Search for keyword

Energy optimization considerations for wastewater treatment

plants in South Africa A realistic perspective
Rudi Scheepers*, Marlene vd Merwe-Botha**
*Arcus GIBB (Pty) Ltd, P.O. Box 3965, Cape Town, 8000, South Africa.
Email: rscheepers@gibb.co.za
**WaterGroup (Pty) Ltd, South Africa
ABSTRACT
Engineers and wastewater treatment plant owners have historically not considered power consumption as
a critical design parameter in the South African wastewater industry, as the country has experienced an
abundance of low priced electricity for many years. This picture has changed dramatically. ESKOMs
introduction of energy tariff increases of 25% per annum over a three year period up to 2012, followed by
further annual increases estimated at 7% over a 7 year period. To add to the pressure, the Department of
Water Affairs is increasing regulatory pressure on municipalities to comply with stricter effluent discharge
standards. Literature indicate that current trends are to opt for advanced treatment technologies with
associated high energy requirements in order to achieve the more exacting effluent quality requirements.
The cumulative effect is that energy has become the highest single cost item (along with man-hours) on
the balance sheet of municipalities and a critical performance driver and enabler. Plant Managers are
already faced with the challenge to reduce treatment costs with limited budgets, burdened by ageing
plants with mechanical equipment which are not operated with energy efficiency as precursor. The net
impact is that the ever increasing costs of providing municipal water services within the boundaries of
legislation is likely to be passed on to the consumer via higher public municipal tariffs.
It is has become imperative to optimize energy efficiency and develop opportunities for energy generation
from wastewater and sludge as part of the municipal wastewater business. International best estimates
indicate that energy gains and savings of 5-30% are realistic, and that 100% self-sustainability in power
supply is possible. Local indications are that up to 60% of the energy requirements can be achieved by
the implementation of cell lysis processes with CHP production.
These opportunities can only be realized if the key players have a baseline from where to conceptualize
and formulate a cohesive development plan to address the key risks associated with the water-energy
nexus. The paper focuses on setting a baseline to support higher order energy considerations in the
wastewater industry, in order to influence perspectives and advance principles and incentives that would
guide regulators and parastatals in assuming a development role in a sustainable and compliance future
municipal wastewater sector.

INTRODUCTION
Key issues are to be addressed if government, municipalities and water sector stakeholders (professional
service providers and private operators) are to prepare adequately for a sustainable and compliant
wastewater treatment industry. Apart from man-hours, energy is becoming the single most critical
performance enabler and cost driver on the balance sheets of municipal wastewater treatment plants in
South Africa, with potentially far reaching economic, social and environmental consequences.
The cost of municipal services tariffs are escalating at a rate that exceed the ability of the consumer to
pay, as is evident in the increasing number of municipalities that battle to achieve acceptable payment
levels. Whereas this has previously affected smaller towns and municipalities, the trend is spreading to

also impact on cities and metropolitan municipalities (CoGTA, 2009).

It is against this backdrop that the rationale that effluent quality requirements and the associated costs to
achieve such qualities, must be assessed. Higher levels of service (e.g. waterborne sewers) and more
advanced treatment technology (e.g. activated sludge BNR) are generally associated with higher costs. If
higher levels of service are not affordable, the ability of a municipality to recover its costs is negatively
affected, threatening the revenue base and the financial sustainability of the municipality.
Energy efficiency is a critical component along the value chain of sustainable service provision and
responsible life cycle infrastructure development. The global water sector is already seen to look beyond
the ambit of conventional treatment to also concentrate on a sustainable relationship between water and
energy (electricity). South Africa is already exploring and pilot-scaling project associated with the supplyand demand side in the greater uptake of energy from the wastewater sector (Burton et al., 2009).

Water-Energy Nexus
Energy and water have a symbiotic relationship and wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) contribute to
this connection. WWTPs in the United States contribute between 0.1 to 0.3 % of the total energy
consumption of the country (WEF, 1997). It becomes increasingly evident that the impact of the rising
demand for both of these recourses is eminent.
The global water industry is exploring methods of moving
and treating water and wastewater that are environmentally
sustainable and economically viable. This global approach
is to balance these two resources are illustrated in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Schematic illustration of the WaterEnergy
Resource Nexus showing the connectivity amongst the
three entities in a balanced sphere.
Over and above the risking demand for higher levels of
service and technologies, climate change is also affecting
the water cycle. Some of its impacts can be mitigated
through technical developments and social, economic and
environmental response, as is demonstrated in Australia.
Key energy demand areas are: pumping over wide service
areas, asset condition and pipe leakage, treatment by aeration and pumping raw and treated effluent
(Global Water Research Coalition 2010, Turton 2008).
Electricity cost has become an important driver to treat wastewater which results in new and amended
technology introduced to the market in the last 20 years. The standard approach across the globe will be
to optimize the equipment and systems for a sustainable and cost effective future. There is strong
evidence that up to 15% of wastewater energy demand can be offset by biogas generation and CHP.
Pumping represents upwards of 30% for wastewater, however, aeration presents up to 60% or more of
the usage for the service (Global Water Research Coalition 2010). The best opportunities seems for

reducing energy demand seems to be linked to the high usage components.

