Corominas, Ll

Foley, J

Guest JS, JS

Hospido A, A

Larsen, Henrik Fred

Shaw, A

Guest, JS

Hospido, A

Online Research Database In Technology

Towards a Standard Method for Life Cycle Assessments of Wastewater Treatment

                       General rights Copyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright owners and it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.  • Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal   If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.     Downloaded from orbit.dtu.dk on: Dec 19, 2017Towards a Standard Method for Life Cycle Assessments of Wastewater TreatmentCorominas, Ll; Foley, J; Guest JS, JS; Hospido A, A; Larsen, Henrik Fred; Shaw, APublication date:2011Document VersionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of recordLink back to DTU OrbitCitation (APA):Corominas, L., Foley, J., Guest JS, J. S., Hospido A, A., Larsen, H. F., & Shaw, A. (2011). Towards a StandardMethod for Life Cycle Assessments of Wastewater Treatment [Sound/Visual production (digital)]. Watermatex :8th IWA Symposium on Systems Analysis and Integrated Assessment, San Sebastian, Spain, 01/01/2011Watermatex 2011, 20th JuneSan Sebastian(Spain)Ll. Corominas, J. Foley, J.S. Guest, A. Hospido, H.F. Larsen, A. ShawTowards a Standard Method for Life Cycle Assessments of Wastewater TreatmentLife Cycle AssessmentTaken from H.F. LarsenLife Cycle AssessmentTaken from H.F. LarsenProblem statement• 1960s: Beggining of this technique• 1990s: Pressure to standardize ISO 14040 and 14044• 2010s: Increase of popularity4Increase of information: databasesSoftware tools, models, etcProblem statementIn WASTEWATER field• 1990s: Flückiger and Gubler (1994); Emmerson et al. (1995); Fahner et al. (1995); Zimmermann et al. (1996); Roeleveld et al. (1997)• Until now, about 41 published papers in peer-reviewed journals (+ conference papers)5It is now time to make a reviewWhat have we learnedWere should we go?What have we learned?• Applications6Configurations; 7Sludge treatment; 8Management; 9Terciary treatment; 2Impact of WWTP; 3Operation; 3Technologies; 8Impact methodologies; 1What have we learned?• Boundaries7What have we learned?• Main Outcomes8What have we learned?• Outcomes– Impact of WWTP  water discharge and sludgeapplication– Technologies  Avoided vs induced impact(constructed wetlands and sand filtration appropiate)– Configurations Better N removal but Resourcesdepletion, global warming, acidification, humantoxicity– Operation Better N and P removal and increaseenergy efficiency9What have we learned?• Outcomes– Separation systems (urine) have environmentaladvantages (avoided fertilizers)– Sludge treatment Anaerobic digestion combinedwith electricity production. Incineration and landapplication are acceptable (but minimization of heavy metals from sludge)– Impact methodologies  For GHG emissions, acidification, eutrophication, resource depletion not a critical issue10What have we learned?11WWTP impactHospido et al., 2004What have we learned?12Vidal et al., 2002ConfigurationsWhat have we learned?13Foley et al., 2009Technologies FIGURE 4. Selected midpoint life cycle impact assessmentresults, disaggregated into the following: “Con.”,construction phase; “Op.”, operational phase (i.e., power,chemicals, transportation); “Av. Gas”, avoided natural gasfrom operational phase of anaerobic reactor (Option 1only); “Av. Elec”, avoided electricity from operationalphase of MFC (Option 2 only); “Av. H2O2”, avoided AOhydrogen peroxide from operational phase of MEC (Option3 only); and “Sludge”, sludge dewatering and disposalfrom operationalphase. The results are expressed in terms of a referenceunit for each environmental impact category (e.g., kgCO2-eq for global warming, kg C2H3Cl-eq for carcinogens).Positive values indicate an adverse environmental impact(i.e., the higher the value, the worse is the impact), andnegative values indicate an environmental benefit.What have we learned?14Sludge treatmentDiscrepancies• Inclusion/ exclusion of infrastructure15vs vsDiscrepancies• The importance of including disposal of waste16GHG emissions?Discrepancies• Selection of impact methodology17CML39%EDIP12%Eco-indicator6%Impact 2002+4%EPS6%eco-points2%not indicated31%Discrepancies• Selection of categories18Nº papers includingcategoryNº CML papers includingcategoryNº CML papers indicatingrelevant categoryGlobal warming potential 43 16 7Acidification potential 27 15 6Freshwater eutrophication potential 25 15 8Marine eutrophication potential 3 2 1Human Toxicity 19 11 4Terrestrial eco-toxicity 18 10 6Photochemical oxidation 19 12 3Fresh water eco-toxicity 14 6 5Marine eco-toxocity 6 4 3Fossil energy depletion 17 12 3Material depletion 7 2 1Ozone layer depletion 14 9 2Land Occupation 2 1 0Others 8 2 0Where should we go?• Developments in toxicity-related categories19Larsen et al., 2010Where should we go?• Provide local factors, e.g. eutrophication20Gallego et al., 2010Where should we go?• Better data quality (evaluation of uncertainty)21Where should we go?• Decission-making (link with economic and social criteria)22Watermatex 2011, 20th JuneSan Sebastian(Spain)Ll. Corominas, J. Foley, J.S. Guest, A. Hospido, H.F. Larsen, A. ShawTowards a Standard Method for Life Cycle Assessments of Wastewater Treatment

http://orbit.dtu.dk/ws/files/6389003/Corominasetal_Watermatex2011_ppt.pdf

Towards a Standard Method for Life Cycle Assessments of Wastewater Treatment

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Online Research Database In Technology

Online Research Database In Technology