UK Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting Systems For New-Build Domestic Dwellings - Bradford University

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University
6.0
Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting Systems for NewBuild Domestic Dwellings
6.1
Introduction
This chapter investigates the use of RWH systems installed in new-build houses. Direct systems were assumed in all instances since these were recommended by suppliers for domestic situations. Both the water saving reliability and financial performance results are presented although the focus of the analysis was primarily on the latter. The purpose of this investigation was to provide data on the long-term economic viability of new-build domestic RWH systems at the single building scale, to determine whether they present a worthwhile financial investment and, if so, under what circumstances.
It was necessary to acknowledge that all not stakeholders will have the same assessment criteria, especially with regards to the selected discount rate and discount period. Information presented in chapter four and appendix two demonstrated that a range of possible values exist dependant on the stakeholder, and that selection of the most appropriate values will be influenced by the context of the investigation. Table 6.1 summarises the discount rates and periods that were considered appropriate for use in domestic simulations and shows how the different values could be assigned to different stakeholder groups.
251
Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com
Table 6.1
Range of discount rates and periods used in the domestic RWH system simulations
Stakeholder group1 Discount rate Discount period Homeowner 15% 10 Water utility 10% 25 Private sector company 5% 5 LA / Government 3.5% (declining) 50 1 People or institutions to which the selected discount rates and periods could be applicable
For each system investigated a total of three harvested water uses were considered. One of the most common applications for harvested rainwater is WC flushing and generally this is the most readily accepted (WPCF, 1989; WROCS, 2000; Hills et al, 2003; Lazarova, 2003). Therefore all simulations included WC flushing. Vleuten-Balkema (2003) reported that garden irrigation was viewed as an acceptable application by the majority of people and so this was included in the simulations with two water uses. Laundry cleaning (washing machines) was found to be the next highest acceptable use and so this was included in the simulations that had a total of three non-potable applications. The water use scenarios considered therefore consisted of WC flushing only, WC flushing plus garden irrigation, and WC flushing plus garden irrigation plus washing machine.
According to Fido et al (2005) the average household occupancy in the UK was 2.30 persons in 2005. A decision was taken to model occupancies in the range of 1-5 people as this was considered to be sufficient to cover a practical range.
For each simulation sixteen tank sizes in the range of 1.2-15.0m3 were assessed since this was the number of domestic systems for which capital cost
252
information was available (see appendix two, table A2.10 for a full list of the tank sizes investigated). Installation costs for each system were assumed to be 1,000 (see chapter four, section 4.7.3).
All other components and costs, including maintenance activities, were assumed to be the same for each RWH system. These are summarised below in tables 6.2 and 6.3. Note that all prices are for the 2007 period.
Table 6.2
Component Rainfall
Universal component values used in domestic simulations

Value(s) Daily rainfall data for Emley Moor weather station Runoff coefficient: 0.90 Comments Adapted for UKCIP (2002b) medium-high emissions climate change scenario See table 3.2. High value used because initial losses also taken into account See table 3.3 and also Fewkes (1999a) Use of first flush devices is limited in the UK Commonly applied value. See table 3.5 During commissioning and testing the tank is filled to capacity Assumes direct RWH systems used, see chapter 2, section 2.4.2 See table 3.6 Water quality assumed to be good enough for non-potable domestic uses providing that coarse filtration is provided
Catchment surface
Initial losses: 0.25mm First flush device Coarse filter Storage tank No first flush device Coarse filter coefficient: 0.90 Initial degree of filling: 100%
Pump UV unit
Top-up location: tank Power rating: 0.8kW Pumping capacity: 80 l/min No UV unit
Continued on next page
253
Table 6.2 continued

Component Water demand Value(s) WC usage: 6/3 litre dual flush, 1 full flush to 2 partial flushes, 4 flushes per person per day MonFri, 6 flushes per person per day Sat-Sun Comments See chapter 3, section 3.17.1 and tables 3.11 and 3.12. WC usage per person per year = 6.7m3
Washing machine usage: 0.2 See chapter 3, section 3.17.2 and uses per person per day, 50 litres tables 3.13 and 3.14. WM usage per use (cycle) per person per year = 3.7m3 Garden irrigation: all gardens assumed to be 60m2 in area. Three irrigation sessions per week assumed during spring/summer seasons Supply charges: 1.09/m3 for 2007-08 period, increasing yearly Supply standing charges: 25.84 for 2007-08 period, increasing yearly Sewerage charges: 1.17/m3 for 2007-08 period, increasing yearly Sewerage standing charges, used historic mean of 37.54 for all years Unit charge: 8.7p/kWhr for 2007, increasing yearly See chapter 3, section 3.17.3. Typical annual garden irrigation requirement 20m3
Water and sewerage charges
Annual increase estimated using regression analysis of historic Yorkshire Water price data, see chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two
See chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two
Electricity charges
Annual increase estimated using regression analysis of average historic data, see chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two
254
Table 6.3
Universal maintenance activities and associated costs used in domestic simulations
Maintenance Item Scheduled maintenance
Value (inc. VAT) Annual cleaning of roof and gutters recommended but considered unlikely that most home owners will actually do this, hence no cleaning was assumed Cleaning of coarse filter assumed carried out by system owner at zero cost. Pump: replace every ten years, 350 + 75 installation fee = 425 Storage tank: assumed will remain functional for selected analysis time horizons Coarse filter: replace every 15 years, 300 + 50 installation fee = 350 Electronic controls, replace every 15 years, 140 + 50 installation fee = 190 Plastic pipes (internal), replace every 35 years, total cost (parts + labour) = 250 Replace mains top-up solenoid valve every 7.5 years, 60 + 50 installation fee = 110 Replace mains top-up level switch in storage tank every 12.5 years, 20 + 50 installation fee = 70
Comments See chapter 4, section 4.7.4 and table 4.9
Component replacement
For all items in this section: see chapter 4, section 4.7.4 and appendix two. Note that complete component replacement was assumed, not repair, as cannot be sure repair will be possible (e.g. specific components may not be manufactured in the future)
The approach taken allowed for the assessment of a number of system configurations under various conditions. Four discount rates, four discount periods, three combinations of water uses and five occupancy rates gave a total
255
of 240 simulation input conditions. For each simulation condition sixteen tank sizes were evaluated, meaning that in total 3,840 different scenarios were assessed.
In all cases the YAS tank operating algorithm was used in preference to the YBS alternative for modelling hydrological performance (see chapter three).
6.2
Sensitivity analysis of the financial model
The first step was to perform a sensitivity analysis of the financial model in order to determine the level of variation in predicted RWH system performance to changes in key hydrological and financial parameters. Sensitivity to changes in eight parameters was investigated. These were the daily rainfall depth, capital cost, maintenance costs, mains water supply and sewerage charges, roof area, discount rate, discount period and the storage operating parameter .
Some parameters were not tested explicitly. These were the initial losses, runoff coefficient and coarse filter coefficient. This was deemed unnecessary since sensitivity to changes in rainfall depth was tested and the aforementioned parameters depend to a large degree on the rainfall depth. Hence the sensitivity of these were tested by proxy.
The effect of altering the water demand was considered important but this was not included in the sensitivity analysis. Domestic water demand is a function of household occupancy rate (Butler, 1991; Butler & Memon, 2006) and the
256
implications of altering occupancy rates are considered in more detail later in section 6.7.
Percentage changes to RWH system savings (the difference between mainsonly WLCs and RWH WLCs) were selected as the method for assessing sensitivity as this was deemed to be the key parameter in assessing the financial viability of a potential system. Reporting changes in RWH WLCs would not have been logical since by themselves these results are do not provide information on RWH system cost effectiveness. They require comparison with the WLC of the equivalent mains-only system before any significance can be attached to them.
It could not be assumed that the sensitivity of RWH system savings to changes in key parameters would be the same for all discount rates and discount periods. Therefore analyses were conducted for each of the four stakeholder perspectives shown in table 6.1, with a total of 16 tank sizes assessed in each case (1.2-15.0m3). In all instances three water uses were assumed: WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine. Changes to parameter values in the range of 100% were investigated where possible. Exceptions were changes to the storage operating parameter , which was varied between 0-1 in 0.1 increments, and changes to the discount period which for obvious reasons could not be reduced by as much as 100%. The savings associated with each tank size for each of the four stakeholder perspectives are given in appendix three. These are the base-case results, i.e. the RWH system savings in each case before any of the selected parameter values were altered, and can be
257
used to place the reported percentage changes in RWH system savings into context.
All the results from the sensitivity analysis investigations are shown graphically in appendix three. Visual examination of these charts indicated that for each analysis the results associated with each tank size were, in general, reasonably closely grouped. This was particularly the case for changes to most of the parameters in the range of 50% and for the homeowner, water utility and private sector perspectives.
Table 6.4 shows the average differences between the results for the sixteen tank sizes. It can be seen that in most cases the average variation within each stakeholder group was no more than a few percentage points. This suggested that average curves could be used to represent the variations in RWH system savings and these are shown in figures 6.1-6.8. In each case the average results from all four stakeholder perspectives were plotted on the same chart to make direct comparison easier. Note that for the graph titled Average sensitivity results for change in mains water charges the percentage changes refer to both the supply and sewerage unit costs of water (/m3) but not the associated supply and sewerage standing charges. These were not altered.
258
Table 6.4
Average difference in sensitivity analysis results between different tank sizes (constant r and n1)
Key parameters and corresponding average % change in RWH system savings Daily MaintMains rainfall Capital enance water Roof Discount Discount depth cost cost charges area rate period value 1.5 1.0 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 0.4 2.3 2.4 4.2 3.0 2.2 4.0 0.9 0.6 1.3 2.0 0.0 2.0 1.3 0.2 1.1 0.3 4.6 6.2 11.3 5.2 4.4 3.9 5.9 1.0
Stakeholder group Homeowner Water utility Private sector LA/Gov

1
Where r = discount rate (%) and n = discount period (years)
Figure 6.1
Average sensitivity results for changes in daily rainfall depth

20% 10%
Stakeholder
H
Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.
Average % change in savings ()
0% -100%
H W P
-50% -10% -20% -30%
0%
50%
100%
P
-40% -50% -60% % change in daily rainfall depth
259
Figure 6.2
Average sensitivity results for changes in capital costs

150%
Stakeholder
H
100%
W
50%
P
0% -100% -50% -50%

L W
0%
50%
100%
-100%
P H
-150% % change in capital costs
Figure 6.3
Average sensitivity results for changes in maintenance costs

60%
Stakeholder
H
40%
W
20%
P
0% -100% -50% -20% 0% 50%
H W
100%
-40%
-60% % change in maintenance costs
260
Figure 6.4
Average sensitivity results for change in mains water charges

60%
Stakeholder
H
40%
W L
20%
W H P P
0% -100% -50% -20% 0% 50% 100%
-40%
-60% % change in mains water charges
Figure 6.5
Average sensitivity results for changes in roof area

20% 10%
Stakeholder
H
0% -100%
P H W
-50% -10% -20%

L
0%
50%
100%
P
-30% -40% -50% -60% % change in roof area
261
Figure 6.6
Average sensitivity results for changes in discount rate

20% 10%
Stakeholder
H
P H
0%
W
-100%
-50% -10%
L
0%
50%
100%
P
-20% -30% -40% -50% -60% % change in fixed discount rate
Figure 6.7
Average sensitivity results for changes in discount period

