Premium
Water reuse versus water conveyance for supply augmentation: Cost and carbon footprint
Author(s) -
Chamberlain Jim F.,
Tromble Evan,
Graves Michael,
Sabatini David
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
awwa water science
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
ISSN - 2577-8161
DOI - 10.1002/aws2.1170
Subject(s) - reuse , carbon footprint , environmental science , reverse osmosis , water use , water supply , potable water , portfolio , unit (ring theory) , water conservation , water resource management , environmental engineering , environmental economics , water resources , business , waste management , engineering , greenhouse gas , economics , mathematics , ecology , finance , genetics , mathematics education , membrane , biology
Water‐stressed communities are beginning to consider alternative sources of water supply augmentation. We provide a comparison of water conveyance and potable water reuse over a range of water demands. On a unit basis (US$/1,000 gal) and under current practice, water reuse is generally less costly at low flow rates (<10 mgd) as compared with water conveyances of 20 miles or more. This is true especially for advanced water treatment schemes that are based on biologically activated carbon (BAC). At greater distances (>100 miles), treatment schemes that are based on reverse osmosis (RO) also become cost competitive. Similarly, both BAC‐based and RO‐based reuse schemes have a lower or comparable carbon footprint on a unit basis (g CO 2 ‐equiv/1,000 gal) for a flow rate of 20 mgd. In spite of public reluctance, managers would do well to consider reuse in their portfolio of water supply options.