenheit (F). By<br />
capturing the heat produced by the ICE, in addition to generating power, the system would have<br />
a total energy-recovery efficiency approaching 80%.<br />
The BCE recommended a gas to energy facility of approximately 2 megawatts (MW) in capacity<br />
at the FWHWRC. The biogas requirement at a nominal 600 British Thermal Units (BTU) per<br />
cubic foot (ft3) for an ICE of this capacity is approximately 520 standard cubic feet per minute<br />
(scfm). However, as the FWHWRC is at only about 50% of its total design capacity, the<br />
currently available biogas is considerably less than 520 scfm, and a purchased natural gas fuel<br />
blend would be required to obtain full power generation and heat recovery benefits. To minimize purchase of natural gas, maximize biogas, and as a result improve the return on<br />
investment in the cogeneration system, DWR next investigated addition of FOG and high<br />
strength waste (HSW) to the anaerobic digesters to supplement the solids feed. The project was<br />
made even more attractive by DWR’s successful pursuit of funding under the American<br />
Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), as administered by the Georgia Environmental<br />
Facility Administration (GEFA), and from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).<br />
A schematic design of the system with specifications was prepared for competitive selection of a<br />
design-build contractor. The design-build contract was awarded in October 2009. The contract<br />
value is $5.19 million and includes the installation of a 2.1 MW engine generator along with<br />
digester gas cleaning and drying equipment. The gas-to-energy facility is expected to reach<br />
substantial completion by the end of 2010 with contractual completion in May 2011.<br />
A second RFP for the design and construction of a FOG and HSW receiving facility was<br />
advertised in February 2010. The design-build contract was awarded in June 2010 at a contract<br />
value of $3.16 million. Its completion and startup will closely follow the completion and startup<br />
of gas cogeneration facilities.<br />
Once operational, the FOG/HSW handling and cogeneration facilities will have the potential to<br />
save over one million dollars annually in power costs and generate more revenue in FOG and<br />
HSW disposal fees. When operating at its rated capacity, the resulting power production will<br />
offset the amount of fossil fuel used to generate over 17,000 MW-hours of electrical power<br />
annually.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/making-energy-from-biosolids-fats-oils-and-grease/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Energy Efficient Advanced Treatment Process for Microconstituents Removal</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficient-advanced-treatment-process-for-microconstituents-removal</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficient-advanced-treatment-process-for-microconstituents-removal#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Advanced Treatment Alternative]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Contaminants of Emerging Concern (CEC) Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Effective Treatment Process]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Health]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=887</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The objective of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of an advanced treatment process not utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) for removal of hormones, pharmaceuticals, and flame retardants (collectively termed microconstituents or chemicals of emerging concern [CECs]) from municipal effluent. The advanced treatment process consisted of (in the order of use): membrane filtration (MF), ozonation [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The objective of this study was to demonstrate the effectiveness of an advanced treatment<br />
process not utilizing reverse osmosis (RO) for removal of hormones, pharmaceuticals, and flame<br />
retardants (collectively termed microconstituents or chemicals of emerging concern [CECs])<br />
from municipal effluent. The advanced treatment process consisted of (in the order of use):<br />
membrane filtration (MF), ozonation (O3), and biological activated carbon (BAC). The 15-<br />
month, continuous flow, 10.7 gpm, MF-O3-BAC demonstration study was conducted in two<br />
phases at the Reno-Stead Water Reclamation Facility (RSWRF): Phase 1 focused on ozone<br />
process optimization and bromate mitigation; Phase 2 was a 10-month steady-state<br />
demonstration of process performance. For RSWRF effluent, an ozone dosage of at least 5 mg/L<br />
was needed for desired CEC removals. Peroxide (year-round) and ammonia (seasonal) were<br />
added to mitigate bromate formation during ozonation. BAC removed flame retardants, and<br />
ozonation byproducts including NDMA (N-Nitrosodimethylamine), aldehydes, and<br />
biodegradable organic carbon. Findings of this study imply that MF-O3-BAC treatment is<br />
equally effective as RO-based treatment for CEC removals, but with substantially less energy<br />
utilization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficient-advanced-treatment-process-for-microconstituents-removal/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Energy Efficiency in Wastewater Treatment In North America: A WERF Compendium of Best Practices and Case Studies of Novel Approaches</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficiency-in-wastewater-treatment-in-north-america-a-werf-compendium-of-best-practices-and-case-studies-of-novel-approaches</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficiency-in-wastewater-treatment-in-north-america-a-werf-compendium-of-best-practices-and-case-studies-of-novel-approaches#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Compendium of Best Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energry Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Recovery Technologies]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Optimization]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=890</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[After manpower, energy is the highest operating cost item for most water and wastewater companies. Over the last decade, energy consumption by the sector has considerably increased as a result of implementation of new technologies to meet new effluent and potable water quality standards. High energy consumption will affect the water industry worldwide and is [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After manpower, energy is the highest operating cost item for most water and wastewater companies.<br />