16%
Stakeholder
H
12%
W
8%
P
4%
H W
0% 0% 50% 100%
-50%
P
-4%
-8% % change in fixed discount period
262
Figure 6.8
Average sensitivity results for changes in storage operating parameter (YAS/YBS algorithm)
0.5%
Stakeholder
H
0.4%
W
0.3%
0.2%
L
0.1%
W H P
= 0, YAS = 1, YBS
0.0% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 value 0.8 1.0
Identification of general trends in sensitivity analysis results Linear relationships were apparent for variations in mains supply and sewerage changes as well as capital and maintenance costs. For mains supply and sewerage charges the resulting graph displayed a positive gradient, indicating that as charges increased the cost effectiveness of the RWH system also increased, although relatively slowly in most cases. Changes in daily rainfall depth and roof area produced a non-linear relationship which represented an exponential decay type relationship (increasing form).
Changes in the discount rate also showed a non-linear exponential decay pattern for the homeowner, water utility and LA/Government perspectives. Conversely, for the private sector perspective the relationship was linear and
263
with a negative gradient. Results for the discount period gave a less than straightforward relationship with regards to corresponding changes in system savings, with various peaks and troughs evident on the graph. These can be explained by the phasing in and out of additional maintenance requirements as the analysis time horizon was adjusted.
Concerning changes to the storage operating parameter , which determined the extent tank that behaviour was represented by the YAS and YBS algorithms, the shape of the sensitivity analysis results was the same in all cases. From figure 6.8 it can be seen that there was an exponential decay type relationship between RWH system savings and the value of , with the rate of change decreasing as approached 1.
Examination of sensitivity analysis results Table 6.5 shows the gradients associated with each of the key parameters from the different stakeholder perspectives, except for which is discussed in the following subsection. Note that for the non-linear curves these results represent the average gradients. The steeper the gradient the more sensitive RWH systems savings were to change in the associated parameter. The maximum gradients (most sensitive) have been highlighted in red.
264
Table 6.5
Sensitivity analysis results: associated gradients
Stakeholder perspective and corresponding gradients, m Parameter Homeowner Water utility Private sector LA/Gov Rainfall depth 0.06 0.12 0.05 0.28 Capital cost -1.08 -1.07 -1.10 -0.91 Maint. costs -0.05 -0.15 0.00 -0.49 Mains charges1 0.12 0.22 0.10 0.50 Roof area 0.06 0.11 0.05 0.27 Discount rate 0.00 0.02 -0.01 0.28 Discount period -0.02 -0.02 0.01 0.01 1 Mains supply and sewerage unit charges, not standing charges
From figures 6.1-6.8 and table 6.5 it can be seen that the homeowner (r=15%, n=10 years) and private company (r=5%, n=5 years) perspectives were, with the exception of the capital costs, the least sensitive to changes. For the homeowner scenarios, excluding capital costs, the greatest percentage change in RWH system savings was associated with variations in mains water supply and sewerage unit charges (i.e. changes in /m3 costs). However, the associated changes were not particularly large. Even a change in supply and sewerage unit charges of 100% only resulted in a corresponding change in RWH system savings of 12.4% (m = -0.124).
The private company results were similar to those of the homeowner. Again, with the exception of capital costs, the RWH system savings were most sensitive to changes in mains supply and sewerage charges. Changes tended to be small, for example a 100% variation in supply/sewerage charges resulted in a corresponding change in system savings of 10% (m = -0.10).
The water utility scenario (r=10%, n=10 years) proved somewhat more sensitive than did the homeowner and private company situations. Capital costs aside,
265
the greatest sensitivity was associated with changes to mains supply and sewerage charges. A variation in charges of 100% resulted in a change in RWH system savings of 21.7% (m = -0.217).
Results for the LA/Government analysis were noticeably different than for the other three stakeholder scenarios. Savings sensitivity was significantly greater to changes in the selected parameters than was the case with the homeowner, water utility and private sector variants. Other than capital costs, the greatest sensitivity was once again associated with changes in mains supply and sewerage charges. A variation of 100% resulted in a change in RWH savings of 50% (m = 0.50). Changes in maintenance costs were also noted to have an appreciable impact, only marginally less than that of the supply and sewerage charges (m = -0.490). Gradients for rainfall depth, roof area and discount rates were 0.28, 0.27 and 0.28 respectively, showing that RWH savings were moderately sensitive to changes in these parameters.
The propensity towards greater sensitivity displayed by the LA/Government perspective can be explained by the combination of low discount rate (r=3.5%) and long discount period (n=50 years). The low discount rate means that costs incurred in the future have a greater present value than for the other stakeholder scenarios, and thus a relatively greater contribution to the WLCs. Making changes to the model that impact on recurring costs (e.g. increasing maintenance and mains supply/sewerage charges) therefore has a greater impact on the WLCs, and thus RWH system savings, than for scenarios with shorter discount periods.
266
Sensitivity to changes in capital costs were the most significant. It can be seen from figure 6.2 that the slope of the graph is negative and approximately equal to -1. This shows that for these three stakeholder groups the savings were directly correlated with the capital costs on an almost 1:1 basis. If the capital costs increase/decrease by a given percentage then there is an almost identical corresponding decrease/increase in the RWH system savings. The relationship was also strong for the LA/Government scenarios but the level of correlation was closer to 0.9, i.e. increasing the capital costs by 100% resulted in a decrease in systems of about 90%, and visa versa.
It can be concluded that for investigations which consider short to medium discount periods, the predicted RWH system savings depend overwhelmingly on the capital costs. For longer discount periods other factors become more influential, particularly mains supply and sewerage charges as well as maintenance costs. However, the capital costs still remain an important cost element in the determination of the relative financial performance of the RWH system. It is therefore advised that accurate capital cost data be obtained whenever possible.
Obtaining accurate cost information for component purchase and delivery is relatively straight forward since any number of suppliers exist that can provide quotes. Installation expenses, the other aspect of capital costs, are harder to predict with a high degree of accuracy. A value of 1,000 for each new-build domestic system was used for the domestic simulations, for the reasons given in chapter four. It is acknowledged that a more detailed data set would have
267
been preferable. This does not exist at the current time due to the limited uptake of RWH systems in the UK, plus a lack of available data pertaining to most of the existing systems. If the use of RWH becomes more widespread then it is anticipated this situation will change and more accurate, site-specific predictions of installation cost will become possible.
Justification for using the YAS algorithm With regards to the decision to base the thesis model on the YAS tank operating algorithm (=0), from a hydrological standpoint this was justified previously in chapter three. From a financial viewpoint it can be seen from figure 6.8 that, for domestic systems, the choice of either the YAS or YBS algorithm would have been appropriate. There was little difference in the predicted results when using either approach. For the averaged results, the percentage difference in RWH system savings between the YAS and YBS algorithms for the homeowner, water utility, private sector company and LA/Government perspectives were 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.1% and 0.4% respectively. These results were small and essentially inconsequential. Examination of the original data before averaging occurred showed that the greatest difference occurred in the LA/Government scenarios. However, even in this instance 14 out of the 16 tank sizes showed differences of less than 0.5% in RWH savings between the YAS and YBS algorithms. For the two remaining tanks the differences were 1.3% for the 1.5m3 tank and 1.7% for the 1.2m3 tank, both of which were still acceptably small. It was also evident from the original data that for all the stakeholder scenarios the differences between YAS/YBS algorithms decreased with
268
increasing tank size. For capacities greater than or equal to 2.4m 3 the variation in savings was always less than 0.5%
6.3
Hydrological performance results
Figures 6.9, 6.10 and 6.11 show the predicted hydrological results for a range of occupancies and combinations of water uses. Each simulation was run for 25 years as this was considered long enough to account for inter-year variations in rainfall patterns. For each occupancy rate the tank sizes required to meet 50%, 90% and 100% of the selected non-potable uses have been marked on the graphs. Note that the x-axis is logarithmic because large tank sizes were required to meet 100% of the demand (in some cases very large capacities were needed). Plotting the data on a linear scale would have resulted in a significant loss of clarity with respect to the results for the smaller tank sizes.
The legend on the right of the graphs requires an explanation. Each line of text corresponds to the data series that it is directly next to. The first number before the brackets is the maximum percentage of demand that could be met for the selected water uses. The figure in the brackets is the maximum percentage of total household demand that could be met by the RWH system. This was calculated based on the assumption that the average per capita internal use was 120 litres/person/day. Note that external water use, when included in the analysis, was not occupancy dependant. Finally, the text after the brackets shows how many household occupants there were for each simulation. So for example in figure 6.9 the entry 100(15)% occ. 5 shows that 100% of WC
269
flushing demand could be met and that this represented 15% of the total water demand for a house with five people.
Figure 6.9
35
Predicted hydrological performance for WC flushing only1
100(15)% occ. 5 100(15)% occ. 4 100(15)% occ. 3 100(15)% occ. 2 100(15)% occ. 1
Harvested water (m /yr)
30 25 20 15 10 5 0 0.01
0.10
1.00 Tank size (m )

3
10.00
Occupancy 5 Occupancy 1
1
Occupancy 4 50% demand
For this analysis it was assumed no garden irrigation with mains water occurred. If it had then the predicted 15% of total household demand met would have been reduced
270
Figure 6.10 Predicted hydrological performance for WC flushing and garden irrigation
60
100(22)% occ. 5
50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01
100(24)% occ. 4 100(27)% occ. 3 100(31)% occ. 2 100(42)% occ. 1
0.10
1.00
10.00
100.00
1000.00
Tank size (m3) Occupancy 5 Occupancy 1 Occupancy 4 50% demand Occupancy 3 90% demand Occupancy 2 100% demand
Figure 6.11 Predicted hydrological performance for WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine
80
70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.10 1.00 10.00

3
100(30)% occ. 5 100(31)% occ. 4 100(34)% occ. 3 100(38)% occ. 2 100(48)% occ. 1
100.00
1000.00
Tank size (m ) Occupancy 5 Occupancy 1 Occupancy 4 50% demand Occupancy 3 90% demand Occupancy 2 100% demand
271
The hydrological results show that for each modelled scenario it was theoretically possible to meet 100% of the non-potable demand. However, the graphs demonstrate that in many cases the tank sizes required to achieve this would need to be unfeasibly large. Increases in tank size initially resulted in the rapid growth of system efficiency (volumetric reliability) but a point was reached where further increases in storage capacity resulted in only marginal improvements in performance. For instance, to meet 50% of WC flushing demand in a five person household (figure 6.9) a tank size of only 0.26m3 would be needed. To meet 90% of the demand would require a tank size of 2.15m 3 and to meet 100% of demand would necessitate a 10m3 tank, about 38 times that required to meet 50%. Similar diminishing returns have been reported by other researchers, e.g. Appan (1993); Chu et al (1997); Appan (1999); Dixon et al (1999); Herrmann & Schimda (1999); Coombes & Kuczera (2003b); Liaw & Tsai (2004); Phillips et al (2004); Villarreal & Dixon (2005) and Ghisi et al (2007).
The graphs also demonstrate that small tank sizes are sufficient to meet a reasonable proportion of the demand. For the WC flushing only scenarios, a tank size of 0.260m3 was able to provide over 50% of the volume required for all occupancy levels. For the WC flushing and garden irrigation scenarios a tank size of 0.750m3 supplied at least 50% for all occupancies. For WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine a tank size of 1.0m3 met 50% of the demand for all occupancies except for five, which needed a capacity of 1.6m3. Conversely, much larger tank sizes were required to bring the level of demand met into the 90-100% range. In many cases the capacities required were orders
272
of magnitude greater than those required to supply 50%. For meeting 90%, the WC flushing scenario was the only one which predicted reasonable tank sizes, requiring up to 2.15m3 for an occupancy of five. For the other water use scenarios the required capacities were tens or hundreds of cubic metres. Given that greater tank sizes have, on average, greater capital costs it is questionable whether attempting to meet most or all of the non-potable demand would be financially viable in these instances. A more rational approach would be to utilise lower capacity tanks to provide smaller but still useful volumes of water.
The percentage of total household demand that could be met ranged between 15% for WC flushing only (which also assumed no garden irrigation with mains water), 22-42% for WC flushing plus garden irrigation and 30-48% for WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine. The percentage of total household demand met showed correlation with the occupancy rate, with higher percentages associated with lower occupancies. The exception was the WC flushing only scenarios in which 100% of WC demand and 15% of total household demand was supplied for all occupancies, given large enough tank sizes.
Previously in chapter two it was stated that for a typical house there is the potential to replace about 55% of mains supply with harvested rainwater. The results presented here indicate that this may be true in only a minority of cases, specifically those with low occupancies and high harvested water uses. In these situations large tanks would be required in order to supply enough water to meet >40% of the total demand, potentially increasing the capital costs
273
significantly. It will be shown later in this chapter that tank sizes in excess of about 1.5m3 are the least economic compared to simply relying on mains water. If the use of tank sizes greater than this was to be avoided, this would then revise downward the percentage of total household demand that could realistically be met by harvested water for new-build houses. Under the modelling assumption employed, it can be seen from figures 6.9-6.11 that: For WC flushing only: 1.5m3 tank could supply between 85-100% of WC flushing demand, or 13-15% of total household demand. For WC flushing and garden irrigation: 1.5m3 tank could supply 58-64% of non-potable demand, or 13-24% of total household demand. For WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine: 1.5m 3 tank could supply 49-64% of non-potable demand, or 18-28% of total household demand.
The above indicates that harvesting rainwater will not realistically result in a net reduction in mains water usage approaching 55% and, in cases where this may be theoretically possible, the requirement to install realistic (i.e. affordable) tank sizes would mean that the actual water savings are likely to be significantly lower.
6.4
Financial performance results
This section reports the main financial results from the 3,840 domestic simulations and draws a number of conclusions regarding the key factors influencing system WLCs as well as the most cost effective tank sizes. Figure 6.12 is a composite plot of all the results obtained from the financial modelling
274
exercise and shows the general pattern of RWH system WLCs versus mainsonly WLCs.
Figure 6.12 WLC comparison between domestic RWH systems and equivalent mains-only systems
6000
5000 WLC RWH = WLC Mains
Mains-only WLC ()
4000
3000 WLC RWH < WLC Mains 2000 WLC RWH > WLC Mains
1000
0 0 2000 4000 6000 RWH WLC () 8000 10000 12000
Figures 6.13 and 6.14 show more detailed results for tank sizes 1.2m3 and 1.5m3. Results for the other fourteen tank sizes that were assessed are given in appendix three. The format of the graphs requires clarification. On the y-axis the WLC at NPV of each RWH system and equivalent mains-only system has been plotted against the simulation number (x-axis). Also on the y-axis is the RWH system savings at NPV. This is the amount of money that can be expected to be saved due to the installation of a given rainwater system. The financial performance of water reuse systems, particular the ability to save money compared to reliance on mains-only water, has been found to be an important factor in peoples willingness to adopt such technology (Marks et al, 2002; Hill et
275
al, 2003; BMRB, 2006). Therefore the use of RWH system savings as a key performance indicator is justified in this instance.
The results have been plotted in a hierarchical manner in order to facilitate comparisons between different scenarios. The top level corresponds to different combinations of non-potable water uses, where: Uses = 1 represents WC flushing only. Uses = 2 represents WC flushing and garden irrigation. Uses = 3 represents WC flushing, garden irrigation & washing machine.
The next level corresponds to the different discount rates (r) that were utilised, with each water use category containing results for discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15%. Within each discount rate there are four discount periods (n) of 5, 10, 25 and 50 years. Finally, within each discount period there are five occupancy rates (occ) of 1-5 inclusive.
A summary of the WLC and savings results for each tank size are given in table 6.6. Examination of figures 6.13 and 6.14, as well as those for the other tank sizes presented in appendix three, revealed a number of trends with regards to the WLCs and RWH system savings. Table 6.7 summarises these trends with respect to variations in water uses, discount rates, discount periods and occupancy levels. It should be noted that in all cases the WLC of the RWH system was greater than that of the equivalent mains-only system, hence for all scenarios the RWH systems resulted in a net financial loss.
276
Figure 6.13
WLC results for domestic 1.2m3 tank
n=5,10,25,50
10,000 8,000 6,000
Uses = 1
r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 2
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 3
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
occ=1,2,3,4,5
Value at NPV ()
4,000 2,000 0 -2,000 -4,000