Electricity Supply in South Africa
ESKOM generates 95% of South Africas electricity and 45% of Africas electricity that are exported to
Namibia, Botswana, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland and Lesotho. Coal contributes 92% towards the
countrys electricity supply (Eskom 2010). According to ESKOMs Annual report in 2009 revealed that
South Africa is a net importer of water which the trend will continue in the future (Eskom 2009). The cost
to generate energy from fossil fuels will increase as power generation is still a large consumer of water
which accounts for about 2% of all water used in South Africa.

In January 2008 South Africa has experienced electricity shortages known as load shedding for the first
time in history. According to ESKOM, various capacity limitations were experienced that resulted in
reduced demand to the grid supply and affected the entire country in all economic sectors of industry for
almost an entire year.
The water sector was greatly affected by these impacts. To date the total effect of these power supply
disruptions to treatment plants and pumpstations has not yet been completely investigated and quantified.
It is however, fair to observe that the external and secondary costs incurred as result of downtime and
damage to equipment and processes responsible for collection and treatment of wastewater is significant,
and affected the end user, environment and the economy significantly.
Since April 2008, electricity consumers have felt the effects of price increases, which compounded to a
260% increase including the last increase of 25,8% hike in April 2011. ESKOM however, has indicated
that it would be applying to the National Energy Regulator of South Africa (NERSA) for further 25%
increases for each of 2013 and 2014, which are the first two years of the next Multi -Year Price
Determination (MYPD). If the applied increases are awarded, the compounded average electricity price
would increase by more than five times in the seven year period from April 2008 to April 2014 (Moneyweb
2011).
Both certainty and uncertainty indicators give rise to multiple questions posed in the wastewater industry:
Are wastewater collection and treatment facilities equipped to effectively adapt further power
disruption events in the country?
Are treatment technologies upgraded and new facilities designed with an energy efficiency
perspective and realistic electricity cost centers, preferable ringfenced, to manage and contain
operational and maintenance costs?
How will the treatment industry in South Africa present itself by 2050 when the global water sector
focuses on self-efficient treatment facilities?
Is the water regulator sufficiently cognizant of the trade-off between stricter effluent quality
requirements and energy intensity to deliver such qualities with a shrinking technical skills sector?
Are municipal infrastructure funding agencies geared to evaluate energy requirements as a
critical sustainability parameter over the asset life cycle chain when considering motivations for
high-end technologies?
Is ESKOM putting sufficient and practical incentives in place to reward energy generation or
savings initiatives by municipalities, and are avenues explored to partake in capital renewal
projects with high uptake and energy benefits?

OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
This study seeks to contextualize and illustrate current application and trends in the South African
municipal wastewater industry as pertaining to treatment technologies, plant capacity, electricity
consumption trends and good practices applied in electricity supply- and demand management.
The paper also intent to raise discussion and awareness amongst the sector players regarding the
respective roles in:
Viewing and planning for WWTPs as energy producers and cost conservers as opposed to a
facility to treat sewage without any further benefit;
Initiate opportunities to have the first full scale self efficient WWTP in Africa in the near future;
Municipal wastewater practitioners, process controllers and scientists are scarce professions
and critical enablers in realizing any opportunity associated with energy optimization, cost
recovery and sustainable management and compliance.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology followed in the study is presented via specific subject areas as follows:

Situation Analysis of Existing Technology Types

The Green Drop 2009 and 2011 Assessments were used to evaluate the various technologies (treatment
processes) applied by municipalities across the nine provinces in South Africa (DWA 2009, DWA 2011). A
framework was developed to categorize the various technologies, consisting of 16 technology types.
Further simplification of the technology types was done by reducing the various technology types into
three generic technology groups: i) Activated sludge processes and variations thereof, ii) trickling
biofilters, iii) pond and lagoon systems.
The approach was followed to use updated (2010/11) information where available and only revert to 2009
information where data was lacking. Where a plant comprises of two or more technology types, each type
would count for one technology. Only municipal plants with a verification tract record were processed.

Trend Analysis in Technology Applications

A total of 18 plants were selected (DWA licensing database, 2010) to determine the best spread of plants
across the 9 provinces for technology trends assessment against the following assessment framework:
Assessment Criteria
Legislative requirements
Environmental landscape
Technology levels employed
(existing and new)
Municipal environment and
technology impact.

Reference Framework
Water use license, General Authorisation, previous Exemptions (General
/ Special Standard)
Present Ecological State and Condition (PESC)
Low, medium and high-end technologies as available in market place
CoGTA spatial analysis framework (Municipal size, Social-economic
vulnerability, National Treasury (NT) classification, Audit outcomes, and
the extent to which the municipality is undertaking all of their possible
local government functions (as a %)).

The data results were processed to determine the movement in technology trends from recent-current
process employed to current-future process planned or employed, in terms of the three broad technology
types investigated. This study was conducted in cooperation with Water Research Commission and
SALGA (Bhagwan et al. 2011).