Over the last decade, energy consumption by the sector has considerably increased as a result of<br />
implementation of new technologies to meet new effluent and potable water quality standards. High<br />
energy consumption will affect the water industry worldwide and is inextricably linked to the issue of<br />
Climate Change. Through its Optimization Challenge program, the Water Environment Research<br />
Foundation (WERF) participated in the Global Water Research Coalition’s (GWRC) project titled Energy<br />
Efficiency in the Water Industry: A Compendium of Best Practices and Case Studies. For this project,<br />
WERF served the role of North America practice coordinator, developing a Compendium of best<br />
practices in the energy efficient design and operation of water industry assets for this region of the world.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-efficiency-in-wastewater-treatment-in-north-america-a-werf-compendium-of-best-practices-and-case-studies-of-novel-approaches/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Getting to Zero: Sustainability Best practices to Significantly Reduce Greenhouse Gas and Energy at Your Wastewater Facility</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/getting-to-zero-sustainability-best-practices-to-significantly-reduce-greenhouse-gas-and-energy-at-your-wastewater-facility</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/getting-to-zero-sustainability-best-practices-to-significantly-reduce-greenhouse-gas-and-energy-at-your-wastewater-facility#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Best Practices]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Biogas Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=894</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Public agencies are increasingly pressured to become more sustainable. Wastewater plants are significant consumers of energy and correspondingly produce significant quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG). Reductions in energy and GHG are challenges for wastewater facilities as flows and loads increase and discharge requirements become more restrictive. The results highlight some methods to reduce energy and [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Public agencies are increasingly pressured to become more sustainable. Wastewater plants are<br />
significant consumers of energy and correspondingly produce significant quantities of<br />
greenhouse gas (GHG). Reductions in energy and GHG are challenges for wastewater facilities<br />
as flows and loads increase and discharge requirements become more restrictive. The results<br />
highlight some methods to reduce energy and GHG, including the concept of becoming energy<br />
neutral. Energy (as represented by electrical energy or fuels) equate directly to GHG production.<br />
A significant portion of the fuel source for most utilities in the United States is from<br />
anthropogenic sources such as coal, oil, or electric. To achieve energy neutral facilities, the<br />
wastewater plant must implement energy conservation and shift to biogenically derived energy<br />
sources, such as biogas, or alternative energy sources, such as wind. This paper and presentation<br />
describe how wastewater treatment plants can significantly reduce energy to the point of<br />
becoming energy neutral.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/getting-to-zero-sustainability-best-practices-to-significantly-reduce-greenhouse-gas-and-energy-at-your-wastewater-facility/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Energy Conservation Measures for Municipal Wastewater Treatment – Innovative Technologies and Practices</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-conservation-measures-for-municipal-wastewater-treatment-%e2%80%93-innovative-technologies-and-practices</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-conservation-measures-for-municipal-wastewater-treatment-%e2%80%93-innovative-technologies-and-practices#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Saving]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Operational Modification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process Control Enhancements]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=896</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Energy consumption for municipal wastewater treatment accounts for 15% to 30% of the operating cost at large treatment facilities and 30% to 40% at small facilities (WEF, 2009). Energy costs are expected to continue escalating as a result of the rising price of fossil fuels used for energy production while the energy demand for wastewater [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Energy consumption for municipal wastewater treatment accounts for 15% to 30% of the<br />
operating cost at large treatment facilities and 30% to 40% at small facilities (WEF, 2009).<br />
Energy costs are expected to continue escalating as a result of the rising price of fossil fuels used<br />
for energy production while the energy demand for wastewater treatment is expected to grow as<br />
the use of energy intensive treatment processes increases to meet water quality objectives that<br />
may demand increasingly stringent wastewater discharge limits.<br />
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is committed to promoting energy<br />
efficiency and implementation/use of energy conservation measures at municipal wastewater<br />
treatment facilities. EPA, in partnership with The Cadmus Group and HDR, has undertaken a<br />
project to identify and evaluate innovative energy conservation methods implemented at<br />
wastewater utilities in the U.S. and report on their effectiveness in achieving reductions in energy<br />
