Search

Nonpotable water reuse (NPR) is one option for conserving valuable freshwater resources. Decentralization can improve distribution system efficiency by locating treatment closer to the consumer; however, small treatment systems may have higher unit energy and greenhouse-gas (GHG) emissions. This research explored the trade-off between residential NPR systems using a life-cycle approach to analyze the energy use and GHG emissions. Decentralized and centralized NPR options are compared to identify where decentralized systems achieve environmental advantages over centralized reuse alternatives, and vice versa, over a range of scales and spatial and demographic conditions. For high-elevation areas far from the centralized treatment plant, decentralized NPR could lower energy use by 29% and GHG emissions by 28%, but in low-elevation areas close to the centralized treatment plant, decentralized reuse could be higher by up to 85% (energy) and 49% (GHG emissions) for the scales assessed (20-2000 m 3 /day). Direct GHG emissions from the treatment processes were found to be highly uncertain and variable and were not included in the analysis. The framework presented can be used as a planning support tool to reveal the environmental impacts of integrating decentralized NPR with existing centralized wastewater infrastructure and can be adapted to evaluate different treatment technology scales for reuse.

Treatment and water reuse in decentralized systems is envisioned to play a greater role in our future urban water infrastructure due to growing populations and uncertainty in quality and quantity of traditional water resources. In this study, we utilized life-cycle assessment (LCA) to analyze the energy consumption and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of an operating Living Machine (LM) wetland treatment system that recycles wastewater in an office building. The study also assessed the performance of the local utility's centralized wastewater treatment plant, which was found to be significantly more efficient than the LM (79% less energy, 98% less GHG emissions per volume treated). To create a functionally equivalent comparison, the study developed a hypothetical scenario in which the same LM design flow is recycled via centralized infrastructure. This comparison revealed that the current LM has energy consumption advantages (8% less), and a theoretically improved LM design could have GHG advantages (24% less) over the centralized reuse system. The methodology in this study can be applied to other case studies and scenarios to identify conditions under which decentralized water reuse can lower GHG emissions and energy use compared to centralized water reuse when selecting alternative approaches to meet growing water demands.

The water-energy nexus is of growing interest for researchers and policy makers because the two critical resources are interdependent. Their provision and consumption contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This research considers the potential for conserving both energy and water resources by measuring the life-cycle economic efficiency of greenhouse gas reductions through the water loss control technologies of pressure management and leak management. These costs are compared to other GHG abatement technologies: lighting, building insulation, electricity generation, and passenger transportation. Each cost is calculated using a bottom-up approach where regional and temporal variations for three different California water utilities are applied to all alternatives. The costs and abatement potential for each technology are displayed on an environmental abatement cost curve. The results reveal that water loss control can reduce GHGs at lower cost than other technologies and well below California's expected carbon trading price floor. One utility with an energy-intensive water supply could abate 135,000 Mg of GHGs between 2014 and 2035 and save--rather than spend--more than $130/Mg using the water loss control strategies evaluated. Water loss control technologies therefore should be considered in GHG abatement portfolios for utilities and policy makers.