Energy Consumption per Technology Types and Capacity

The Green Drop Report (DWA 2011) was used to adopt data relating to municipal plant capacity and
actual flow received at plants. These design capacities were used to determine the number of plants in
micro, small, medium, large and macro size categories. The energy usage per unit process was derived
work done by the USA Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) Energy Audits (1994) and used to
evaluate the energy consumption (kWh/day) on two levels:
Per plant capacity (size) category
For activated sludge and biofilters technology groupings*
The energy consumption (kWh) per volume was evaluated according to the treatment processes of the
plant. Only medium size plants (2-10 M/day) to a macro size plants where evaluated from published
energy consumption data.

Energy as Running Cost in Municipalities

Financial ring-fencing of water services provision is a legal requirement (Water Services Act of 1997)
where it is stated that: When performing the functions of a water services provider, a water services

authority must manage and account for those functions separately (Sect 20.(1)).
The above however leads to two problems statements which are:
Definitive information as to the extent of ring fencing is not readily available, although the Green
Drop initiative is focussing more attention on this compliance parameter. Energy is a real and
comprehensive element of the cost of the wastewater treatment service and should be
recovered via responsible tariff setting, offsetting, etc.
Section 10 of same Act need to be complied with when formulating tariffs. This would require
financial sustainability (adequate budget for O&M), recovery of cost reasonable associated with
providing the service, the need for return on capital investment for the provision of the serv ice,
etc (Moshidi et al. 2011)
As a first step to ensure cost reflective recovery of services cost as part of municipal financial
sustainability, it is necessary to establish broad comparative and costing comparisons as pertaining to
different treatment technologies in the municipal sector. To present such first order material as part of this
study, linkage is made to studies undertaken with the Department of Water Affairs, Water Services
Regulation in extracting actual figures from treatment plants that reported ringfenced costs for the
respective treatment plants during the 2011 Green Drop Assessments.
The baseline costing reported in Municipal Wastewater Treatment: First Order Costing Of Capital And
Additional Operations And Maintenance Funding Requirements Based On Risk Based Indices (DWA,
2009) were used to expand and escalate on the cost configurations, which were based on a ctual tender
prices in 2008 to provide for a 2011 baseline estimate.

Improved Application: Energy Efficiency

Opportunities for improved efficiency are various, and attempt was made to comment on practical ways of
optimizing energy efficiencies, as applicable to the technology types under discussion, in the following
context:
Improved energy efficiency through demand side management: Integrate 1st order analysis data
from the energy utilization by typical types of wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the
country.
Improved energy efficiency through supply side management and energy generation:
Projections of 1 st order analysis to various energy generation potentials mainly to large (10-25
M/day) and macro WWTPs (>25 M/day).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Situation Analysis of Existing Technology Types
A total of 975 technology counts were made during the analysis of the data. Activated sludge plants (and
variation thereof) counted the highest applications of 395, followed by pond systems (368) and biofilters
(145). 100 counts were made in total for remaining processes such as Pasveer ditch, RBC, various
package plant types and include unknown or poorly specified processes.
Table 1: Summary of the various treatment technology types as depicted per province.
Wastewater Treatment Technology Types
1

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

Activated Sludge

Biological
(Trickling) Filters

Pasveer Ditch

Rotating Biological
Contactors

Package plants

Other

Unknown or not
specified

Activated Sludge &

BNR
Activated Sludge &
Diffused Air
Activated Sludge &
Extended Aeration
Activated Sludge &
MBR
Activated Sludge &
SBR
Activated Sludge &
Mechanical
Aeration
Aerated Lagoons/
Oxidation Ponds
Anaerobic
Contactors
Anaerobic Ponds/
Facultative Ponds

PROVINCE

Techn
ology
# per
provin
ce

Limpopo

75

13

44

14

Mpumalanga

94

39

24

22

Gauteng

69

24

19

19

North West

42

19

12

Free State

134

36

49

14

27

Northern Cape

75

11

52

KwaZulu Natal

158

58

17

38

21

Eastern Cape

146

45

61

19

Western Cape

182

65

57

12

26

Totals

975

310

41

21

339

29

145

12

33

975

1- 7:
ii)
Activated sludge and variations

975

395

i)

8 & 10
iii)
Ponds and
lagoons

11:
Biof
ilter

9 & 12-16:
Other

368

145

100

Figure 2 shows the distribution of technologies across the technology types. Almost 38% of all WWTPs in
the country use a type of lagoon or pond treatment system, with the majority (in number) found in the
Eastern- Western and Northern Cape regions.
Most of the macro size WWTPs are using activated sludge technology with various and additions like
BNR (Biological Nutrient Reactor, MBR (membrane bioreactor), SBR (Sequencing Batch Reactor) and
other systems, with the majority (by number) found in KZN, Western Cape and Gauteng.
The third most common treatment technology is biological trickling filters which the Free State Province
has the highest number (27).
Figure 2: General treatment technology types in South Africa.

