Banner
    Recycling Water Boosts Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
    By News Staff | March 15th 2012 02:29 PM | 4 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    In areas where freshwater is scarce, recycling of wastewater seems to be common sense.  Perhaps not, argues Amy Townsend-Small, assistant professor of geology and geography at the University of Cincinnati, and a team of researchers from the University of California, Irvine.

    Their research shows that wastewater recycling processes may generate more greenhouse gases than traditional water-treatment processes. Townsend-Small, along with Diane E. Pataki, Linda Y. Tseng, Cheng-Yao Tsai and Diego Rosso, studied how different types of wastewater treatment affect emissions of one greenhouse gas, nitrous oxide. Nitrous oxide (N2O) is a long-lived and potent greenhouse gas, with a warming potential of about 300 times that of carbon dioxide.

    Nitrous oxide is a by-product of the metabolism of two different types of bacteria. One bacterial type, the nitrifying bacteria, convert forms of reduced nitrogen (like ammonium) to oxidized forms of nitrogen (like nitrates). Another type of bacteria, the denitrifying microbes, convert nitrates into inert nitrogen gas.  The same microbes that live in agricultural soils also thrive in wastewater treatment and water recycling plants. The same nitrification and denitrification processes are employed in these plants to remove nitrogen from wastewater.

    "Just like carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide concentrations are increasing due to human activities," Townsend-Small said. "Most of the increase in atmospheric nitrous oxide concentrations is due to the use of fertilizer in agriculture."

    They compared the nitrous oxide emission rates at two different types of wastewater treatment plants in southern California. The first type was a conventional wastewater treatment plant, where the objective is to remove organic carbon and return the treated wastewater to a river or the ocean. The second type was a wastewater recycling plant, where both organic carbon and nitrogen are removed, and the treated wastewater is used for irrigation of landscaping and urban greenspace. 

    "Wastewater reuse for irrigation, otherwise known as 'showers to flowers', potentially reduces overall freshwater consumption in southern California, which is threatened by dwindling supply and a growing population," Townsend-Small said.

    However, she and her co-authors found that the wastewater recycling plant emitted about three times more nitrous oxide than the traditional treatment, when all factors are included. The researchers' data indicate that dense populations of nitrifying and denitrifying bacteria in the wastewater recycling plant were the cause of these high nitrous oxide emissions. They also did preliminary calculations on the impact of wastewater recycling plants on nitrous oxide emissions in southern California.

    "Because the Los Angeles area is so heavily urbanized, our calculations indicate that nitrous oxide emissions from wastewater treatment and recycling are several orders of magnitude larger than agricultural nitrous oxide emissions in the region," Townsend-Small said.

    Despite the production of nitrous oxide,  wastewater recycling is still a good idea, at least for the people of Los Angeles. 

    "Wastewater recycling is an essential component of the urban water-resource portfolio, especially in the semi-arid, urban southwest," Townsend-Small said. "Because drinking water in southern California is imported over very long distances, it is responsible for large energy consumption and carbon-dioxide emission rates."

    They even propose that cities allow recycled wastewater to supplement drinking water supplies, not just irrigation water. 

    "If wastewater recycling can supplement drinking water resources and not just irrigation water for landscaping, then overall greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced, as could the potential for water scarcity in southern California and beyond." Townsend-Small said.


    Published in the September-October issue of the Journal of Environmental Quality.

    Comments

    Why isn't this the headline? "If wastewater recycling can supplement drinking water resources and not just irrigation water for landscaping, then overall greenhouse gas emissions could be reduced, as could the potential for water scarcity in southern California and beyond." Townsend-Small said.

    There is a huge missing piece to Townsend-Small's calculation, or at least how it is presented in this article. The nitrous oxide emissions she's calculated are not due to water recycling efforts; rather, they are a by-product of wastewater treatment. This treatment process, from which we get the useful by-product of recycled water, must be performed to provide sanitation for our urban populations. It is not done strictly to provide recycled water. Therefore, it is essentially a "sunk-cost" that occurs regardless of whether or not we use the water we get at the end. When we eliminate that greenhouse gas production from the equation, we find that locally produced recycled water GREATLY reduces greenhouse gas production. For the Los Angeles area, every acre-foot of locally produced recycled water displaces an equal volume of the most expensive imported water, that coming from the State Water Project. This source of water requires approximately 3,000 kilowatt-hours of energy (net) to move each acre-foot of water from Northern California over the Tehachapi Moutains. Less energy used, less CO2 and nitrous oxides produced.

    Hank
    . Therefore, it is essentially a "sunk-cost" that occurs regardless of whether or not we use the water we get at the end. 
    Rational people had a similar problem with woo like that it takes 140 liters of water to make a cup of coffee - virtual water.  There would have been wars over water for decades if there were any truth to it but there haven't been.

    Basically, anyone attempting to calculate a valid cycle in any energy usage system has a confidence interval of about 68% and anyone who believes it without question only does so because they want to believe.
    That and the fact that no-one has heard of partial derivatives...