Electricity consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with wastewater flows from residential and commercial water use in three major cities of the United States are analyzed and compared for the period 2010–2018. Contributions of unit wastewater treatment processes and electricity sources to the overall emissions are considered. Tucson (Arizona), Denver (Colorado), and Washington, DC were chosen for their distinct locations, climatic conditions, raw water sources, wastewater treatment technologies, and electric power mixes. Denver experienced a 20% reduction in treated wastewater volumes per person despite a 16% increase in population. In Washington, DC, the reduction was 19%, corresponding to a 16% increase in population, and in Tucson 14% despite a population growth of 3%. The electricity intensity per volume of treated wastewater was higher in Tucson (1 kWh m−3) than in Washington, DC (0.7 kWh m−3) or Denver (0.5 kWh m−3). Tucson’s GHG emissions per person were about six times higher compared to Denver and four times higher compared to Washington, DC. Wastewater treatment facilities in Denver and Washington, DC generated a quarter to third of their electricity needs from onsite biogas and lowered their GHG emissions by offsetting purchases from the grid, including coal-generated electricity. The higher GHG emission intensity in Tucson is a reflection of coal majority in the electricity mix in the period, gradually replaced with natural gas, solar, and biogas. In 2018, the GHG reduction was 20% when the share of solar electricity increased to 14% from zero in 2016. In the analysis period, reduced wastewater volumes relative to the 2010 baseline saved Denver 44 000 MWh, Washington, DC 11 000 MWh and Tucson 7000 MWh of electricity. As a result, Washington, DC managed to forgo 21 000 metric tons of CO2-eqand Denver 34 000 metric tons, while Tucson’s cumulative emissions increased by 22 000 metric tons of CO2-eq. This study highlights the variability observed in water systems and the opportunities that exist with water savings to allow for wastewater generation reduction, recovering energy from onsite biogas, and using energy-efficient wastewater treatment technologies.
- Award ID(s):
- 1738782
- NSF-PAR ID:
- 10287008
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- ASHRAE Annual Conference papers
- ISSN:
- 2578-5257
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
more » « less
Abstract -
more » « less
Abstract Water consumption from electricity systems can be large, and it varies greatly by region. As electricity systems change, understanding the implications for water demand is important, given differential water availability. This letter presents regional water consumption and consumptive intensities for the United States electric grid by region using a 2014 base year, based on the 26 regions in the Environmental Protection Agency’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database. Estimates encompass operational (i.e. not embodied in fixed assets) water consumption from fuel extraction through conversion, calculated as the sum of induced water consumption for processes upstream of the point of generation (PoG) and water consumed at the PoG. Absolute water consumption and consumptive intensity is driven by thermal power plant cooling requirements. Regional consumption intensities vary by roughly a factor of 20. This variability is largely attributed to water consumption upstream of the PoG, particularly evaporation from reservoirs associated with hydroelectricity. Solar and wind generation, which are expected to continue to grow rapidly, consume very little water and could drive lower water consumption over time. As the electricity grid continues to change in response to policy, economic, and climatic drivers, understanding potential impacts on local water resources can inform changes.