67
7%
145
15%

395
40%
Activated Sludge & Additionals
Lagoons and Various Ponds

368
38%

Biological Trickling Filters

Other

Trend Analysis in Technology Applications

Analysis of the assessment results of the 18 test cases indicated the following trend:
Current Scenario: Oxidation pond systems account for 39%, activated sludge plants for 61% (of
which 36% include BNR) and 6% package plants.
Future Scenario: Oxidation pond system will reduce to 17%, whilst activated sludge systems will
increase to 78%.
The results indicate that a more complex and potentially costly level of technology (medium) enjoys
higher preference to the low to medium level technology. Although this could be ascribed to effluent
treatment requiring a higher level of technology, land availability, initial cost of expansion and repairs of
existing versus capital cost of new system, etc, it is observed that this is not always the situation.
Often, insufficient attention is directed towards investigating sustainable low to medium leve l alternatives,
and/or that the long term cost implication (lack of skills, cost recovery, power consumption) of the high
level technology is not realised. This is concerning as sustainability of higher level technologies may not
always be within reach of some of the municipalities.
Figure 3: Technology level trends from 18 test sites with existing and planned upgrades

It also appeared from the study that in terms of demand growth, the trend is often not to resolve the
process limitations and optimise the existing systems or to extend the existing plant and maintain the
technology level, but to upgrade to a higher technology level as shown in Figure 3. This is disconcerting
as not all municipalities are necessarily equipped to sustainably manage such a change in circumstances,
specifically with regard to skills and financial resource availability.
If therefore following the literature whereby it is reported that more sophisticated technology have highe r
energy, and therefore cost, requirements, then the results point towards a trend that energy -intensive
technologies are opted for (i.e. BNR and extended aeration activated sludge systems) in preference to
lower energy requirement processes (such as pond systems). The influence by the consulting engineer
and the legal requirement for strict effluent standards, as well as the lack of feasibility studies that
consider energy as a critical cost component when motivating for grant or other funding, are key
considerations and a pivotal point to redress if energy efficiency is to be tackled in a resource -scarce
future (Bhagwan et al 2011).

Energy consumption per technology types and capacity

Following from the findings under the Situation analysis of technology types, the energy consumption

per variation can be expected to vary significantly across the vastness of the difference technology types.
For purpose of 1 st order evaluation, the categories were regrouped under 4 main categories, as
discussed, in order to profile the results to a single technology type.
Based on the data of the generic treatment technology, an energy consumption evaluation was
conducted by using information contributed by the USA Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI Energy
Audits, 1994) to evaluate the energy consumption in kWh/day for the two treatment technology types.
Table 2: Energy consumption ranges for a typical trickling filter treatment technology across
difference plant sizes (capacity) and per process unit
ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR A TRICKLING FILTER TREATMENT PLANT
Process unit

kWh/day

>0.5
M/d
22.59

2 M/d

>2 M/d

Pumping

Micro
Size
Plants
<0.5
M/d
22.59

90.35

Small Size
Plants

Medium Size Plants

Large Size Plants

Macro Size Plant

10 M/d

10 M/d

25 M/d

25 M/d

100
M/d

90.35

391.31

391.31

925.92

925.92

3380.07

Inlet Works

6.74

6.74

26.95

26.95

48.64

48.64

89.82

89.82

334.18

Primary Clfrs

1.98

1.98

7.93

7.93

42.63

42.63

102.37

102.37

409.47

Trickling Filters
Secondary Clfrs

46.49
1.98

46.49
1.98

185.98
7.93

185.98
7.93

994.11
42.63

994.11
42.63

1669.56
102.37

1669.56
102.37

6189.54
409.47

Disinfection

0.13

0.13

0.53

0.53

2.73

2.73

17.83

17.83

70.01

Sludge Mngt
Lights &
Building
TOTALS

132.88

132.88

531.51

531.51

768.95

768.95

996.59

996.59

3587.45

26.42

26.42

105.67

105.67

218.61

218.61

528.34

528.34

1585.03

239.2

239.2

956.8

956.8

2509.6

2509.6

4432.8

4432.8

15965.2

478.41

478.41

478.41

478.41

250.96

250.96

177.31

177.31

159.65

Consumption
ratio (kWh/M)

The results presented in Table 2 indicate the kilowatt hours (kWh) per day used for each process unit in
the treatment process. To determine the energy consumption per volume, the electricity use (kWh) is
divided by the volume per Mega liters (M) of the plant size. The results appear in the bottom row.
It is evident that the consumption rate per plant capacity unit decrease with increase in volumetric plant
capacity. The results for small and micro plants could not be evaluated sufficiently as the EPRI baseline
data was only available from medium size plants and above. It is probable that energy consumption rates
will further increase for small to micro size plants.
The process units that prescribes pumping relates to all various transfer pumping activities within and
along the treatment process. Sludge management concludes to all activities that relate to sludge
handling, digestion, processing and disposal.
The 15% (145) trickling filters plants across the provinces contribute to the second lowest energy
consumer per volume next to lagoons and ponds.
From Table 3, it can be deducted that the energy consumption per volume for a typical activated sludge
treatment systems are between 20 to 40% higher than trickling filter systems.
Table 3: Energy consumption ranges for a typical activated sludge process across difference
plant sizes (capacity) and per process unit

