A new framework for small drinking water plant sustainability support and decision-making

Jones, Christopher H.; Meyer, John W.; Cornejo, Pablo K.; Hogrewe, William; Seidel, Chad; Cook, Sherri M.

doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.133899

Cited by 17 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These uses range from irrigation to use by industry and thermoelectric power plants. The value of different classifications, including reclaimed water for power plant cooling, , and a review of definitions and key sustainability performance metrics for reuse are available in several reports and studies at various scales. − Another category, de facto reuse, occurs when a drinking water supply contains a significant fraction of treated wastewater discharges, , and it is the most common form of reuse in the United States and probably globally.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Municipal water reuse can contribute to a circular water economy in different contexts and with various treatment trains. This study synthesized information regarding the current technological and regulatory statuses of municipal reuse. It provides process-level information on cost and energy metrics for three potable reuse and one nonpotable reuse case studies using the new Water Techno-economic Assessment Pipe-Parity Platform (WaterTAP3). WaterTAP3 enabled comparisons of cost and energy metrics for different treatment trains and for different alternative water sources consistently with a common platform. A carbon-based treatment train has both a lower calculated levelized cost of water (LCOW) ($0.40/m3) and electricity intensity (0.30 kWh/m3) than a reverse osmosis (RO)-based treatment train ($0.54/m3 and 0.84 kWh/m3). In comparing LCOW and energy intensity for water production from municipal reuse, brackish water, and seawater based on the largest facilities of each type in the United States, municipal reuse had a lower LCOW and electricity than seawater but higher values than for production from brackish water. For a small (2.0 million gallon per day) inland RO-based municipal reuse facility, WaterTAP3 evaluated different deep well injection and zero liquid discharge (ZLD) scenarios for management of RO concentrate. Adding ZLD to a facility that currently allows surface discharge of concentrate would approximately double the LCOW. For all four case studies, LCOW is most sensitive to changes in weighted average cost of capital, on-stream capacity, and plant life. Baseline assessments, pipe parity metrics, and scenario analyses can inform greater observability and understanding of reuse adoption and the potential for cost-effective and energy-efficient reuse.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When aggregating indicators, their weights can be determined by experts (the lowest stakeholder input and influence option), 186 derived from archetypal schemes representing different societal groups, 187 or developed for the specific study by stakeholders that directly interact with the technology (the highest stakeholder inputs and influence option). 188,189 Overall, as each stakeholder engagement method has limitations, the selection of stakeholders should be a careful process that balances resource requirements, social dynamics, and stakeholder representation. For example, the focus group approach, while requiring less resources than interviewing each of the individuals, may not reflect individual goals 190 and can suppress marginalized voices, 191 resulting in a lack of comprehensive goals, 172,192 influences, 193 and decision criteria.…”

Section: Socialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characterize System Sustainabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative sustainable design (QSD) for the prioritization of research, development, and deployment of technologies: a tutorial and review

Trimmer²,

Hand

et al. 2022

Environ. Sci.: Water Res. Technol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When aggregating indicators, their weights can be determined by experts (the lowest stakeholder input and influence option), 205 derived from archetypal schemes representing different societal groups, 206 or developed for the specific study by stakeholders that directly interact with the technology (the highest stakeholder inputs and influence option). 207,208 Overall, as each stakeholder engagement method has limitations, the selection of stakeholders should be a careful process that balances resource requirements, social dynamics, resources than interviewing each of the individuals, may not reflect individual goals 209 and can suppress marginalized voices, 210 resulting in a lack of comprehensive goals, 186,211 influences, 212 and decision criteria. 213 Ultimately, substantively addressing social sustainability necessitates the engagement of experts from relevant domains (e.g., the social sciences and humanities) and, when explored in a specific deployment context, local stakeholders who will be directly or indirectly impacted by the project.…”

Section: Socialmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quantitative Sustainable Design (QSD) for the Prioritization of Research, Development, and Deployment of Technologies: A Tutorial and Review

Trimmer

Hand

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The pursuit of sustainability has catalyzed broad investment in the research, development, and deployment (RD&D) of innovative water, sanitation, and resource recovery technologies, yet the lack of transparent and agile methodologies to navigate the expansive landscape of technology development pathways remains a critical challenge. This challenge is further complicated by the higher levels of uncertainty that are intrinsic to early-stage technologies. In this work, we review and synthesize published literature on the sustainability analyses of water and related technologies to present Quantitative Sustainable Design (QSD) – a methodology to expedite and support technology RD&D. With a shared lexicon and a structured approach, QSD facilitates interdisciplinary communication and research consistency. In introducing QSD, we review existing studies to highlight best practices and discuss them in the context of the specific steps of QSD, which include defining the problem space, establishing simulation algorithms, and characterizing system sustainability across economic, environmental, human health, and social dimensions. Next, we summarize tools for QSD execution and provide recommendations to account for uncertainty in this process. We further discuss applications of QSD in the fields of water/wastewater and beyond (e.g., renewable fuels, circular economy) in combination with uncertainty, sensitivity, and scenario analyses to generate the desired types of insight. Finally, we identify future research needs for sustainability analyses to advance technology RD&D. Ultimately, QSD can be used to elucidate the complex and intertwined connections among design decisions, technology characteristics, contextual factors, and sustainability indicators, thereby supporting transparent, consistent, and agile RD&D.

show abstract

A new framework for small drinking water plant sustainability support and decision-making

Cited by 17 publications

References 28 publications

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

Cost and Energy Metrics for Municipal Water Reuse

Quantitative sustainable design (QSD) for the prioritization of research, development, and deployment of technologies: a tutorial and review

Quantitative Sustainable Design (QSD) for the Prioritization of Research, Development, and Deployment of Technologies: A Tutorial and Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About