-
The recent decade has witnessed an increase in irrigated acreage in the southeast United States due to the shift in cropping patterns, climatic conditions, and water availability. Peanut, a major legume crop cultivated in Georgia, Southeast United States, has been a staple food in the American household. Regardless of its significant contribution to the global production of peanuts (fourth largest), studies related to local or regional scale water consumption in peanut production and its significant environmental impacts are scarce. Therefore, the present research contributes to the water footprint of peanut crops in eight counties of Georgia and its potential ecological impacts. The impact categories relative to water consumption (water depletion—green and blue water scarcity) and pesticide use (water degradation—potential freshwater ecotoxicity) using crop-specific characterization factors are estimated for the period 2007 to 2017 at the mid-point level. These impacts are transformed into damages to the area of protection in terms of ecosystem quality at the end-point level. This is the first county-wise quantification of the water footprint and its impact assessment using ISO 14046 framework in the southeast United States. The results suggest inter-county differences in water consumption of crops with higher blue water requirements than green and grey water. According to the water footprint analysis of the peanut crop conducted in this study, additional irrigation is recommended in eight Georgia counties. The mid-point level impact assessment owing to water consumption and pesticide application reveals that the potential freshwater ecotoxicity impacts at the planting and growing stages are higher for chemicals with high characterization factors regardless of lower pesticide application rates. Multiple regression analysis indicates blue water, yield, precipitation, maximum surface temperature, and growing degree days are the potential factors influencing freshwater ecotoxicity impacts. Accordingly, a possible impact pathway of freshwater ecotoxicity connecting the inventory flows and the ecosystem quality is defined. This analysis is helpful in the comparative environmental impact assessments for other major crops in Georgia and aids in water resource management decisions. The results from the study could be of great relevance to the southeast United States, as well as other regions with similar climatic zones and land use patterns. The assessment of water use impacts relative to resource availability can assist farmers in determining the timing and layout of crop planting.more » « less
-
more » « less
Abstract Reducing energy consumption for urban water management may yield economic and environmental benefits. Few studies provide comprehensive assessments of energy needs for urban water sectors that include both utility operations and household use. Here, we evaluate the energy needs for urban water management in metropolitan Los Angeles (LA) County. Using planning scenarios that include both water conservation and alternative supply options, we estimate energy requirements of water imports, groundwater pumping, distribution in pipes, water and wastewater treatment, and residential water heating across more than one hundred regional water agencies covering over 9 million people. Results show that combining water conservation with alternative local supplies such as stormwater capture and water reuse (nonpotable or indirect potable) can reduce the energy consumption and intensity of water management in LA. Further advanced water treatment for direct potable reuse could increase energy needs. In aggregate, water heating represents a major source of regional energy consumption. The heating factor associated with grid-supplied electricity drives the relative contribution of energy-for-water by utilities and households. For most scenarios of grid operations, energy for household water heating significantly outweighs utility energy consumption. The study demonstrates how publicly available and detailed data for energy and water use supports sustainability planning. The method is applicable to cities everywhere.
-
Abstract Buildings consume over 40% of global energy in their construction and operations contributing to over 39% of global carbon emission each year. This huge environmental footprint presents an excellent opportunity to reduce energy use and help deliver an environmentally sustainable built environment. Most of the energy is consumed by buildings as embodied energy (EE) and operational energy (OE). EE is used directly and indirectly during buildings’ initial construction, maintenance and replacement, and demolition phases through construction products and services. OE is used in the processes of heating, cooling, water heating, lighting, and operating building equipment. Most environmental optimization research has been centered on energy and carbon emission overlooking another critical sustainability aspect, water use. Each building also consumes a significant amount of freshwater as embodied water (EW) or virtual water in its initial construction, maintenance and replacement, and demolition phases. Since each primary and secondary energy source depletes water in its extraction, refinement or production, there is also a water expense associated with EE and OE use that must also be included in total EW use. The total EW, therefore, includes both non-energy and energy related water use. Research suggests that there are tradeoffs between EE and EW that may complicate design decisions such as material selection for environmental sustainability. In other words, a material selected for its lower EE may have higher EW and selecting such a material may not help reach environmental sustainability goals since water scarcity is becoming a grave problem. In this paper, we created an input-output-based hybrid (IOH) model for calculating and comparing EE and EW of building materials frequently used in building construction. The main goal is to examine and highlight any tradeoffs that may exist when selecting one material over another. The results reveal that there is a weak correlation between EE and total EW that is the sum of energy and non-energy water use, which means that a design decision made solely based on EE may conflict with EW. The share of energy related water use in total EW of construction materials also varies significantly (2.5%-31.2%), indicating that reducing energy use alone may not be sufficient to reduce freshwater use; additional efforts may be needed to decrease the use of materials and processes that are water intensive. The results of this study are significant to achieving the goal of creating a truly sustainable built environment.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- The DOI is not currently available.