Capital cost = 2,660
-6,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Simulation number RWH WLC Mains WLC RWH savings CapCost
277
Figure 6.14
WLC results for domestic 1.5m3 tank
n=5,10,25,50
10,000 8,000 6,000
Uses = 1
r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 2
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 3
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
occ=1,2,3,4,5
Value at NPV ()
4,000 2,000 0 -2,000 -4,000

Capital cost = 2,667
-6,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 Simulation number RWH WLC Mains WLC RWH savings CapCost
Best savings performance from all 3,840 simulations, savings = -2,256
278
Table 6.6
Summary of WLC and savings results for domestic RWH system simulations
Tank size (m3) 1.2 1.5 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.7 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 9.0 9.4 11.0 13.0 15.0
RWH WLC summary Mains-only WLC summary RWH system savings summary Average Max. Min. Standard Average Max. Min. Standard Average Max. Min. Standard WLC WLC WLC deviation WLC WLC WLC deviation savings savings savings deviation () () () () () () () () () () () () 3,743 8,207 2,698 1,076 1,089 5,463 96 921 -2,654 -2,271 -4,493 341 3,727 8,107 2,705 1,060 1,089 5,463 96 921 -2,638 -2,256 -4,511 342 4,550 8,797 3,454 1,036 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,461 -2,932 -5,406 347 4,609 8,811 3,640 1,026 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,520 -3,059 -5,501 351 4,814 8,998 3,697 1,022 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,725 -3,176 -5,735 353 4,707 8,877 3,756 1,017 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,618 -3,120 -5,653 355 5,089 9,256 3,865 1,013 1,089 5,463 96 921 -4,000 -3,344 -6,072 359 4,298 8,460 3,355 1,010 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,209 -2,686 -5,288 364 4,922 9,103 3,990 1,006 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,833 -3,304 -5,965 364 5,363 9,558 4,083 1,007 1,089 5,463 96 921 -4,274 -3,562 -6,432 367 4,515 8,715 3,592 1,003 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,425 -2,887 -5,598 374 4,836 9,100 3,931 1,000 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,747 -3,181 -6,010 379 5,752 10,034 4,527 1,002 1,089 5,463 96 921 -4,663 -4,006 -6,948 380 5,062 9,388 4,164 1,002 1,089 5,463 96 921 -3,973 -3,376 -6,316 395 5,816 10,220 4,929 1,007 1,089 5,463 96 921 -4,727 -4,111 -7,154 398 6,580 11,054 5,695 1,014 1,089 5,463 96 921 -5,490 -4,857 -7,992 410
279
Table 6.7
Summary of trends in WLCs and RWH system savings

For a given RWH system, effect of increasing parameter value on: RWH Mains RWH WLC WLC savings Increase Increase Increase Decrease Decrease Varies Increase Increase Decrease Varies Increase Increase
Parameter Water uses Discount rate Discount period Occupancy
Increasing water uses: comments Greater water use led to higher WLCs for both RWH and mains systems which can be explained by the need for more mains top-up and increased pump usage in the latter case, and a greater demand for mains water in the former. RWH system savings increased with higher water usage but in general any improvement was marginal, although it was more pronounced with low discount rates and long discount periods.
Increasing discount rate: comments Higher discount rates reduced the present value of future expenditures which explains why the WLCs of both the RWH and mains-only systems decreased as the discount rate increased. The effect on RWH system savings varied. At lower discount periods (principally 5 years) increasing the discount rate led to a marginal reduction in the RWH system savings. However at higher discount periods (principally 25 and 50 years) increasing the discount rate led to improved RWH system savings performance. This was due to the cost of maintenance becoming a larger factor for systems in operation for about ten years or longer. Increasing the discount rate for these systems reduced the present value of maintenance, thus reducing RWH WLC and improving RWH system savings. This is an interesting result because the use of lower discount
280
rates is often advocated where consideration of wider social and sustainability issues are required, e.g. see Larkin et al (2000) for a more detailed discussion. However, in this case the use of lower discount rates can, for a scenario using long discount periods, result in lower RWH system savings. As a result the installation of a RWH system may appear less financially attractive than if higher discount rates had been used.
Increasing discount period: comments Longer discount periods led to an increase in the WLC of both the RWH systems and equivalent mains-only systems. This was to be expected since longer periods resulted in a requirement for increased maintenance and mains top-up for the RWH systems, and increased mains water usage for the mainsonly systems. Longer discount periods were found to result in decreased RWH system savings. This was likely due to maintenance requirements which become more onerous the longer a system is operated, particularly with regards to component replacement which begins to become increasingly necessary after about ten years. Some authors have called for the use of long discount periods on the grounds of intergenerational equity, principally with regards to environmental sustainability (e.g. see Larkin et al, 2000). However, in this instance the use of longer discount periods would result in greater financial losses from the RWH system, making them less attractive as a sustainable technology.
281
Increasing occupancy: comments With regards to the RWH systems, increasing the occupancy rate either had no effect on the WLC or caused it to increase. The instances of zero increase can be explained by reference to the percentage of water demand that was met. For tank sizes that had the same water uses, discount rate and discount period but varying occupancy rates, those that had the same WLCs were also those that met 100% of the non-potable demand. The costs were the same because each of these systems required no mains top up, pumped the same volume of water and was subject to the same level of maintenance. For those tank sizes that exhibited increasing WLCs with increasing occupancy, the percentage of demand met was less than 100%, requiring mains top-up which incurred some additional cost. For the mains-only system, increased occupancy resulted in increased WLCs. This was to be expected since more people use collectively greater volumes of water, resulting in higher bills.
With regards to RWH system savings, increasing occupancy resulted in improved RWH system savings in all cases. The rate of improvement was more pronounced over longer discount periods and lower discount rates.
Most cost-effective domestic RWH system Figure 6.15 shows a composite plot of the RWH system savings results for all of the simulations that were run. Graphs showing the results sorted according to the selected water uses are given in appendix three. The performance of any individual tank is easier to determine from these graphs.
282
Figure 6.15
Predicted savings at NPV () for simulated domestic RWH systems
n=5,10,25,50
-1,000
Uses = 1
r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 2
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 3
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
Tank Sizes
-2,000
-3,000
-4,000
-5,000
-6,000
-7,000
-8,000 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Simulation number 180 200 220 240
1.2cu.m 1.5cu.m 2.4cu.m 3.0cu.m 3.5cu.m 4.0cu.m 4.7cu.m 5.0cu.m 6.0cu.m 6.5cu.m 7.0cu.m 9.0cu.m 9.4cu.m 11.0cu.m 13.0cu.m 15.0cu.m
Savings @ NPV ()
283
It can be seen from figure 6.15 and those in appendix three that tank size is broadly correlated with system savings, with larger tank sizes showing reduced savings (technically, greater losses). More precisely, RWH system savings are correlated with capital costs. This is shown graphically in figures 6.16 and 6.17.
Figure 6.16
6,000 5,000
Relationship between tank size and capital cost
Capital cost ()
4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 14.0 16.0 Tank Size (cu.m) Tank size (m3 ) y = 163.76x + 2874.2 R2 = 0.7491
Tank size (cu.m)
Linear (Tank size (cu.m))
Figure 6.17 Relationship between capital cost and average, maximum and minimum RWH system savings
-2,000
Average RWH savings ()
-3,000 -4,000 -5,000 -6,000 -7,000

Error bars show maximum and minimum RWH system savings
y = -0.9485x - 91.367 R = 0.9989

2
-8,000 2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
Tanks assessed
Linear (Tanks assessed)
Capital cost () () Capital cost
284
Figure 6.16 shows a reasonable correlation between tank size and capital cost. This is not linear because different suppliers charge different amounts and in some cases larger tanks were available at less cost, in terms of purchase and delivery, than some smaller tanks. Figure 6.17 shows that capital costs are strongly correlated to the average, maximum and minimum RWH system savings and explains why, in figure 6.15, smaller tanks in general show better financial performance than larger tanks. Analysis of the level of capital cost recovery revealed that the average value was in the range of only 0.2-3.8% for the sixteen tank sizes assessed, i.e. the ultimate financial losses were approximately equal to the capital cost expenditure.
From figure 6.15 it can be seen that a tank size of 1.5m 3 offered the best financial performance in the majority of cases (in that it showed the smallest financial loss). Out of 240 simulations it was ranked first a total of 193 times and was placed second for the remaining simulation runs. A tank size of 1.2m 3 proved to be the next best choice and this was ranked first a total of 47 times and second on all other occasions. (Note that on the graph the data points for the 1.2m3 tank are somewhat obscured by those of the 1.5m3 tank because the results were generally very similar). No other tank sizes ranked in the top two positions. The similar financial performances of the 1.5m3 and 1.2m3 tanks was not especially surprising given that the capital costs were almost the same (2,667 and 2,660 respectively). The larger capacity of the 1.5m 3 tank explains why it outranked the smaller one in most cases as it was able to meet a greater portion of the demand on more occasions. Further information on the performance of these two tanks is given in tables 6.8 and 6.9.
285
Table 6.8
Summary of results for 1.2m3 tank

Parameter and associated values RWH system % demand savings () met -2,271 100% -2,654 70% -4,493 45% 341 18%
Values Maximum Average Minimum Standard dev.
RWH system WLC () 8,207 3,743 2,698 1,076
Harvested water (m3/yr)* 37 23 7 8
*Harvested water supplied per year, averaged over analysis time period
Table 6.9
Summary of results for 1.5m3 tank