use and cost associated with wastewater treatment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/energy-conservation-measures-for-municipal-wastewater-treatment-%e2%80%93-innovative-technologies-and-practices/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Employing Energy Management Planning to Achieve Net Zero Energy in Wastewater Operations</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/employing-energy-management-planning-to-achieve-net-zero-energy-in-wastewater-operations</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/employing-energy-management-planning-to-achieve-net-zero-energy-in-wastewater-operations#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Efficiency]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=901</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This paper outlines how energy management planning can accomplish dual goals of energy self-sufficiency and optimum treatment processing, and how this provides robust performance and acceptable payback on investment, leading to net zero energy wastewater operations. The energy content of wastewater surpasses the energy required by treatment, reportedly be a factor of up to 10 [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This paper outlines how energy management planning can accomplish dual goals of<br />
energy self-sufficiency and optimum treatment processing, and how this provides robust<br />
performance and acceptable payback on investment, leading to net zero energy<br />
wastewater operations. The energy content of wastewater surpasses the energy required<br />
by treatment, reportedly be a factor of up to 10 times. Nevertheless, conventional<br />
activated sludge plants with advanced treatment consume typically 1,800 kWh/MG of<br />
electricity, but facilities vary from 1,000 to 3,000 kWh/MG. Energy efficiency studies<br />
conclude that the potential for energy use reductions through efficient pumps and aerators<br />
are on the order of 30 to 50 percent, which is a range of about 400 to 700 kWh/MG. For<br />
plants with anaerobic digestion, a rule-of-thumb for electrical production from biogasfueled<br />
generators is 500 kWh/MG. Supplementation of anaerobic digesters with high<br />
strength organic waste and fats, oils and grease is possible where utilities have excess<br />
digester capacity. The experience with supplementation is that facilities have increased<br />
biogas by a factor of two or three times pre-existing conditions, and are able to have a<br />
corresponding increases in electricity production, where generators have been adequately<br />
sized. When thermal heat can be returned for plant processes, overall plant efficiencies<br />
rise even higher. Energy planning studies have also shown that innovative technologies<br />
that build upon anaerobic processes reduce energy usage from typical values, and,<br />
further, energy plans have demonstrated some unexpected results, such as the economic<br />
and environmental justification of anaerobic digestion combined with thermal processing,<br />
such as dryers and incinerators. While local conditions, particularly energy pricing and<br />
government subsidies, likely shape the specific planning objectives and outcomes of any<br />
individual plant, the variety of energy efficiency and production technologies that are<br />
becoming proven can result in a similar endpoint, and specifically net zero energy<br />
wastewater treatment.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/employing-energy-management-planning-to-achieve-net-zero-energy-in-wastewater-operations/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>CHEApet: A Comprehensive Energy Analysis Tool for WWTPs</title>
		<link>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/cheapet-a-comprehensive-energy-analysis-tool-for-wwtps</link>
		<comments>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/cheapet-a-comprehensive-energy-analysis-tool-for-wwtps#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 May 2011 16:24:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>justin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Stormwater]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Waste Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water Treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Biological Phosphorus Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chemical Phosphorus Removal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Optimization]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy Savings]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Environmental Impact]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heat Drying]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Efficiency Air Diffusers]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Improved Biogas Production]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Phosphorus recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Plant Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Process Modeling]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Carbon Footprint]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Reduced Greenhouse Gas Emissions]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://sustainabilityarchive.com/?p=903</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The development of the Carbon Heat Energy Analysis Plant Evaluation Tool (CHEApet) by the Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) was in response to the identified need for a predictive modeling tool that unifies prior WERF research information regarding quantifying and managing energy consumption. CHEApet was created under OWSO4R07C of WERF’s Optimization Challenge to model performance [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The development of the Carbon Heat Energy Analysis Plant Evaluation Tool (CHEApet) by<br />
the Water Environment Research Federation (WERF) was in response to the identified need<br />
for a predictive modeling tool that unifies prior WERF research information regarding<br />
quantifying and managing energy consumption. CHEApet was created under OWSO4R07C<br />
of WERF’s Optimization Challenge to model performance and energy consumption of waste<br />
water treatment plants (WWTPs). Energy consumption, along with treatment process<br />
emissions, contributes to a facility’s carbon footprint. CHEApet can be used to create a<br />
baseline scenario, or inventory, of a utility’s carbon footprint for informational purposes as<br />
well as to compare with hypothetical treatment plants. This kind of comparison allows the<br />
user to identify facilities in the utility for energy optimization and the potential for biogas<br />
recovery which can save in costs and improve the footprint of the facility.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://sustainabilityarchive.com/cheapet-a-comprehensive-energy-analysis-tool-for-wwtps/feed</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

