Turning wastewater into energy: challenges of reconfiguring regional infrastructures in the Berlin–Brandenburg region

Abstract

Issues of connectivity between different infrastructure sectors have received surprisingly little attention in recent research. Despite huge interest in issues of sectoral integration surrounding the water-energy nexus, researchers have rarely considered what this might mean for the coupling of infrastructure systems for water/wastewater and energy services. Consequently, the implications of greater connectivity for the governance and socio-spatial constitution of infrastructures are largely unexplored. This paper addresses this research gap with a case study of an attempt to use treated wastewater to produce biomass for energy on degraded land in the Berlin-Brandenburg region of Germany. It takes water reuse for energy crop production as an exemplar of work at the water-energy nexus in order to explore the institutional, spatial and physical dimensions involved in connecting two infrastructure systems to this end. It argues that cross-sectoral integration reaches far beyond issues of technological compatibility, revealing often hidden but crucial differences in the institutional and spatial configuration of energy and wastewater systems. On the basis of a comparative analysis of the institutional arrangements of the region's wastewater and energy systems together with an empirical study of initiatives to use treated wastewater to grow energy crops the paper draws conclusions, firstly, on the potential and limitations of this particular exemplar and, secondly, on the broader implications of the case for understanding institutional challenges of cross-sectoral connectivity on the one hand and prospects for reconfiguring infrastructural relations between cities and rural areas on the other.

The urban resource nexus: On the politics of relationality, water–energy infrastructure and the fallacy of integration

“…This paper is concerned particularly with cities as an important scale of analysis for future nexus thinking research. This is both consistent with a growing interest in urban analysis within nexus thinking (Kenway, 2013;Scott et al, 2016), and echoes calls from critical urban scholarship for greater understanding of the interconnectivities and contingencies between urban material flows and associated infrastructures (Broto and Bulkeley, 2013;Moss et al, 2016). The social and political importance of urban infrastructures in structuring and shaping material flows, and their efficacy in re-producing urban space in particular and unequal forms, has of course, been well studied (Graham and Marvin, 2001;Graham and McFarlane, 2015;Guy et al, 2011).…”

“…The paper focuses on the urban nexus, and in particular interfacing water and energy infrastructures, as a key geographical scale of existing, emerging and contested nexus interactions. Moreover, in the resource nexus literature, although some attention has been paid to cities (Kenway et al, 2011;Villarroel Walker et al, 2014), a comprehensive understanding of the urban dimensions of the WEF nexus is yet unformed (Moss et al, 2016). The aim of this paper, then, is both to urbanize nexus thinking, and to introduce nexus concepts into urban studies.…”

Governance strategy for sustainable land management and water reuse: Challenges for transdisciplinary research

“…Such products thus bear such uncertainties as financial risks, legal liabilities and lack of public acceptance of health risks. Investment in infrastructure such as irrigation infrastructure installation is expensive and risky, and current policy does not provide financial incentives or subsidies for water reuse (Moss et al, ; Moss & Nölting, ).…”

“…Investment in infrastructure such as irrigation infrastructure installation is expensive and risky, and current policy does not provide financial incentives or subsidies for water reuse (Moss et al, 2017;Moss & Nölting, 2014).…”

“…Water reuse, as it is commonly termed, is considered a viable option for land management and is currently being implemented in several regions around the world, mainly in arid areas of the Global and European South (Lazarova, Asano, Bahri, & Anderson, ; Salomaa & Watkins, ; Sanz & Gawlik, ). Although water reuse projects have multiplied in Europe over the last two decades (European Commission, ), uncertainties and risks—such as acceptance problems, institutional obstacles and economic concerns—have limited water reuse thus far (Moss, Naumann, & Krause, ). Consequently, the European Commission has emphasized in its A Water Blueprint for Europe report the importance and urgency of developing standards and incentives for water reuse, thus putting it on the political agendas of member states (European Commission, , ).…”