Parameter and associated values RWH system % demand savings () met -2,256 100% -2,638 73% -4,511 47% 342 18%
Values Maximum Average Minimum Standard dev.
RWH system WLC () 8,107 3,727 2,705 1,060
Harvested water (m3/yr)* 39 24 7 8
* Harvested water supplied per year, averaged over analysis time period
6.4.1 Importance of maintenance costs in determining the direction of RWH system savings All of the simulated RWH systems led to a financial loss compared to the equivalent mains-only systems once all major costs were taken into account. However, it is not yet clear whether the rainwater systems lost or gained money once installation had occurred, i.e. did they begin to payback the initial capital cost investment or did they continue to lose money during the operational phase? Analysis of the results showed that out of 3,840 simulated systems, 2,933 (76%) recouped at least some of the initial capital investment. The remaining 907 systems (24%) continued to lose money during the operation phase. Of those that did recoup some of the capital investment the average reduction was 268 (standard deviation of 142). This was not especially large
286
considering that the lowest capital cost, associated with the 1.2m3 tank, was 2,660.
A number of trends were evident amongst the systems that did not recover any of the capital expenditure. These tended to have lower occupancy rates, water uses and discount rates but higher discount periods. Figure 6.18 shows the various values of these parameters and the associated percentage of systems that continued to accrue losses (note that the parameter categories are independent and indicate general trends only).
Figure 6.18 Key characteristics of systems which exhibited accruing financial losses
% of total number of RWH systems with accruing losses
100%
75%
1 1
3.5 50
50%
2 2 3 5 4 1 Occ. 3 2 Uses Parameter
25%
10 15 3 r (%) 10 5
25
0%
4 n (yrs)
Closer examination of the model results showed that for most simulation years all of the modelled RWH systems, even those that ultimately lost in excess of the capital costs, did manage to repay some of the initial expenditure. This
287
included the cost of covering intra-yearly expenditures such as mains top-up, supply/sewerage standing charges and pump operating expenses. However, it was apparent that some recurring inter-yearly cost was diminishing the magnitude of the savings. This was due to the maintenance costs, which in these instances (accruing losses) proved to be ultimately of greater magnitude than the reductions in water bills. This is shown graphically in figures 6.19 and 6.20 for a tank size of 1.5m3 (capital cost = 2,667), household occupancy of two and three water uses (WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine). This particular RWH system was selected because the results straddled the border between some improvement in savings and further losses, depending on the discount rate. Hence this particularly example was useful for investigating the factors which could drive a system in either direction.
Figure 6.19 Increasing/decreasing system savings over 25 years owing to maintenance requirements
-2,000 -2,100
r = 15%
Solenoid valve Level switch
RWH system savings ()
-2,200 -2,300 -2,400 -2,500 -2,600 -2,700 -2,800 -2,900 -3,000 1 6 11 16
15% 10% 5% 3.5%
r = 10% r = 5% r = 3.5% CapCost
Pump
Capital expenditure = 2,667
Solenoid valve, control unit, coarse filter
Pump
21 25
Year
288
Figure 6.20 Increasing/decreasing system savings over 100 years owing to maintenance requirements
-2,000
r = 15% r = 10% r = 5% r = 3.5% CapCost
-2,200
-2,400
15%
-2,600
10%
-2,800
5% 3.5%
-3,000
-3,200 0 20 40 60 80 100
Year
Figure 6.19 shows that repayment of the capital costs began to occur once the RWH system became operational. Within the first ten years cumulative returns of between 300-400 were evident, depending on the discount rate. However, beyond this point maintenance became increasingly necessary and this began to erode the value of any savings that had accumulated. A cycle of increasing/decreasing returns became evident, the amplitude of which attenuated over time to a degree dependant on the selected discount rate. For higher rates (10% and 15%) a constant savings value was reached (gradient tended towards zero) and this could be considered the ultimate level of financial loss/gain. The same tendency towards a zero gradient was observed for the lower discount rates (3.5% and 5% in figure 6.20).
289
For the lower rates the erosive power of maintenance costs caused the savings to dip below the original capital cost expenditure (-2,667 on the graph) after 15 years. They then briefly spiked above this level on two occasions before permanently dropping below it after about 30 years. Final system savings were in the region of -2,997 and -2,822 for discount rates of 3.5% and 5% respectively. For the higher discount rates, the stronger attenuating effects meant that the present value of future maintenance costs were never high enough to totally diminish the savings that had accrued in the first decade of operation. However, this also meant that any future savings were also strongly attenuated and so the present value of future savings quickly reached a relatively constant level after about 30 years. Although some savings had accrued during the operational phase, these were only a small fraction of the capital cost. For discount rates of 10% and 15% only 337 and 330 of the initial 2,667 investment was repaid after 100 years.
These observations led to the conclusion that even systems which perform well financially during the operational phase may not ultimately result in an NPV greater than zero due to the profit eroding effects of discounting. Some authors have calculated long payback periods. For example Brewer et al (2001) discuss two RWH systems with estimated payback times of 55 and 267 years. Given the attenuating effect of discounting future cash flows even these extended timeframes seem unrealistic, especially when using higher discount rates.
290
In the literature review, particularly chapter four, it was shown that existing research to date has not included the full range of maintenance requirements with regards to major component replacement, and in some instances no maintenance was assumed to occur at all. In general only pump replacement was explicitly considered. Given the noted importance of maintenance costs in determining whether a system pays back some of the capital expenditure or continues to lose money, a decision was taken to conduct an investigation into the implications of assuming that pump replacement was the only maintenance activity required throughout the operational life of the system.
Figure 6.21 shows the results of simulating the same system described previously (1.5m3 tank, occupancy of two and three water uses) but with a maintenance schedule consisting solely of pump replacement every 10 years. The assumed cost was 350, not 425 since other researchers have tended to ignore the installation cost, previously assumed here to be 75.
For higher discount rates the repayment of capital costs occurred at a relatively rapid decreasing rate. After approximately 40 years the RWH system savings had reached an essentially constant value of -1,961 and -2,141 at discount rates of 10% and 15% respectively. For rates of 3.5% and 5% savings continued to accrue beyond 100 years which was the maximum length of time that the thesis model was capable of simulating. Therefore, logarithmic trend lines were fitted to the data series (r2 > 0.93 in both instances) and extrapolated forward.
291
Figure 6.21 Savings for RWH system with limited maintenance requirements (pump replacement only)
1,800 1,300 Payback = 302 years
r = 15%
3.5%
r = 10% r = 5% r = 3.5% CapCost Log. (r = 3.5%) Log. (r = 5%)
800 300 -200 -700 -1,200 Payback not possible -1,700
5%
Payback = 3,027years
10%
-2,200 -2,700 0 1000 2000 3000 4000
15%
Year
Payback of the initial investment was found to be theoretically possible but required very long time periods to achieve. For a discount rate of 3.5% the predicted payback period was 302 years. This was well beyond the predicted useful life for rainwater storage tanks, which has been estimated at up to 65 years for the underground GRP varieties (see appendix two). Realistically speaking timeframes of this magnitude are probably beyond the life of most modern buildings and so are essentially meaningless as guides to payback periods for RWH systems. The results for the 5% discount were even less plausible, with an estimated payback period of over 3,000 years. Again, timeframes on this scale are meaningless in real terms within the context of this investigation.
292
Although the above payback periods were improbably long, the analysis was revealing in that any payback was predicted at all. This was in stark contrast to the thesis model which, analysing the same RWH system using the same range of discount rates and periods, predicted that payback could not be achieved in any timeframe. This highlights the importance of the approach taken in the thesis of including a more realistic range of maintenance requirements. This can make the difference between predicting on-going savings and recouping at least some of the initial capital cost, and predicting an on-going loss which ultimately leads to losses greater than the initial capital cost. It can also mean the difference between predicting no payback achievable in any timeframe, and predicting payback but over a long time period.
These findings may have implications regarding the provision of capital cost subsidies/grants for RWH systems. Although these have not to date been widely implemented in the UK this may change in the future. For example, domestic RWH may become more common due to the implementation of the Code for Sustainable Homes (DCLG, 2006c). The results presented here indicate that there may be some circumstances where, even if a homeowner was able to offset 100% of the capital costs, they may still ultimately be worse off financially due to the maintenance requirements (assuming that they were responsible for paying these).
Referring back to figure 6.18 it can be seen that the systems that lost money during the operational phase were generally associated with low occupancy rates, water uses and discount rates, and long discount periods. Conversely,
293
systems that recouped at least some of the capital expenditure were associated with higher occupancy rates, water uses and discount rates, and shorter discount periods. These latter two criteria may not be an issue for most homeowners. Voinov & Farley (2006) state that individuals tend to use high discount rates and short discount periods, even if only subconsciously. However, occupancy rates and water uses are physical quantities that are likely to vary from building to building. Therefore, if the installation of domestic RWH systems were to become more widespread in new-build developments, or capital cost subsidies/grants were to become available, it is recommended that preference be given to those buildings that have high occupancy rates and that use harvested water for the widest range of applications. If installed in low occupancy, low water use buildings even a free rainwater system could ultimately cost the homeowner money. This may prompt them to discontinue use of the system and would be unlikely to improve the publics perception of such technology.
6.5
Financial results presented as average incremental costs (AICs)
Presenting results as WLCs can make it difficult to compare costs and benefits between RWH systems that have dissimilar characteristics, such as different water uses or occupancy rates. An alternative way to present the financial results is as average incremental costs (AICs). This method allows the cost per unit of benefit derived to be calculated, which in this case would be the cost per cubic metre of water supplied from a RWH system compared to that supplied from the equivalent mains-only system. This normalises the results and data from different systems with different characteristics can be directly compared.
294
This approach has been used by a number of other researchers in the field, e.g. Brewer et al, 2001; Coombes et al, 2003b; Shaaban & Appan, 2005; MJA, 2007.
Using the same assessment criteria as for the WLC analysis, a further 3,840 simulations were run and the AICs from each recorded. Figure 6.22 shows a plot of the results. Details of any specific system are not discernible from this graph. However, it does demonstrate that the unit cost of water supplied by the RWH systems was in all instances greater than that from the mains-only systems, in some cases by an order of magnitude. Figure 6.23 shows a close up of the origin, with the line of equivalence marked on the graph (that is, the line that a data point would lie on if the RWH AIC was equal to the equivalent mains-only AIC). This scale demonstrates the best results in terms of how close the RWH AICs were to matching those of the mains-only system. However, in each case it can be seen that water supplied from the RWH systems was more expensive on a per unit basis than that supplied from the mains. The best single result and corresponding simulation conditions is marked on the graph. Even in this instance the AIC ratio (RWH AIC divided by mains-only AIC) was 1.48. For a RWH system to be cost effective on a per-unit basis the AIC ratio would have to be less than 1.
295
Figure 6.22 AIC comparison between domestic RWH systems and equivalent mains-only systems
4.00 3.50
AIC (/m3) mains-only water
3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
3
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
180.00
AIC (/m ) water supplied by RWH system
Figure 6.23 Close-up of figure 6.22 showing line of equivalence for low AICs
4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 0.00
Lowest AIC ratio = 1.48 1.5m tank, occ = 5, water uses = 3, r = 3.5%, n = 50yrs Tank Sizes
AIC RWH < WLC AIC
AIC RWH = WLC AIC
1.2cu.m 1.5cu.m 2.4cu.m 3.0cu.m
AIC (/m3) mains-only water
AIC RWH > WLC AIC
3.5cu.m 4.0cu.m 4.7cu.m 5.0cu.m 6.0cu.m 6.5cu.m 7.0cu.m 9.0cu.m 9.4cu.m 11.0cu.m 13.0cu.m 15.0cu.m
0.50
1.00
1.50
3
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
AIC (/m ) water supplied by RWH system
296
The correlation between capital costs and RWH system AICs as well as AIC ratios was investigated. From figures 6.24 and 6.25 it can be seen that both the RWH system AICs and AIC ratios were strongly correlated with capital costs, with lower costs resulting in correspondingly lower AICs. It was shown previously that capital costs are broadly correlated with tank size, thus smaller tank sizes have generally lower AICs and AIC ratios than do the larger variants.
Figure 6.24 Relationship between capital cost and average, maximum and minimum RWH system AICs
180.00
Average RWH AICs (/m3)
150.00 120.00 90.00 60.00 30.00 0.00 2,500
Error bars show maximum and minimum RWH AICs
y = 0.0035x + 1.7323 R2 = 0.9998
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
Tanks assessed
297
Figure 6.25 Relationship between capital cost and average, maximum and minimum AIC ratios
60.00 50.00
Error bars show maximum and minimum AIC ratios
Average AIC ratios
40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 2,500 y = 0.0017x + 1.0089 R2 = 0.9998
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
5,000
5,500
6,000
Tanks assessed
Figures 6.26 and 6.27 show detailed results for tank sizes 1.2m3 and 1.5m3. Results for the other fourteen tank sizes that were assessed are given in appendix three. With regards to the graphs, the notation located at the top is the same as for the WLC graphs shown previously. On the left-hand (logarithmic) yaxis is the AICs of the RWH and equivalent mains-only systems which have been plotted against the simulation number (x-axis). On the right-hand (linear) y-axis has been plotted the AIC ratio. A summary of the main AIC results for each tank size are given in table 6.10.
A number of trends were apparent in the results. These are summarised in table 6.11 with respect to variations in water uses, discount rates, discount periods and occupancy levels. It should be noted that in all cases the AIC of the RWH systems was greater than that of the equivalent mains-only systems. Therefore, in all the scenarios assessed the cost of water on a per unit basis was more
298
expensive when supplied from the RWH systems than it was from relying solely on mains water. AIC ratios ranged from between 1.48 (1.5m3 tank, occ=5, water uses=3, r=3.5%, n=50yrs) to 59.04 (15.0m3 tank, occ=1, water uses=1, r=15%, n=5yrs). On average the unit cost of harvested water was 7.58 times greater than that supplied from the mains.
299
Figure 6.26
AIC results for domestic 1.2m3 tank

Uses = 1 Uses = 2
r = 15% r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 3
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
n=5,10,25,50
r = 3.5%
r = 5%
r = 10%
100.00
occ=1
30 25
AICs (/m3)
10.00
20 15
1.00
10 5
0.10 0 RWH AIC 20 40 Mains AIC 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0 240
AIC Ratio (RWH/mains)
Simulation number
300
AIC ratio (RWH / mains)
Figure 6.27 Primary AIC results for domestic 1.5m3 tank

Uses = 1
n=5,10,25,50 r = 3.5% r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 2
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15% r = 3.5%
Uses = 3
r = 5% r = 10% r = 15%
100.00
occ=1
30 25
AICs (/m3)
10.00
20 15
1.00
10 5
0.10 0 RWH AIC 20 40 Mains AIC 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220
0 240
AIC Ratio (RWH/mains)
Lowest AIC ratio = 1.48
Simulation number
301
AIC ratio (RWH / mains)
Table 6.10
Summary of AIC results for domestic RWH systems
Tank size (m3) 1.2 1.5 2.4 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.7 5.0 6.0 6.5 7.0 9.0 9.4 11.0 13.0 15.0
RWH AIC summary Mains-only AIC summary AIC ratio (RWH/mains) summary Average Max. Min. Standard Average Max. Min. Standard Average Max. Min. AIC AIC AIC deviation AIC AIC AIC deviation AIC AIC AIC Standard () () () () () () () () ratio ratio ratio deviation 11.07 81.12 1.05 12.69 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 5.50 27.97 1.50 4.14 11.06 81.33 1.04 12.73 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 5.49 28.04 1.48 4.15 14.08 107.17 1.26 16.77 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 6.94 36.98 1.61 5.51 14.32 109.36 1.27 17.11 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.05 37.74 1.61 5.63 15.08 115.83 1.33 18.13 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.41 39.98 1.65 5.97 14.71 112.83 1.30 17.66 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.24 38.94 1.62 5.82 16.10 124.65 1.40 19.51 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.90 43.03 1.69 6.44 13.28 100.81 1.18 15.79 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 6.54 34.78 1.55 5.19 15.53 120.00 1.36 18.78 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.63 41.42 1.67 6.20 17.11 133.46 1.48 20.89 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 8.39 46.07 1.75 6.91 14.09 107.92 1.24 16.90 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 6.93 37.24 1.60 5.57 15.26 118.08 1.33 18.49 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.50 40.75 1.67 6.11 18.54 145.78 1.59 22.82 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 9.08 50.33 1.84 7.56 16.09 125.06 1.40 19.58 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 7.90 43.17 1.72 6.48 18.80 148.00 1.60 23.17 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 9.20 51.10 1.87 7.68 21.53 170.96 1.81 26.77 1.79 3.51 0.40 0.73 10.51 59.04 2.02 8.89
302
Table 6.11
Summary of trends in AICs and AIC ratios