ENERGY REQUIREMENT FOR ACTIVATED SLUDGE TREATMENT PLANT

Process unit

kWh/day
0.5 M/d
28.53

>0.5M/d
28.53

2 M/d
114.12

>2 M/d

10 M/d

10 M/d

25 M/d

25 M/d

100 M/d

Pumping

114.12

507.71

507.71

1205.28

1205.28

4336.37

Inlet Works
Primary Clfrs

6.74
1.98

6.74
1.98

26.95
7.93

26.95
7.93

48.64
42.63

48.64
42.63

89.82
102.37

89.82
102.37

334.18
409.47

Aeration
Secondary
Clfrs
Disinfection

70.27

70.27

281.08

281.08

1453.73

1453.73

4705.55

4705.55

17908.18

1.98

1.98

7.93

7.93

42.63

42.63

102.37

102.37

409.47

0.13

0.13

0.53

0.53

2.73

2.73

17.83

17.83

70.01

Sludge Mngt
Lights &
Buildings
TOTALS
Consumption
ratio
(kWh/M)

159.30

159.30

637.18

637.18

1424.77

1424.77

1194.72

1194.72

4379.96

26.42

26.42

105.67

105.67

218.61

218.61

528.34

528.34

1585.03

295.34

295.34

1181.37

1181.37

3741.45

3741.45

7946.28

7946.28

29432.67

590.69

590.69

590.69

590.69

374.15

374.15

317.85

317.85

294.33

With reference to the trends analysis results, it can be expected that energy costs will further escalate
and increase if pond systems and biofilters are replaced with activated sludge plants. Whilst the main
argument used for the increased implementation of activated sludge systems, it is notable that the
majority of activated sludge plants do not necessarily deliver compliant effluent quality in terms of stricter
phosphate, ammonia and nitrogen concentrations (DWA 2011). Anecdotal evidence is to the contrary,
where a pond system is much more forgiving if appropriate resources are not allocated for maintenance
and operations, as opposed to activated sludge systems which become a major health and public risk
hazard if neglected.
The balance of the argument also carries weight, whereby a densely and urbanized area will have the
benefit of a centralized system where skills and resources could be pulled for a high performance plant
and complaint effluent. The economies of scale in terms of lower energy consumption rates may then outscale the use of other novel technologies.
When comparing the South African energy consumption variation within a technology type (Figure 4), the
difference between consumptions per technology type can be observed. High consumption figures are
found with extended aeration plants, and lower consumption patterns for ponds/lagoons and biofilters
systems. The exponential trend curve indicates the rapid increase in consumption as a direct function of
the
energy
requirements by 1,200
more
1,030
1,000
sophisticated
systems.
800
608
600
Figure
4:
409
Energy
476
400
277
consumption
330
ranges
200
185
(kWh/M)
for
79
0
various types
Lagoons
Trickling Filter
Activated Sludge Oxidation Ditches /
of WWTPs.
Plants
Plants
Extended Aeration
Plants
The South Africa profile correspondents with patterns in the USA against similar technology types (EPRI
Energy Audit, 2006). This baseline trend could be used to link with actual electricity costs, manpower

requirements, energy generation offsetting projections and many more studies, and further research is
encouraged against this baseline. It becomes more important that design engineers advice municipalities
of the impact of energy. Sector leaders could assist in the process to ensure energy costing as a prerequisite to any funding, in order to allow the designer and municipality to determine appropriate energy
efficient technology which is affordable and suitable to local conditions. The establishment of baseline
information in terms of WWTP energy consumption may further improve the planning, implementation and
monitoring systems for the operational staff.

Energy as a Running Cost in Municipalities

Internationally the Running Cost or Operation Cost of wastewater treatment plant mainly includes the
following components as a percentage of the monthly cost:
Table 4: Running cost breakdown of a typical plant in a 1 st world country application
Description
Percentage
Wastewater discharge fee (similar to the SA Waste Discharge Charge System Levy)
Electricity cost
Chemical cost
Staff cost
Maintenance and replacement cost
Sludge disposal and transport
Administration cost

18%
27%
6%
18%
10%
13%
9%

The South African scenario is quickly moving in the same direction where electricity becomes the main
line item on the municipal balance sheet.
Using 2008 actual tender pricing,(Moshidi et al. (2011) indicated that electricity made up 5% of lower end
technology types budget, and 10% if more sophisticated processes are employed. If these figures are
escalated to 2011, using an annual 10% escalation for all the components, except for electricity, where
the NECSA figures (27% [2008], 31% [2009], 35% [2010] and 35% for 2011) are used, the electricity
components increase to 11 and 20% respectively.
Table 5: Breakdown of cost elements of two technology scenario WWTPs
Low end technology plants

2011

Description

High end technology plants

Percentage

Cost
(R/k)

Percentage

Cost
(R/k)