For a given RWH system, effect of increasing parameter value on: RWH Mains AIC AIC AIC ratio Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Increase Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease Decrease
Parameter Water uses Discount rate Discount period Occupancy
Increasing water uses: comments For low water uses (WC only) RWH AICs were significantly higher than for the other water use scenarios. Moving from uses = 1 to uses = 2 resulted in a significant drop in all associated RWH AICs. Moving from uses = 2 to uses = 3 also resulted in a reduction but this was much less pronounced than in the former case. Higher RWH AICs were associated with lower water uses primarily because the costs of the system were divided between lower volumes of water.
Mains-only AICs showed much less variation between water use scenarios although there was still a trend of decreasing AICs with increasing usage. This occurred because as water demand increased the fraction of supply and sewerage standing charges assigned each unit of water was reduced.
The AIC ratio (RWH/mains) decreased as water use increased, primarily driven by a reduction in RWH AICs. Again reductions were more significant when moving from uses = 1 to uses =2 than they were between uses = 2 and uses = 3.
303
Increasing discount rate: comments Increasing the discount rate led to a reduction in both the RWH and mains-only AIC values. This occurred because, for a given system, a higher discount rate resulted in a reduced present value of future expenditure but the volumes of water supplied remained the same. The rate of change was greater between scenarios with higher occupancy rates than between those with lower occupancy rates (i.e. between higher and lower water uses).
AIC ratios showed a tendency to increase with higher discount rates. This indicates that, from the previous paragraph, the rate of reduction in mains-only AICs was greater than the corresponding reduction in RWH AICs for a given system. The rate of change was also greater at lower occupancy rates.
Increasing discount period: comments Both the RWH and mains-only AICs decreased as the discount period was increased. The rate of change was greater for the RWH systems which explains why the AIC ratio also showed a tendency to decrease with increasing discount rates.
The reduction in RWH systems AICs was partly due to greater overall volumes of water been supplied from the system, hence the capital cost expenditure was divided between a greater number of units of benefit supplied. Also, for both systems, the effect of discounting reduced the magnitude of future costs but did not affect the volume of water supplied. Hence, for a given system, future AICs would be less than near-term ones which would reduce the average value.
304
Increasing occupancy: comments Increasing the occupancy rate led to a reduction in both the RWH and mainsonly AICs. A reduction in the AIC ratio was also apparent, indicating that the rate of change in RWH AICs was greater than that of the corresponding mainsonly systems. This effect was especially pronounced for systems with low water uses (WC only) and low discount periods.
6.5.1 Comparison of thesis AIC results with other studies There is little existing information relevant to the UK with regards to the average incremental costs of water supplied from RWH systems. Brewer et al (2001) report figures in the range of 0.29-2.32/m3 but this excluded capital costs which could have increased these figures significantly. In Australia, Coombes et al (2003b) report AICs for domestic RWH as low as AUS$0.30/m3 (0.13) whilst MJA (2007) give values in the range of AUS$1.41-12.30/m3 (0.63-5.45). Shaaban & Appan (2005) investigated the use of a domestic system in Malaysia that was used in a household of two adults and four children. Unit costs for harvested water were calculated as been approximately RM 1.70/m3 (0.24/m3).
Results from the thesis simulations show a much wider variation than those reported above and in general the thesis values are higher. Considering the results from all systems assessed, the RWH AIC range was between 1.04170.96/m3 with an average of 15.42/m3. Even individual tanks showed a wide range of values, e.g. for the 1.2m3 tank the AICs were found to be between 1.05-81.12/m3, with an average of 11.07/m3. Variation in the results was shown previously to be influenced by the selected discount rate and period. The
305
wide range of possible AIC values suggests that discount rates and periods need to be selected carefully and should accurately reflect the values of the primary stakeholder(s) if the results are to be meaningful.
6.5.2 Comparison of thesis AIC results to other water demand management measures Other researchers have investigated AICs for a range of alternative water demand management measures. Table 6.12 summarises the range of results presented in Herrington (2006).
Table 6.12
AICs for range of water demand management measures (Herrington, 2006, pp271-272)
Measure Low volume WC Conversion to low-flush (9.8 litre to 7.5 litre) Replacement: low-flush (9.8 litre to 6 litre) Urinal controllers Shower: replace bath Low-volume shower heads Efficient washing machines Metering: general
AIC (/m3) Measure 0.07-0.18 Metering: compulsory 0.16-0.28 Greywater for WCs 1.37-1.94 0.09-0.64 0.94 0.33-2.43 0 0.89-7.63 Greywater: general WC cistern displacement device (hippo) Rainwater butts Targeted sprinkler use Water audits (+education)
AIC (/m3) 0.47-3.38 3.21-4.93 0.22-4.48 0.03-0.13 0.34-2.63 0.50-5.20 0-0.64
Grant (2003) estimated AICs for six water demand management options which involved replacing various water using fixtures and fittings with more efficient varieties. The results from this study are summarised in table 6.13.
306
Table 6.13
Estimated AICs for six water demand management options (Grant, 2003, p47).
Change from Standard WC Default WC 9 litre WC Existing old washing machine Standard purchase washing machine Standard shower
Change to AIC (/m3) Dual-flush 0.19-0.66 4.6 litre average flush 0.19-1.78 4.6 litre average flush 0.88-6.99 Efficient new 0.93-4.66 washing machine Efficient new 0.58-3.12 washing machine Water saving showerhead 0.72-4.63
AICs for the demand management measures presented above were in the range of 0.00-7.63/m3 with an average of 1.74/m3. This was narrower than the range of AICs calculated for the RWH systems which were in the range of 1.04-170.96/m3 with an average of 15.42/m3. Generally, AICs for the RWH systems were higher than those associated with the other demand management measures but there were some exceptions. Out of 3,840 RWH simulations, 85 had AICs that were lower than the average AIC for the demand management measures in tables 6.12 and 6.13 (1.74/m3). In each case the results were associated with RWH systems that had high water uses (WC flushing and garden irrigation as a minimum), high occupancy rates (typically 4 or 5), and that were assessed using long discount periods (25 and 50 years) and high discount rates (10 and 15%).
This suggests that when using AICs to compare various demand management measures, RWH systems can be cost effective but only under a narrow range of circumstances, and in most cases will not compare favourably with the alternatives. Also, it needs to be remembered that in all cases the RWH AICs were greater than those of the equivalent mains-only systems, suggesting that
307
from a financial perspective reliance on mains-only water would be the preferred option.
6.6
Contribution of key cost elements to RWH system WLC
Further analysis was conducted in order to determine the relative contribution to the WLC of the various cost elements associated with domestic RWH systems. These were considered to consist of capital, maintenance, supply standing charge, sewerage standing charge, mains top-up charges and pump operating costs. A tank size of 1.5m3 was simulated as previous investigations showed this to be the most financially effective in the largest number of simulations (in the sense that it showed the smallest monetary loss in most cases). In order to cover a range of possibilities the four different stakeholder perspectives (with regards to appropriate discount rates and periods) shown in table 6.1 were investigated. Each one was assessed using occupancy rates in the range of 1-5 people and three water uses (WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine). All other parameters were as shown in tables 7.2 and 7.3. Results are shown in figures 6.28-6.31.
308
Figure 6.28 Percentage contribution to RWH system WLC of various cost elements: homeowner perspective
100%
Capital Maintenance Sewerage SC Supply SC Mains top-up Pump op.
% contribution to RWH WLC
80%
60%
40%
SC = standing charge
20%
0% 1 2 3 4 5
Occupancy rate
Figure 6.28 shows that for the homeowner perspective (r=15%, n=10 years) the capital costs accounted for the majority of the WLCs for all assessed occupancy rates, ranging between 70-77% of the total lifetime expenditure. Maintenance costs accounted for between 9-10%, sewerage standing charges 2-4%, supply standing charges 2-3%, mains top-up 6-17% and pump operating costs a relatively insignificant 0.1-0.2%. As occupancy increased the percentage contribution of the capital costs tended to reduce and that of the mains top-up increased. The contribution of the remaining cost elements was relatively stable for all occupancy levels.
309
Figure 6.29 Percentage contribution to RWH system WLCs of various cost elements: water utility perspective
100%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Occupancy rate
Figure 6.29 shows that for the water utility perspective (r=10%, n=25 years) the capital costs accounted for most of the WLCs for all assessed occupancy rates, ranging between 63-71% of the total lifetime expenditure. Maintenance costs accounted for between 12-14%, sewerage standing charges 3-5%, supply standing charges 2-4%, mains top-up 7-20% and pump operating costs only 0.1-0.3%. As occupancy increased the percentage contribution of the capital costs tended to reduce and that of the mains top-up increased. A reduction in the contribution of the remaining cost elements was identified although this was relatively small at between 1-2% between occupancy levels one and five.
310
Figure 6.30 Percentage contribution to RWH system WLCs of various cost elements: private sector company perspective
100%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Occupancy rate
Figure 6.30 shows that for the private sector perspective (r=5%, n=5 years) the capital costs accounted for the overwhelming majority of the WLCs for all assessed occupancy rates, ranging between 87-93% of the total lifetime expenditure. Maintenance costs accounted for 0% since the discount period was five years and no maintenance was assumed to occur within this time frame (the earliest activity was replacing the solenoid valve which occurred at intervals of 7.5 years). Sewerage standing charges accounted for 2-3%, supply standing charges 1-2% and mains top-up 3-10%. Pump operating costs were negligible, accounting for only 0.1-0.2% of the WLCs.
As occupancy increased the percentage contribution of the capital costs tended to reduce and that of the mains top-up increased, although this effect was not
311
particularly large. The contribution of the remaining cost elements was relatively stable for all occupancy levels.
Figure 6.31 Percentage contribution to RWH system WLCs of various cost elements: LA/Government perspective
100%
80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Occupancy rate
Figure 6.31 shows that for the LA/Government perspective (r=3.5%, n=50 years) the results were significantly less dominated by the capital costs than for the previous sets of results. In all cases the capital costs were still the largest contributor to system WLCs, ranging between 34-41%. Maintenance costs were the next largest factor at between 26-32%, followed by mains top-up (14-31%) and supply and sewerage standing charges at 3-6% and 4-8% respectively. Again pump operating costs were only a small fraction of the WLC at between 0.3-0.6%.
312
As the occupancy rate increased the percentage contribution of the mains topup component also increased whilst that of all other items decreased. This would indicate that the modelled tank size (1.5m3) was able to meet less of the demand the more people were assumed to be present in the house. Hence the required mains top-up became an increasingly large fraction of the total cost of the system.
From this brief investigation into the relative contribution of the various domestic RWH system cost components, it can be inferred that: Capital costs form a major fraction of the WLCs. This fraction is higher for lower discount periods and for short discount periods capital costs will account for the majority of system WLCs. Mains top-up costs are correlated with the occupancy rate. Generally, as the occupancy increases the percentage contribution of mains top-up costs also increases. For low discount periods, maintenance costs form only a small fraction of the total costs. For discount periods below about 7 years the percentage contribution may well be zero. Maintenance costs become more important with increasing discount periods and for long time frames can represent a significant portion of the WLC. Supply and sewerage standing charges tend to form between 2-5% of the total cost each. This fraction was relatively constant although it did decrease slightly in some cases with increasing occupancy rate.
313
Pump operating costs form a negligible portion of the WLCs, typically contributing between 0.1-0.3% of the total costs.
6.7
Effect of changing occupancy rate on RWH system savings
The effects of varying the household occupancy rate on RWH system savings were investigated in more detail. The discount rates and periods associated with each of the four stakeholder groups shown previously in table 6.1 were used in the analysis. Occupancies were varied between one to five people for sixteen different tank sizes in the range of 1.2-15.0m3. Three different combinations of water uses were considered in each case (WC only, WC plus garden irrigation, WC plus garden irrigation plus washing machine). Figure 6.32 shows the results from a typical analysis. In this instance the results refer to a homeowner perspective (r=15%, n=10 years). Water uses were WC flushing only. Graphs relating to the other scenarios investigated are presented in appendix three.
Figure 6.32 Effect on RWH system savings of vary occupancy rate (homeowner perspective, r = 15%, n = 10 years, WC flushing)
-2000
Occupancy 1 Occupancy 2 Occupancy 3 Occupancy 4 Occupancy 5 Linear (Occupancy 1) Linear (Occupancy 2) Linear (Occupancy 3) Linear (Occupancy 4) Linear (Occupancy 5)
Savings @ NPV ()
-3000 -4000 -5000 -6000 0 2 4 6 8 Tank size (m3) 10 12 14 16
314
It was found that increasing the occupancy rate led to an improvement in the corresponding RWH system savings. For a given stakeholder group and water use scenario the change in savings was relatively constant across the range of tank sizes investigated. For example, for the homeowner perspective with WC flushing the percentage change in savings between occupancy 1 and occupancy 5 for tank sizes 1.2, 4.0, 9.0, 11.0 and 15.0m 3 was 10, 9, 9, 9, and 7% respectively. This suggested that the results for each tank size could be averaged to give one set of results. The results from the averaging exercise for the homeowner scenarios (r=15%, n=10 years) are shown in figure 6.33. The results relating to the other scenarios (water utility, private sector and LA/Government) are given in appendix three.
Figure 6.33 Effect on RWH system savings of varying occupancy rate: averaged results for homeowner perspective
Average % change in savings from occupancy = 1
10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1 2 3 4 5 Occupancy rate Uses = 1 Uses = 2 Uses = 3
315