Maintenance

28%

R 0.200

35%

R 0.639

Staffing

52%

R 0.366

31%

R 0.559

Electricity

11%

R 0.076

20%

R 0.364

Chemicals

9%

R 0.067

13%

R 0.240

Full O&M

100%

R 0.708

100%

R 1.801

Annual municipal budget per

cost centre

R 258,429.976

R 657,485.884

Further escalations (as reported) will place electricity on par with international trends, after a period of
abundant and cheap electricity in South Africa.
Figure 5: A comparative analysis of operational cost between SA- and international WWTPs (with
specific reference to electricity cost)

52

35
31

30

27

28

22
18
11
0

wastewater
electricity cost chemical cost
staff cost
discharge fee
(SA situation
thisInternational
would be a bencmark (%)
Waste
Discharge
SA trend when using lower technology (%) (BF, OP)
Charge System
levy, were
applicable)
SA trend when using higher technology (AS, BNR)

0
maintenance
and
replacement
cost

sludge disposal administration

and transport
cost

From the above the following observations can be made:

the impact of electricity cost is going to have a substantial effect on the actual cost of the service,
once again highlighting the need to ensure that the selection of technology take electricity costs
into account and need to be as cost effective as possible;
it is critical that operations at the works must be effective and optimised and maintained to
prevent works becoming unsustainable, which would include dedicated energy efficiency
optimisation.

Improved Application: Energy Efficiency

It may be economically viable and best practice for large WWTPs to invest in an energy conservation
study when the facilities consumption cost reach multi-million Rand projects on a multi-year basis, and
when the municipal policy prescribe to cleaner production and self- sufficiency principles. The savings to
reduce its energy account by 5% per annum is a considerable investment to the municipality and to the
municipal consumer base.
Smaller treatment plants may not experience the benefit of such a study and may opt for simple energy
savings opportunities to ameliorate the treatment process in the long term. Performance targets can be
set for various treatment areas, plant life expectancies, machinery and instruments. (Deacon et al. 1998).
Furthermore, a detailed economic analysis of applicable energy saving options may assist to identify
which options are best suited for effective implementation to a particular plant. Economic analysis models
such as the present capital value of the plant and the investment repayment time for investing in energy
saving initiatives can be determined.
Despite the economic advantages of reducing the electrical consumption and cost for a WWTP, other
objectives such as treatment quality must take precedence over just energy savings.
The following table summarizes a range of practical energy savings opportunities that would benefit any
size WWTP, from a demand side management perspective.
Table 6: Energy savings applications against various plant equipment aspects (no priority
assigned)

Energy Savings Opportunities for WWTPs

Area/Section

Electrical Network

Motor Efficiency

Gearbox Drives

Pumps

Pumpstations

Generators

Treatment Process

Energy Monitoring
System

Other Components

Suggestion/Opportunity
Introducing updated power factor corrections (PFC) control systems from the power supply
line (Substation) to the WWTP.
Test all power supply cables for possible power leakages at damaged wire insulation
including connection points.
Motor efficiency programmes can be implemented by developing an in situ monitoring and
diagnostic programme. A core replacement programme may also be beneficial to upgrade
old low efficient motors. Various literatures show that careful selection of high-efficiency
motors with high power factors can improve the economic benefit of replacing old standard
efficiency motors as much as 30%. Energy efficient motors are more expensive, but the
energy savings result to lower operating cost.
Motors may be oversized as much as 50%. Replace such motors with the correct size and
efficiency.
Implementation of a variable speed drive (VSD) programme for appropriate motor
technology for example mixers, lifting pumps and aeration.
Increase of pump impeller size or adjusting the size accordingly can ensure efficient
application.
Introduce solar water pumping systems to suitable applications that only require pumping
during daytime.
Oxygen demand requirements to oxidation ponds may be solved with floating solar aeration
systems.
The gearbox systems consist mostly of gears and bearings for mixers, aerators and smaller
applications. The energy transfer loss from the electric motor to the gear system may be
tremendous if the gearbox is oversized for the application and/or grease maintenance have
not been regularly conducted. Various publications state that aeration accounts for 50-70%
of a treatment plants power consumption.
Select pumps based on existing flows with the ability to increase impeller size to handle
larger flows. Use supplementary pumps to assist with peak flows.
Minimize the elevation change for a pump to lift liquids as far as possible.
Introduce storage capacity during peak flow durations to reduce on-peak hour pumping
capacity and additional emergency pumping.
Ensure that pumpflows are matched properly to avoid use of additional pumps.
Alternating pumps The one pump must be turned off before another pump is started.
Large WWTPs with installed stand-by generators must be used regularly during on-peak
hours which will reduce treatment energy consumption during such peak scheduled times
and ensuring that such equipment are efficient during emergency procedures. The cost of
fuel per kWh must be recognized to validate the viability.
Aeration process with mixers or by other means to supply oxygen must match the oxygen
required in the aeration tank. The installation of Dissolved Oxygen (DO) probes can be
installed to continuously monitor the supply and requirement levels. The aeration is
automated and controlled by the DO monitoring system. The disadvantage of course is the
continuous maintenance of the DO probes. The energy savings does outweigh the
maintenance and regular cleansing requirement of the probes. According to Elliot (2003)
the energy required to remove the first 30% of the Biological Oxygen Demand (BOD) is 5%.
Introduce power use monitoring systems to equipment that is part of the critical treatment
process.
Large instrumentation control systems are suggested to have alternative energy sources
such as diesel generation or renewable energy systems to measure and control the
treatment operations when main source electricity are not available for long time durations.
Introduce photovoltaic (PV) solar panel or/and micro wind power generation systems with
large energy storage for emergency lights and measuring equipment including computer
systems.
Implement solar power for generating hot water to the building of the treatment facility.
Introduction to low energy light fittings for internal and external application with latter
switching either through daylight switches or through remote sensing to reduce light
usage on a treatment facility.