Figure 6.33 and those in appendix three demonstrate that the results for the different water uses within each stakeholder perspective were broadly similar. In general the figures for a given occupancy rate varied only by a few percentage points from the mean. This suggested that within a given stakeholder group the results for the different water uses could be averaged whilst still maintaining a reasonable degree of accuracy. The averaged results were plotted on the same graph as shown in figure 6.34.
Figure 6.34 Effect on RWH system savings of varying occupancy rate: averaged results for range of stakeholder perspectives
30%
Average % change in savings from occupancy = 1
20%
10%
0% 1 LA/Gov 2 Water utility 3 Occupancy rate Homeowner 4 5 Private sector
The above chart shows that for all assessed systems, increasing the occupancy rate led to an increase in RWH system savings (although it should be noted that in all cases there was still a net financial loss). The greatest rate of improvement was apparent for the LA/Government stakeholders. Moving from an occupancy of 1 to occupancies of 2, 3, 4 and 5 showed an improvement in
316
savings of 9.5, 12.9, 22.0 and 25.1% respectively. The higher percentage increase represented an increase of about 1,300, so whilst a loss was still observed in all cases the potential reduction was fairly significant.
The next largest improvement was shown by the water utility perspective with percentage increases of about half of those observed for the LA/Government scenarios. For occupancies 2, 3, 4 and 5 the improvements in savings over the lone occupancy rate were 4.6, 6.4, 10.9 and 12.5% respectively. The average change was in the region of 500.
The homeowner and private sector results showed the least improvement. For the former, occupancies 2, 3, 4 and 5 showed increases in savings of 2.7, 3.9, 6.5 and 7.5% respectively. The latter showed increases in savings of 2.2, 3.4, 5.5 and 6.4% for occupancies 2, 3, 4 and 5 respectively. The average change in both cases was approximately 250.
The trends identified in this study have shown that increasing the occupancy rate led to an improvement in RWH system savings, although in all cases these were still negative (financial loss). The rate of improvement varied with different discount rates and discount periods, with the most significant improvements occurring when low discount rates and long discount periods were used.
317
6.8
Mains supply and sewerage charges: how high before domestic RWH systems are cost effective?
Results from the sensitivity analysis (section 6.2) showed that increasing the mains supply and sewerage charges led to an improvement in RWH system savings, although for the range of changes assessed these were still negative. However, the observed trend indicated that some value must exist at which RWH systems would be able to reach the breakeven point, i.e. the WLC of the RWH system would be equal to that of the equivalent mains-only system. An analysis was conducted in order to determine this value for a range of discount rates and periods (see table 6.1) for occupancies of 1-5 people. A 1.5m3 tank was used in the simulations. Three water uses scenarios were assessed: WC flushing only; WC flushing and garden irrigation; WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine. For the sake of simplicity it was assumed that the required supply and sewerage unit charges both had the same value (in reality charges are usually different). Figures 6.35-6.38 show the main findings from the investigation. Note that Yorkshire Water supply and sewerage charges for 2007/08 are marked on the graphs for comparison (1.09/m 3 and 1.17/m3 respectively).
318
Figure 6.35 Breakeven mains supply and sewerage charges: results for WC flushing only scenarios
Private sector Water utility YW 2007 supply Homeowner LA/Gov YW 2007 sewage
Supply & sewerage charges (/m 3)
50.00 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 1 2
3 Occupancy
Figure 6.36 Breakeven mains supply and sewerage charges: results for WC flushing and garden irrigation scenarios
20.00 18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 2
3 Occupancy
319
Figure 6.37 Breakeven mains supply and sewerage charges: results for WC, garden irrigation and washing machine scenarios
18.00 16.00 14.00 12.00 10.00 8.00 6.00 4.00 2.00 0.00 1 2
3 Occupancy
From the results a number of trends were apparent: In order of increasing expense the stakeholder scenarios were always ranked the same: LA/Government (r=3.5%, n=50 years), water utility (r=10%, n=25 years), homeowner (r=15%, n=10 years) and private sector company (r=5%, n=5 years). Increasing the occupancy rate reduced the required cost of mains water. The rate of change was not linear. In all cases moving from occupancy 1 to 2 resulted in the greatest relative decrease in the required cost. The rate of change for all other occupancies was reasonably linear in nature.
The results indicated that in all cases substantial price rises would have to occur before domestic RWH systems could compete on a financial basis with mains-only supply. Taking the average required increases in both supply and
320
sewerage charges across the five occupancy rates for each stakeholder perspective gave: 1. For WC flushing only: private sector (20.82/m3), homeowner
(17.55/m3), water utility (11.50/m3), LA/Government (6.97/m3). 2. For WC flushing and garden irrigation: private sector (12.15/m3), homeowner (4.40/m3). 3. For WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine: private sector (10.40/m3), homeowner (9.06/m3), water utility (6.08/m3), (10.55/m3), water utility (7.09), LA/Government
LA/Government (3.77/m3).
At an average unit cost of 1.13/m3 for mains supply and sewerage costs (YW prices, 2007), the above shows that mains costs would have to increase by up to 18.4 times their current rate (20.82/m3) and by 8.9 times on average (10.00/m3). The smallest increase required in order to reach breakeven point would be 3.8 times the current 2007 prices, or 3.80/m3. Even assuming compound growth in YW mains charges of 3% per year, a value of 3.80/m 3 would not be reached until approximately 2050. It therefore seems unlikely that, all else being equal, an increase in the cost of mains water alone would be sufficient to render domestic RWH systems financially viable in the near future.
6.9
Investigation of commonly used design and assessment methods
This section investigates a number of rule-of-thumb (ROT) methods that are commonly used in the design and assessment of domestic RWH systems. A number of these methods were discussed previously in chapter four and
321
appendix two. Three methodologies found to be in use by different RWH system suppliers were investigated and the hydrological and financial performance compared against that predicted by the thesis model. A brief summary of the main characteristics of each methodology is given in table 6.14. Note that the actual names of the companies have been replaced with pseudonyms, e.g. company 1.
For both the ROT and thesis model simulations a domestic dwelling of occupancy two and three water uses (WC flushing, garden and washing machine) was assumed. Discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15% were used in the thesis model. For the ROT methodologies no discount rate was used since none of the companies employing these approaches used discounting techniques. A long discount period was necessary since the ROT methods tended to predict long payback periods. The analysis time horizon needed to be at least as long in order to assess whether or not the predicted payback periods were realistic. Therefore a discount period of 50 years was selected. In all cases the predicted RWH system savings were used as the metric with which to judge the financial performance of the modelled systems.
322
Table 6.14
Overview of rule-of-thumb design and assessment methods employed by a number of RWH system suppliers
Hydrological assessment Financial assessment Hydrological components consisted of Savings calculated as value of roof (plan) area, runoff coefficient, mains water1 substituted by coarse filter coefficient and average harvested water, taking into monthly water demand. Storage tank account operating expenses size based on 6 days dry weather which were assumed to be storage (i.e. 6 days of average daily 0.03/m3 of harvested water demand). Rainfall data was average supplied. No maintenance monthly figures for the Yorkshire region costs were assumed Company Hydrological components consisted of Savings calculated as value of 2 roof (plan) area, runoff coefficient mains water1 substituted by (assumed to be 1 for pitched roofs) and harvested water. No average monthly water demand. Rainfall maintenance or operating data was average monthly figures for costs were assumed the Yorkshire region Company Hydrological components consisted of Savings calculated as value of 3 roof (plan) area and runoff coefficient. mains water1 substituted by Water demand was calculated as yearly harvested water. No indication value, then the average daily demand that operating or maintenance derived from this. Storage tank sized costs were included in the based on 18 days of average daily analysis demand. Rainfall data was average yearly figure for the region under consideration. 1 Constant mains water charges were used. For the purposes of this investigation mains water costs were taken as the 2007 Yorkshire Water charges: mains supply = 1.09/m3, sewerage charges = 1.17/m3
Company name Company 1
In order to maintain consistency between the various assessment methods the data for the hydrological elements was based on the information used for the thesis domestic simulations. Where necessary, the data was scaled and adjusted so that it matched the characteristics of that required for the ROT design methods, e.g. daily data scaled to monthly data.
A number of spreadsheets were created that mimicked the three approaches outlined in table 6.14. Further details on the methods and assumptions used are given in appendix three. Results from the spreadsheets were then compared to
323
those predicted by the thesis model as shown in tables 6.15 and 6.16. Note that the two tank sizes assessed were 1.2m3 and 2.4m3. However, the recommended capacities were actually 0.666m3 (company 1), 2.024m3 (company 2) and 1.998m3 (company 3). Storage tanks were not available in these exact sizes so the next largest were chosen for which capital cost data was available. Note that upsizing to the next largest tank capacity rather than downsizing to the next smallest appeared to be common practice in all of the companies consulted and so the same procedure was followed here.
Table 6.15
Comparison of results from company 1 rule-of-thumb design method and thesis model
Tank size % demand Annual Payback Total savings Methodology (m3) met savings ()1 (years) over 50yrs2 Company 1 1.2 99 89.79 30 1,830 Thesis, r = 3.5% 1.2 58 -8.09 Never -3,065 Thesis, r = 5% 1.2 58 -4.34 Never -2,877 Thesis, r = 10% 1.2 58 1.03 Never -2,608 Thesis, r = 15% 1.2 58 2.76 Never -2,522 1 Annual savings do not take into account repayment of capital cost expenditure, i.e. they are simply the difference between the annual running costs of the mains-only system and the proposed RWH system 2 Calculation of total savings over 50 years included repayment of capital expenditure
Table 6.16
Comparison of results from companies 2 and 3 rule-ofthumb design methods and thesis model
Tank size % demand Annual Payback Total savings Methodology (m3) met savings ()1 (years) over 50yrs2 Company 2 2.4 100 91.50 39 1,046 Company 3 2.4 100 92.30 38 1,086 Thesis, r = 3.5% 2.4 65 -4.35 Never -3,746 Thesis, r = 5% 2.4 65 -1.47 Never -3,603 Thesis, r = 10% 2.4 65 2.59 Never -3,400 Thesis, r = 15% 2.4 65 3.82 Never -3,338 1 Annual savings do not take into account repayment of capital cost expenditure, i.e. they are simply the difference between the annual running costs of the mains-only system and the proposed RWH system 2 Calculation of total savings over 50 years included repayment of capital expenditure
324
It can be seen from tables 6.15 and 6.16 that the assessment methods used by the RWH system suppliers produced very different results compared to the thesis model. Starting with the non-potable demand, the rule-of-thumb methods all predicted that a high percentage could be met, with company 2 and 3 methodologies both predicting 100% volumetric reliability. However, none of these methods explicitly modelled tank behaviour. It was simply assumed that all collected rainwater would be available for use, i.e. that tank storage capacity was effectively infinite, which was clearly unrealistic. The more logical finite storage approach used in the thesis model gave significantly different results, predicting 58% and 65% volumetric reliability for the 1.2m3 and 1.5m3 tanks respectively.
The ROT approaches all predicted positive annual savings of approximately 90. Results from the thesis model were less optimistic and ranged from an 8 loss to savings of approximately 4 (this was not including repayment of the capital expenditure). The primary reason for such different results was due to the fact that the ROT approaches did not take into account ongoing maintenance costs, primarily component replacement requirements. Company 1 only considered operating costs, valued at 0.03/m 3 of harvested water supplied. The methods used by companies 2 and 3 assumed no ongoing costs whatsoever. Neither of these approaches is realistic since it was shown in chapter four that RWH systems are subject to ongoing operating expenses and maintenance requirements.
325
The predicted total savings over 50 years showed markedly different results. For the 1.2m3 tank the ROT approach gave a net financial gain of about 1,000 but the thesis model predicted a net financial loss of at least 2,500. For the 2.4m3 tank the ROT approaches gave a net financial gain in the region of 1,000 whereas the thesis model showed a net financial loss of at least 3,300. The capital costs of the 1.2m3 and 2.4m3 tanks were 2,660 and 3,529 (inc. VAT) respectively, meaning that the thesis model predicted only a relatively small reduction in the capital cost burden for both systems.
The optimistic results produced by the ROT approaches were primarily due to the fact that very low or no operating/ maintenance costs were assumed and no discount techniques were employed. Because of this the only future cash flows considered were essentially the savings accruing due to the substitution of mains water by harvested rainwater. Since no discount rate was applied the present value of these savings was unmodified, resulting in recovery of the capital costs in an accelerated timeframe. Predicted payback periods were in the region of 30-39 years, whereas the thesis predictions showed that no payback was achievable since all systems resulted in an overall financial loss.
Figure 6.38 demonstrates in graph format the results obtained when the recommended tank sizes were simulated using the thesis model. The curved blue line showing exponential decay is the predicted percentage of demand met (left y-axis) for the range of tank sizes assessed. The green diamond markers show the tank sizes based on the x days demand method. As the x-axis values increase, each additional marker represents the tank size required to
326
store an additional two days of average daily demand. The blue square and red triangle are the tank sizes recommended by the 5% annual demand and 5% annual supply approaches respectively.
Above the curved line are the predicted financial losses (right y-axis) for tank sizes 1.2m3, 1.5m3, 2.4m3, 3.0m3, 3.5m3 and 4.0m3. The financial performance of each tank size was assessed using four different discount rates of 3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15%.
Figure 6.38 Thesis model predictions for tank sizes selected using ruleof-thumb approaches
100
r = 3.5% r = 5%
4,000 3,500 3,000 2,500 2,000

18 days supply 28 days 5% annual supply 5% annual supply demand
75
r = 10% r = 15%
50
1,500 1,000 500
25
6 days supply
0 0 1 2 Tank size (m )
3
0 3 4
The results show that selecting tank sizes based on average demand values of between 6-14 days would have resulted in the selection of either the 1.2m3 or 1.5m3 tank and would thus have limited the overall financial loss. Further, tank
327
RWH system losses ()
% demand met
capacities in the 6-14 days range would be capable of meeting between 5060% of the demand, a reasonable level of performance. Beyond this point there is a trend of decreasing improvement in the volumetric reliability. For instance moving from a 1.5m3 to a 4.0m3 tank results in an increase in the percentage of demand met by only about 10%. These small increases are not sufficient to compensate for the increased capital costs of the larger tanks and the results show a trend of increasing financial losses as the tank sizes become larger.
The methods used by companies 1 and 2 all resulted in recommended tank sizes that fell within the less financially efficient range. The 18 days of supply and 5% of the annual demand approaches both gave similar recommendations in the region of 2m3. The 5% of annual supply gave a tank size of close to 3m3, equivalent to about 27 days of the average demand. Since this value was larger than that recommended by the 5% annual demand approach then the latter would have been selected over the former. However, the graph shows little difference in the predicted water saving reliability and financial losses incurred by using either of these methods.
The key conclusion from these investigations is that the commonly used ruleof-thumb design approaches are an inadequate means for predicting both the hydrological and financial performance of domestic RWH systems. The methods for estimating the hydrological behaviour of a proposed system have little rational basis since they do not explicitly consider the physically operation of a finite storage reservoir. Rather, it was simply assumed that all harvested water would be available to meet the demand arising in a given time period. The
328
effect of this was to significantly overestimate the percentage of demand that could be met compared to that predicted by a more realistic finite storage tank model.
The 6 day value used by Company 1 produced a recommended tank size of 0.666m3 but this required upsizing to 1.2m3 since no tanks smaller than this were on the market at the time. From section 6.4 it can be seen that this was the second best (technically, second least bad) performing tank in financial terms from the sixteen for which data was available. In light of the universally poor financial performance of all the systems assessed, the rational choice would be to choose no tank, i.e. have no RWH system at all. However, given that some tank had to be selected for analysis purposes, the 1.2m3 option could be viewed as the rational choice, although its selection in this case was mostly due to practicality.
The 18 day value used by Company 3 gave a recommended capacity of 1.998m3 which necessitated upgrading to 2.4m3 since no tanks of this specific size were available. The financial results from section 6.4 show that tank sizes of 1.2m3 and 1.5m3 both performed better in financial terms than the 2.4m 3 tank and so its selection on financial grounds cannot be justified in this instance. The 5% of annual demand/supply approach used by company 2 gave a recommended size of 2.024m3, close to that of 18 days average demand. This also required upsizing to 2.4m3 and so the previous criticisms apply equally to this selection method.
329
It is acknowledged that these results were obtained from the consideration of only one scenario (occupancy two, multiple water uses), and that an investigation into a wider range of circumstances would be beneficial. However, from this brief study it can be concluded that the commonly used ROT methods: Do not realistically model tank behaviour and significantly overestimate the volume of harvested rainwater that can be supplied. Often recommend the use of tank sizes outside of the optimum hydrological and financial performance range. Do not adequately account for likely operation and maintenance costs, often assuming that there are very low or even zero. Consequently the ultimate financial benefits are exaggerated. Financial gains are predicted where significant financial losses would appear more likely.
Based on the findings here the use of ROT methods for the sizing of domestic RWH tanks, and for the prediction of financial performance, is not advised. It is strongly recommended that a more rigorous and scientific approach be used whenever possible.
6.10
Summary and discussion of results
6.10.1
Overview
This aims of this chapter were to investigate the use of RWH systems in newbuild domestic dwellings in terms of their water saving reliability and financial performance, with an emphasis on the latter. The purpose of this was to provide information on the long-term viability of domestic RWH systems at the single-
330
building scale and to determine whether they can be financially successful and, if so, under what circumstances.
A wide range of possible operating conditions and financial assessment criteria were possible and so a practical range was selected for analysis. These consisted of three combinations of water uses (WC only, WC + garden irrigation, WC + garden irrigation + washing machine), household occupancies in the range of 1-5, four discount rates (3.5%, 5%, 10% and 15%), four discount periods (5, 10, 25 and 50 years) and 16 different rainwater tank sizes (range 1.2-15.0m3). Maintenance schedules were created, with each domestic system assumed to be subject to the same level of maintenance requirements. Using this range of criteria the number of different scenarios (not accounting for the different sizes of tank) was 240. The total number of possible permutations including the 16 different tank sizes was 3,840, all of which were simulated.
When a detailed investigation of the results was necessary it would have been impractical to report on all 3,840 outcomes. Therefore, four sets of simulation conditions with different discount rates and periods were selected from the range of possibilities. These were chosen to represent the likely viewpoints of various stakeholder groups who may have an interest in domestic RWH systems. These stakeholder groups, and the associated discount rates and periods, were: homeowner (r=15%, n=10 years), water utility (r=10%, n=25 years), private sector company (r=5%, n=5 years) and LA/Government (r=3.5%, n=50 years).
331
6.10.2
Sensitivity analysis results
A sensitivity analysis of the financial model was conducted in order to determine its robustness. Percentage changes in RWH system savings, an important financial performance indicator, were selected as the metric for judging model sensitivity. Variations of up to 100% in a number of key parameters were assessed. These were the daily rainfall depth, capital costs, maintenance costs, mains water supply and sewerage charges, roof area, discount rate and discount period. The effect of varying the storage operating parameter between 0 (YAS) and 1 (YBS) was also investigated. Occupancy rate was held constant at two people and three water uses were assumed (WC, garden irrigation and washing machine).
When investigating the effect of changing the value of a given parameter for a constant discount rate and period, it was found that for each of the 16 tank sizes analysed the corresponding percentage changes in RWH system savings were closely grouped. This suggested that average results could be used for a given combination of discount rate and period (stakeholder group). The results obtained from making changes to each of the key parameters were consequently averaged and then where appropriate plotted on the same chart so that direct comparisons could be made. It was found that the homeowner and private sector company scenarios were insensitive to changes in all of the tested parameters expect for capital costs, to which the RWH system savings were very sensitive. For both these stakeholder groups the gradient m on the graph was approximately -1. This indicated an almost perfect correlation between percentage increases/decreases in capital costs and corresponding
332
decreases/increases in RWH system savings. The water utility group proved somewhat generally more sensitive than the homeowner and private sector types, although for all parameters except capital costs the sensitivity was still fairly small. The largest variations were associated with changes to mains supply and sewerage charges which resulted in a gradient of -0.271. For the capital costs m was close to -1, indicating an almost direct correlation between capital costs and savings.
Results for the LA/Government analysis were noticeably different. The greatest variation was still associated with changes to capital costs but the rate of change was slightly smaller than for the other stakeholder perspectives with m equal to -0.91. Changes in mains supply and sewerage charges resulted in the next largest variation in system savings (m = 0.50) followed by maintenance costs (m = -0.49). System savings were moderately sensitive to changes in rainfall depth, roof area and the discount rate with m values of 0.28, 0.27 and 0.28 respectively. The higher sensitivity to a wider range of parameters for the LA/Government scenarios was due to this stakeholder groups use of a low discount period (3.5%) and long discount period (50 years).
Given the noted sensitivity of the RWH system savings to changes in capital costs it was recommended that accurate capital cost data be obtained whenever possible.
Use of the YAS tank operating algorithm was justified. Modelling both the YAS and YBS algorithms ( equal to 0 and 1 respectively) the average percentage
333
differences in savings between the four stakeholder perspectives were found to be in the range of 0.1-0.4%, which were essentially insignificant. It was evident that the smaller tank sizes displayed greater sensitivity than the larger ones, with largest differences associated with the LA/Government stakeholder group.
6.10.3
Hydrological performance results
An investigation into the hydrological performance of a range of tank sizes was conducted. Occupancies in the range of 1-5 were considered as were a range of water uses (WC only, WC + garden irrigation, WC + garden irrigation + washing machine). The results showed that for each modelled scenario it was theoretically possible to meet 100% of the selected non-potable demands. However, in many cases unfeasibly large tank sizes would have been required in order to achieve this. Meeting 90% of the demand would have required somewhat smaller capacities. However, only for the WC flushing only scenario did these appear to be realistic, ranging from between 0.18-2.15m3. For the other water use scenarios the required capacities were tens to hundreds of cubic metres in size, clearly unfeasible for domestic systems.
More reasonable tank sizes were found to be sufficient for meeting a lower but still useful fraction of the demand. With one exception, tank sizes of up to 1.0m 3 were found to be sufficient to meet 50% of the selected end uses for occupancies up to five. For WC flushing only it was found that tank sizes of up to just a few hundred litres were sufficient to meet half the demand for all occupancies, indicating that for low water use applications small tank sizes are sufficient for supplying useful volumes of water.
334
The level of total household demand that could be met by harvested water was also investigated. Assuming an internal new-build water use of 120 litres/person/day it was found that, providing large enough tanks sizes could be utilised, between 15-48% of total household demand could be met, depending on harvested water uses and occupancy levels. However, in many cases the tank sizes required to achieve this were unrealistically large. Modelling the scenarios again with a more feasible tank size of 1.5m 3 showed that between 15-28% of total household demand could be met. About 55% of household demand can potentially be substituted by harvested rainwater. However, the studies conducted here indicated that this level of volumetric reliability is unlikely to be achievable in practice.
6.10.4
Financial performance results
Whole life costs For all 3,840 simulations it was found that the WLC of the RWH systems was significantly more expensive the WLC of the equivalent mains-only systems. The minimum, average and maximum RWH system WLCs were 2,698, 4,899 and 11,054 respectively. The standard deviation was 1,244. Compare these results to the equivalent mains-only systems for which the minimum, average and maximum WLCs for all simulations were 96, 1,089 and 5,463 respectively. The standard deviation was 921.
A more detailed analysis of the results revealed similar patterns in WLC and RWH system savings performance between different tank sizes that were
335
modelled under the same operating conditions. From this discovery it was possible to draw a number of broad conclusions regarding RWH system performance in response to changes in key parameters, notably the selected water uses, discount rate, discount period and occupancy rate. When the value of one of the aforementioned parameters was increased in isolation (all other parameters held constant), the following trends were noted: Increase water uses: RWH WLC (increase), mains WLC (increase), RWH savings (increase). Increase discount rate: RWH WLC (decrease), mains WLC (decrease), RWH savings (decrease/increase). Increase discount period: RWH WLC (increase), mains WLC (increase), RWH savings (decrease). Increase occupancy: RWH WLC (no change/increase), mains WLC (increase), RWH savings (increase).
In terms of the predicted RWH system savings, the most cost effective tank sizes were found to be the 1.2m3 and 1.5m3 varieties. Out of 240 scenarios (different combinations of water use, occupancy, discount rates and discount periods) the 1.5m3 tank was ranked first a total of 193 times and was placed second in the remaining simulation runs. The 1.2m3 tank was ranked first a total of 47 times and second on all other occasions. No other tank sizes ranked in the top two positions. The underlying reasons for the evident rankings in tank sizes were investigated. It was found that the rankings were strongly correlated with the capital costs. The higher the capital cost of a specific tank size the lower that tank ranked in terms of savings (r2 = 0.9989). This implied that in
336
order to maximise the net financial return (or more accurately, to minimise net financial losses) a stakeholder should choose the tank with the lowest capital cost (from the range of those assessed). Analysis of the level of capital cost recovery revealed that the average value was in the range of only 0.2-3.8%, i.e. the ultimate financial losses were approximately equal to the capital cost expenditure.
With regards to the average performances of the 1.2m3 and 1.5m3 tank sizes, it was found that: For 1.2m3 tank: RWH system WLC (3,743), RWH system savings (-2,654), % demand met (70%), harvested water supplied (23m 3/yr). For 1.5m3 tank: RWH system WLC (3,727), RWH system savings (-2,638), % demand met (73%), harvested water supplied (24m 3/yr).
The RWH systems and scenarios modelled in this chapter were designed to reflect a wide range of plausible and typical new-build domestic situations in which contemporary RWH systems could be used. The above results indicate that it is highly unlikely that domestic RWH systems are able to confer financial savings under a typical range of conditions and are more likely to result in a significant financial loss. A key conclusion is therefore that, when viewed at the single-building scale, domestic RWH systems are not cost effective under a typical range of conditions compared to relying solely on mains-only supply.
337
Importance of maintenance costs in determining the direction of RWH system savings Of the 3,840 simulations conducted, 907 (24%) showed continuing monetary losses during the operational phase, i.e. instead of beginning to pay back the initial capital investment they were instead accruing further losses. These findings were generally associated with systems that had lower occupancy rates, water uses and discount rates but higher discount periods.
In most years savings did accrue but these were eroded by intermittent maintenance requirements (component replacement). This effect became noticeably more pronounced after about ten years when the first maintenance item (pump replacement) came into effect. A cycle of increasing/decreasing returns became evident, the amplitude of which attenuated over time to a degree dependant on the selected discount rate. Eventually, for any discount rate greater than zero, a constant RWH system savings value would be reached and this could be considered the ultimate level of financial loss/gain. Higher discount rates resulted in this constant value been reached quicker than for lower discount rates. This led to the observation that even RWH systems that appear to perform well financially may never recover the capital cost expenditure. Further, the long payback periods reported in the literature, for example 55 and 267 years (Brewer et al, 2001), seem unlikely given the attenuating effect of discounting future cash flows.
338
Existing research does not consider the full range of maintenance requirements and in general only pump replacement is taken into account. Rerunning the model for a system in which pump replacement was the only maintenance item resulted in predicted theoretical payback times of 302 and 3,000 years for discount rates of 3.5% and 5% respectively. Although these payback period were improbably long in any real sense, the results were revealing in that any payback was predicted at all. This was in stark contrast to the thesis model which predicted that payback was unachievable. This highlighted the importance of the approach taken in the thesis of including a more realistic range of maintenance requirements.
Finally, the above results were considered in terms of their implications for capital cost subsidies/grants. It was noted that even if a system user paid none of the capital costs it could still be possible for them to lose money due to the required maintenance activities. In order to reduce this possibility it was recommended that preference be given to systems intended for buildings with high occupancy rates and high water uses.
Average incremental costs AICs for all 3,840 simulated systems were calculated (RWH and equivalent mains-only systems). In every instance it was found that the AICs from the RWH system were greater than those from the equivalent mains-only systems. The ratio between the RWH and mains-only AICs was used as a method for comparing the cost effectives of different systems. With regards to possible AIC ratio values, there were three important ranges:
339
1. AIC ratio < 1. The RWH system AIC was less than the mains-only AIC, i.e. RWH system was more cost effective. 2. AIC ratio = 1. The RWH system AIC was equal to the mains-only AIC, i.e. RWH system was equally cost effective. 3. AIC ratio > 1. The RWH system was more than the mains-only AIC, i.e. the RWH system was less cost effective.
All AIC ratios were greater than 1. Overall, the results were found to vary between 1.48 and 59.04 (low ratio was for 1.5m3 tank, high ratio was for 15.0m3) . That is, the unit cost of water delivered from the rainwater system was between 1.48 and 59.04 times as expensive as water supplied from the mains. The average AIC ratio was found to be 7.58. A strong correlation was found between capital costs and both the RWH AICs and AIC ratios (r 2 = 0.9998 in both instances). This showed that the aforementioned AIC values were strongly dependant on the capital costs, with lower costs resulting in proportionally lower RWH AICs and AIC ratios. This indicated that in order to minimise both the RWH AICs and AIC ratios, stakeholders should choose the tank size with the lowest associated capital cost (from the range of those assessed).
A more detailed analysis of the results revealed similar patterns in AICs and AIC ratios between different tank sizes that were modelled under the same operating conditions. From this discovery it was possible to draw a number of broad conclusions regarding RWH system performance in response to changes in key parameters, notably the selected water uses, discount rate, discount period and occupancy rate. When the value of the aforementioned parameters
340
were increased in isolation (all other parameters held constant), the following trends were noted: Increase water uses: RWH AIC (decrease), mains AIC (decrease), AIC ratio (decrease). Increase discount rate: RWH AIC (decrease), mains AIC (decrease), AIC ratio (increase). Increase discount period: RWH AIC (decrease), mains AIC (decrease), AIC ratio (decrease). Increase occupancy: RWH AIC (decrease), mains AIC (decrease), AIC ratio (decrease).
Lower RWH AICs and AIC ratios were consistently associated with higher occupancy rates, higher water uses and longer discount periods.
RWH AIC results from the thesis model were compared with those reported by other researchers for domestic systems. Only one rigorous UK-specific study could be located and this reported AICs in the range of 0.29-2.32/m3. However, this did not include consideration of the capital costs which could have increased the reported results significantly. Two Australian studies gave AICs in the region of 0.13-5.45 and one Malaysian study reported an AIC of 0.24/m3. Results from the thesis model showed a much wider variation, ranging between 1.04-170.96/m3. It was found that even for a given tank size the range of predicted AICs was large. Thesis model AICs were also generally higher than those reported in other studies, with an average of 15.42/m3 and standard deviation of 19.12/m3.
341
The predicted RWH AICs were also compared to those presented in the literature for a range of alternative water demand management measures. These consisted of various types of low flush WCs (including displacement devices), different types of showers, metering, greywater systems, rainwater butts, targeted sprinkler use, water audits and the replacement of washing machines with more efficient versions. AIC values for these measures were in the range of 0.00-7.63/m3 with an average of 1.74/m3. Out of the 3,840 RWH systems assessed for the thesis, 85 had AICs lower than the aforementioned average value. Each of these was associated with a high level of water use, high occupancies, long discount periods and high discount rates. The results indicated that, using an AIC metric, RWH systems could be financially competitive with some other water demand management measures. However, this appeared to be true only when using a fairly restricted combination of assessment criteria. Also, in each case the RWH system AICs were still higher than those of the equivalent mains-only systems.
Contribution of key cost elements to RWH system WLC The relative contribution to the RWH WLCs of various key cost components was determined. The cost elements consisted of capital, maintenance, supply standing charge, sewerage standing charge, mains top-up and pump operating (electricity) costs. A 1.5m3 tank was modelled with occupancy rates of between 1-5 in conjunction with the four stakeholder perspectives shown in table 6.1. All other parameters were as given in tables 6.2 and 6.3.
342
It was found that for the homeowner (r=15%, n=10 years) and private sector company (r=5%, n=5 years) perspectives that capital costs accounted for the majority of the WLCs. In the former case they accounted for between 70-77% and in the latter between 87-93%. In both cases increasing the occupancy rate led to a reduction in the capital cost fraction due to a relative increase in percentage contribution from mains top-up water, which was the next largest cost component at between 6-17% (homeowner) and 3-10% (private sector company). All other cost items were responsible for up to a few percentage points each, except for the homeowner scenario in which the maintenance expenses accounted for between 9-10%.
For the water utility perspective (r=10%, n=25 years) the capital costs accounted for between 63-71% of the WLCs. The fraction reduced with increasing occupancy as mains top-up water became a larger element at between 7-20%. The other cost components remained relatively stable. Maintenance accounted for 12-14%, supply and sewerage standing charges 2-4% and 3-5% respectively.
The LA/Government results were less dominated by capital costs, although in all cases these were still the largest contributor to the WLC at between 34-41%. Other results were: maintenance costs (26-32%), mains top-up (14-31%), supply and sewerage charges (3-6% and 4-8% respectively). As the occupancy level increased it was noted that the contribution from mains top-up increased whilst that of all other items decreased.
343
In all cases the smallest contribution was from the pump operating costs which accounted for between 0.1-0.6% of WLCs, a very small proportion.
Effect of changing household occupancy rate on RWH system savings The effects of varying household occupancy rate on RWH system savings were investigated. Sixteen tank sizes were assessed in conjunction with the stakeholder groups (discount rates and periods) shown in table 6.1. Three different water use scenarios were considered (WC flushing only, WC flushing and garden irrigation, WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine).
For a given stakeholder group, results relating to different tank sizes and water use scenarios were found to be reasonably similar and these results were averaged. This gave a total of four data series, one each for the homeowner, water utility, private sector company and LA/Government perspectives.
Examining these four sets of results it was clear that in all cases increasing the occupancy rate led to an increase in RWH system savings. However, the rate of increase was not the same across all stakeholder groups and was distinctly greater for the LA/Government scenarios (r=3.5%, n=50 years) than for the others. For this stakeholder group increasing the occupancy rate from 1 to 5 resulted in a general improvement in system savings of 25%, or about 1,300 on average. The next largest improvement corresponded to the water utility (r=10%, n=25 years) in which the rate of increase between 1-5 occupants was about half of that of LA/Government at 12.5%, or approximately 500. The homeowner (r=15%, n=10 years) and private sector (r=5%, n=5 years) showed
344
the smallest improvement, on average 7.5% and 6.4% respectively between occupancies 1-5.
The trends identified in this study showed that increasing the occupancy rate leads to an improvement in RWH system savings, although in all the situations modelled the savings were still negative (financial loss). The rate of improvement varies with different combinations of discount rates and discount periods, with the greatest rates of change associated with the use of low discount rates and long discount periods.
Mains supply and sewerage charges: how high before domestic RWH systems are cost effective? It was noted that some value must exist for the mains supply and sewerage charges that would enable domestic RWH systems to be financially viable. An analysis was conducted in order to determine this value for a 1.5m 3 tank, occupancies of between 1-5 and three different water uses: WC only; WC + garden irrigation, WC + garden irrigation + washing machine.
A number of trends were apparent in the results: In order of increasing expense the stakeholder scenarios were always ranked the same: LA/Government, water utility, homeowner and private sector company. Increasing the occupancy rate reduced the required cost of mains water. The rate of change was not linear. In all cases moving from occupancy 1
345
to 2 resulted in the greatest decrease in the required cost. The rate of change for all other occupancies was reasonably linear in nature.
The results indicated that in all cases substantial price rises would have to occur before domestic RWH systems could compete on a financial basis with the equivalent mains-only systems. Taking the average required increases in both supply and sewerage charges across the five occupancy rates for each stakeholder perspective gave the following range of results: WC flushing only: 6.97-20.82/m3. WC flushing + garden irrigation: 4.40-12.15/m3. WC flushing + garden irrigation + washing machine: 3.77-10.40/m3.
At an average unit cost of 1.13/m3 for mains supply and sewerage costs (YW metered prices, 2007), mains costs would have to increase by up to 18.4 times their current rate (20.82/m3), 8.9 times on average (10.00/m3) and by at least 3.8 times (3.80/m3) in the best case. Even assuming compound growth in YW mains charges of 3% per year, a value of 3.80/m 3 would not be reached until approximately 2050. An increase in the cost of metered mains water alone would therefore appear to be insufficient to render domestic RWH systems financially viable in the near future even under the best of circumstances.
Investigation of commonly used design and assessment methods The majority of RWH systems in the UK are sold via a relatively small number of private sector companies and so it was deemed prudent to investigate the hydrological and financial assessment methods that such companies utilise. A
346
number of rule-of-thumb methods were found to be in common use. Sizing the tank based on x days supply, where x is the average daily demand, was found to be a widespread approach. Sizing the storage tank based on 5% of the average yearly demand or rainwater supply (whichever is the smaller) was also found to be in common use. No explicit modelling of storage tank behaviour was conducted. It was simply assumed that all harvested water would be available for use.
Financial assessment was found to be much more basic than the approach applied in the thesis model. Monetary savings were based on the volume of mains water substituted by harvested water, essentially the same approach as the thesis. However, the consideration of operating and maintenance costs was limited and in some cases were omitted altogether. In no cases were discounting techniques applied (discount rate essentially zero).
The ROT approaches and the thesis model were used to assess the same range of systems and the results compared. A domestic dwelling of occupancy two, three water uses (WC flushing, garden irrigation and washing machine) and discount period of 50 years was used in all simulations. The ROT tank sizing methods resulted in recommended tank sizes of 1.2m 3 and 2.4m3. Both of these tank sizes were assessed with the ROT methods and thesis model. Comparing the results it was clear that the results predicted by the different approaches were very different.
347
For the 1.2m3 tank ROT predicted a volumetric reliability of 99%, annual savings of 89.79, a payback period of 30 years and ultimate financial savings of 1,830. The thesis model predicted a volumetric reliability of 58%, annual savings of between -8.09 and 2.76, no achievable payback period and ultimate financial losses of between 2,522 and 3,065.
For the 2.4m3 tank ROT predicted a volumetric reliability of 100%, annual savings of between 91.50-92.30, payback period of 38-39 years and ultimate financial savings in the region of 1,050. The thesis model predicted a volumetric reliability of 65%, annual savings of between -4.36 and 3.82, no achievable payback period and an ultimate financial loss of between 3,338 and 3,746.
Given the above disparities between the ROT and thesis results, it was concluded that the commonly used rule-of-thumb methods: Did not realistically model tank behaviour and significantly overestimated the volume of harvested rainwater that could be supplied. Recommended the use of tank sizes outside of the optimum hydrological and financial performance range. Did not adequately account for likely operation and maintenance costs, often assuming that these were very low or even zero. Consequently the monetary benefits were greatly exaggerated. Financial gains were predicted where significant financial losses appeared more likely.
348
Based on these findings it was recommended that the use of ROT methods for the hydrological design and financial assessment of domestic RWH systems should be avoided, particularly in the latter case as the predicted financial performance was unrealistically optimistic in all cases. Whenever possible a more thorough and scientific approach should be taken.
349