Overall management
best practice

Optimize energy consumption and identify energy savings opportunities by means of an

energy audit. Such audits require plant operational data and monthly electrical accounts for
the plant. Drawings and data of electrical equipment will ease the process of such an
assessment. The price structure of the plants electrical account will benefit in
understanding the cost structure for the WWTP during assessment stages. Issues such as
electrical load management during peak demand periods must be clear and understood by
the plant operations staff.

Elliot (2003) point out that there are energy savings opportunities from demand
side management (DSM) programmes which includes reduction in energy costs
by shifting the power consumption from on-peak to off-peak hours. Such
options need careful consideration for large treatment plants. Small and seasonal
WWTPs may benefit from such an opportunity.

From an energy supply point of view, the US-based Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF)
can be quoted in their chemical analytical findings that sewage represents the potential of 9,3 times more
energy to be derived from wastewater than is currently used to treat it (WERF, 2009). This statement
accurately describes the relationship between supply and demand side opportunities.
In South Africa, energy generation opportunities have been limited to feasibility studies and pilot -scale
applications at best. Strong initiatives are starting to follow, for example the City of Johannesburg
Combined Heat and Power (CHP) application which commenced in 2011 (Deacon, 2011). Combined
Heat and Power (CHP) refers to the thermodynamics of cleaning and combustion of gas that will result in
60% of the energy source as heat and 40% as electrical power. CHP is done via prime movers such as
generators or reciprocating engines, following a recommended course of cell lysis and biogas scrubbing.
The value of the latter 2 processes is in its ability to disintegrate cell membranes with subsequent
increase in biogas yield and the removal of impurities from the biogas to extend the life value of the asset
and keep maintenance in balance. CHP is capable of producing 10.2 MW electrical energy and 256.8
MWh/d heat from 5 wastewater treatment plants treating 1 047 000 m3/day in Johannesburg.
The Water Research Commission has commissioned a study to capture good practice in energy
efficiency in South Africa as part of a global network with partners being UK and USA. A Compendium of
Best Practice will be published in 2012/13 to reflect some of the developments and applications in South
Africa.

CONCLUDING REMARKS AND COMPARISONS

It is evident that the cost to generate energy will continue to rise and will increase drastically when fossil
energy resources become a limiting factor on global scale.
The nexus between energy and water has become a pivotal instrument to supply and treat water and
wastewater within a sustainable environment.
It is a fact that some of the equipment on current WWTPs has reached its useful life and need to be
replaced very soon. Various opportunities present it through applying energy audits, ringfencing of cost
centers energy efficiency improvement, reinvesting in appropriate technologies, cleaner production and
high performance wastewater treatment in the municipal business through supply - and demand side
management.
A long-term aspiration that could be held in view is to see a self-sufficient WWTP on own soil in the
nearby dated future.
Europe is currently the global leader on energy efficient WWTP and there may be various reasons for
setting the benchmark which may be due to available land constraints and resources including strict
environmental regulations. Strass WWTP is the first treatment facility in Europe to reach a 108% energy

self sufficient plant, in terms of the process, carbonaceous and nitrogen conversions, mass flow and
mass balance of the plant and energy efficiency. The additional 8% electricity produced is returned to
Austrias national electrical grid for use.
Table 7: Percentage self-efficient wastewater treatment plant in the world (Cao Ye Shi 2011)
Sweden
(Average of
all WWTPs)

Czech
Republic
(Centre
WWTP,
Prague)

Singapore
(Jurong
WWTP)

UK (Average
of the
WWTPs)

Switzerland
(Werdhlzli
WWTP,
Zurich)

Austria
(Strass
WWTP)

9%

83,5%

40%

50%

100%

108%

Energy
Efficiency (%)

Unfortunately, the baseline information and practices are scarce and critical drivers are not focused on
the water energy nexus and the risk and opportunity it presents. The non-compliance of WWTPs is
underscored by the lack of technical and management skills to manage, maintain and operate plants to
their design specification and capability (Manus & vd Merwe-Botha 2010). The development of a
comprehensive Energy Efficient Resource Guideline for WWTPs in a South African environment is set in
the horizon which will assist municipal decision makers, designers and plant managers with the
integration of energy efficient systems into the design and operation of WWTPs.

Funding for Energy Efficiency Programmes

Energy efficient initiatives require high initial capital outlay. The benefit is only evident when considering
the life cycle cost benefit and environmental tradeoffs. Funding and financing agents that oversee
projects against the Regional Bulk Infrastructure Grant (RBIG), Municipal Infrastructure Grant (MIG),
Accelerated Community Infrastructure Programme (ACIP), and Development Bank South Africa (DBSA)
based funding may benefit from a more direct interest, incentives and practical means to lead energy
efficiency drives by local government. The United States of America currently have an energy efficient
programme to upgrades refurbish WWTP by means of loans with zero interest obligations. Tax write -off
incentives in the first year of the capital cost to reduce electricity demand encouraged municipalities to
adoption such initiatives on their treatment plants.
The Department of Energy (DoE) and ESKOM could introduce Energy Efficient Demand Side
Management (EEDSM) subsidies for wastewater (sewage and industrial) to implement such initiatives
which will further reduce the electricity demand in the long-term. Specific tariff schemes to wastewater
treatment facilities could be provided for from ESKOM once a treatment plant has reached a certain
percentage energy efficiency target. The details in terms of the financial implications of alternative tariff
price scenarios still need to be investigated.
Commitments between DWA, DoE, ESKOM, banks with green philosophies and other stakeholders could
ensure early initiation of energy efficient policies and escalated interest in planning and implementation.
European countries (e.g. the Netherlands) committed to reduce the total energy demand per annum for
the treatment of water and wastewater by 2% until 2030. Such a commitment is a joint effort by everyone
understanding the long-term outcome.
Save water saves energy: save energy saves water represent the simplicity and yet the value in the
energy water nexus for South Africa.

REFERENCES

i.

Bhagwan J, Moraka W, Van der Merwe-Botha M, 2011, The use of sustainability drivers to make appropriate
wastewater treatment technology choices within the current municipal- and legislative environment, Water
Quality Conference, Cape Town, June 2011

ii.

Burton S, Cohen B, Harrison S, Pather-Elias S, Stafford W, van Hille R and von Blottnitz H, 2009, Energy
from wastewater a feasibility study technical report, WRC Report no 1732/1/09

iii.

Deacon S, Biogas to Energy Presentation to the South African City Managers Forum, 2011.

iv.

Deacon S, Boyd R & Pitman, 1998 WISA Biennial Conference, Cape Town, The Control of Operational
Expenditure at Northern Wastewater Treatment Works Johannesburg (1998)

v.

Elliot T, 2003, Energy-Savings Opportunities for Wastewater Facilities, report, Wisconsin, USA (2003).

vi.

EPRI, Energy Audit Manual for Water/Wastewater Facilities (1994)

vii.

ESKOM 2009. Annual Report 2009 Market Overview. Accessed 4 January 2011. Available at
http://www.financialresults.co.za/eskom_ar2009/ar_2009/market_overview_02.htm

viii.

ESKOM 2010. Annual Report 2010 Market Overview. Accessed 4 January 2011. Available at
http://www.eskom.co.za/annreport10

ix.

Global Water Research Coalition Report no 10/CL/11/3, Energy efficiency in the water industry: A
compendium of best practices and case studies, 2009-2010

x.

(CoGTA) Cooperative Governance and Traditional Affairs, State of Local Government in South Africa,
Overview Report, November 2009

xi.

Manus L, vd Merwe Botha M, 2010 WISA Biennial Conference, Durban, Raising Wastewater Treatment
Performance Through Incentive- & Risk-Based Targeted Regulation (2010).

xii.

Moneyweb. 2011. Electricity price increases. Accessed 29 November 2011. Available at

http://www.moneyweb.co.za/mw/view/mw/en/page295023?oid=534394&sn=2009%20Detail

xiii.

Moshidi S, Quilling G, van der Merwe-Botha M, 2011, A publication to communicate a brief comment on
current situation relating to municipal tariffs as pertaining to wastewater services. Municipal Water Quality
Conference, Cape Town, June 2011

xiv.

Snyman H, v Niekerk A, Rajasakran N, 2008 WISA Biennial Conference, Sun City, Sustainable Wastewater
Treatment What has gone wrong and how do we get back on track? (2008)

xv.

Scheepers R, 74th IMESA Conference, East London, How can Green Drop Results Trickle Down to Good
Effect?(2010)

xvi.

Turton A, 2008. Three Strategic Water Quality Challenges that Decision-makers Need to Know About and
How the CSIR should respond, CSIR Conference, South Africa (2008)

xvii.

Water Wheel 2009, article, New Water Framework Counts Every Drop ,May/Jun edition (2009)

xviii.

WEF, Water Environment Federation, Energy Conservation in Wastewater Treatment Facilities Manual of
Practice, pp 1-142 (1997)

xix.

WERF, Energy Opportunities in Wastewater and Biosolids, report, April 2009.

xx.

Ye Shi C 2011, Mass Flow and Energy Efficiency of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants, p54, (2011)