UK Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting Systems For New-Build Domestic Dwellings - Bradford University

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

UK Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting Systems For New-Build Domestic Dwellings - Bradford University

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University

Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting Systems for NewBuild Domestic Dwellings

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Universal component values used in domestic simulations

Continued on next page

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Table 6.2 continued

Water and sewerage charges

See chapter 4, section 4.7.5 and appendix two

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Universal maintenance activities and associated costs used in domestic simulations

Maintenance Item Scheduled maintenance

Comments See chapter 4, section 4.7.4 and table 4.9

Sensitivity analysis of the financial model

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Stakeholder group Homeowner Water utility Private sector LA/Gov

Where r = discount rate (%) and n = discount period (years)

Average sensitivity results for changes in daily rainfall depth

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

Average % change in savings ()

-50% -10% -20% -30%

-40% -50% -60% % change in daily rainfall depth

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Average sensitivity results for changes in capital costs

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

0% -100% -50% -50%

-150% % change in capital costs

Average sensitivity results for changes in maintenance costs

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

0% -100% -50% -20% 0% 50%

-60% % change in maintenance costs

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Average sensitivity results for change in mains water charges

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

Average % change in savings ()

0% -100% -50% -20% 0% 50% 100%

-60% % change in mains water charges

Average sensitivity results for changes in roof area

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

Average % change in savings ()

-50% -10% -20%

-30% -40% -50% -60% % change in roof area

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Average sensitivity results for changes in discount rate

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

Average % change in savings ()

-20% -30% -40% -50% -60% % change in fixed discount rate

Average sensitivity results for changes in discount period

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

Average % change in savings ()

-8% % change in fixed discount period

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Home owner Water utility Private company LA/Gov.

Average % change in savings ()

0.0% 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 value 0.8 1.0

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Sensitivity analysis results: associated gradients

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com