Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

100% renewable wastewater treatment plants: Techno-economic

assessment using a modelling and optimization approach
Pietro Elia Campana a, Matia Mainardis b, *, Alessandro Moretti b, Mattia Cottes b
a
School of Business, Society & Engineering, Mälardalen University, Västerås, Sweden
b
Department Polytechnic of Engineering and Architecture (DPIA), Via del Cotonificio 108, University of Udine, 33100 Udine, Italy

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Renewable energies are being given increasing attention worldwide, as they are able to reduce the dependence
Wastewater treatment on depletable fossil fuels. At the same time, wastewater treatment is known to be a significantly energy-intensive
100% renewables sector, which could potentially exploit renewable energies conversion in different forms. This study investigated
Photovoltaic
the feasibility to design high renewable share wastewater treatment plants through dynamic simulations and
Hydrogen
Reverse osmosis
optimization, aiming to move towards greener and energy-wise wastewater remediation processes. The main aim
Mathematical modelling of the work was achieved by integrating photovoltaic systems with wind turbines, multi-energy storage tech­
nologies, i.e., batteries and hydrogen systems, and reverse osmosis tertiary treatment to absorb the power
production surpluses. It was supposed that, in the newly proposed scenario, most of the plant electricity need
would be covered by renewable energy. The optimization problem was multi-objective and found the trade-off
solutions between minimizing the net present cost and maximizing the renewable share. In the first part of the
study, the model was developed and applied to a medium-scale Italian municipal wastewater treatment plant.
Model generalization was successively accomplished by applying the model to different locations and plant scales
across the world. For all the investigated scenarios and cases, the optimal system integration was to design a
renewable and storage system with a renewable share of 70%, corresponding to the lowest net present cost. The
developed model is highly flexible and can be applied to other relevant case studies, boosting for a more sus­
tainable wastewater treatment sector, enhancing at the same time local renewable energy conversion.

1. Introduction
The energy-water nexus has become a hot topic in recent scientific
research, referring to all the processes where a strong connection be­
tween the water system and the energy sector exists [1]. The increase in
industrial energy demand pushes for an augment in renewable energy
utilization, thanks to government incentives and to public support [2],
aiming to a global reduction in carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, able to
contrast climate change. Hybrid renewable systems, including photo­
voltaic (PV) and wind turbine generation, together with hydrogen and
battery storage, generally allow to obtain a good compromise between
the needed capital investment cost and the energy supply reliability [2].
Among the various industrial processes, wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs) are characterized by a relatively high electricity consumption
(in the range of 1–5% of the total national electricity need) [3], coupled
with a strongly dynamic behaviour, far from stationary conditions.
Moreover, WWTPs have a high potential for heat generation, together
with the capability to produce biogas in the anaerobic digestion (AD)
process, and can thus be seen as a locally available renewable energy
source [4]. Biogas from AD of excess sludge and industrial wastewater
streams in WWTPs can provide on-site renewable energy conversion [5],
with higher flexibility than that provided by solar and wind energy [6].
However, still the main focus in WWTPs daily management is linked to
process optimization, rather than energy saving, and consequently
additional research is needed to allow a wider renewable energy sources
(RES) integration in the sector. The augmented energy tariffs push for
energy optimization in WWTPs, in order to reduce the operating costs
and the consumption of depletable resources, achieving carbon
neutrality [7]. Multi-step simulation-based methodologies can be useful
in linking wastewater treatment processes with energy demand and
conversion, improving plant performances and obtaining, in addition, a
significant energy saving [8].
Wastewater contains a high amount of chemical, thermal, and hy­
drodynamic energy that can be potentially exploited for several uses: the

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: matia.mainardis@uniud.it (M. Mainardis).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2021.114214
Received 14 January 2021; Accepted 21 April 2021
Available online 6 May 2021
0196-8904/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. 1. Energy consumption in a “standard” municipal wastewater treatment plant (WWTP).
adapted from [15,16]
chemical energy is bounded in the organic molecules, and is generally
expressed as chemical oxygen demand (COD) [9]. From this amount of
available energy (estimated as 9.7 kWh/m3) [10], different high-value
products can be extracted, such as electricity, steam, biogas, hot water
[9]. On the other hand, the energy needed for the whole wastewater
treatment chain is generally lower, and in most cases below 1 kWh/m3
[9]. He et al. [11] reported the electricity consumption of a relevant
number of municipal WWTPs in China, with mean values of 0.25–0.33
kWh/m3. Gude [10], instead, reported a much wider range (0.5–2 kWh/
m3) in WWTP electricity consumption. Generally, the introduction of
advanced tertiary processes, besides significantly improving effluent
quality, increases the overall energy consumption. Consistently, another
meaningful work reported a mean electricity consumption of 0.52 kWh/
m3 in a full-scale membrane bioreactor (MBR) in China [12]. Nonethe­
less, in several countries the energy demand required by WWTPs is
about 1% of the total electricity consumption [13], so WWTPs can be
considered as intensive energy users.
Among the different processes that are applied for wastewater
remediation, the biological treatment is known to be the most energy-
intensive section, due to the need of continuously supplying oxygen to
the reactors [14], with 10.2–71% of total plant electricity consumption
[1], depending on the specific plant scheme. A simplified energy balance
for a “standard” WWTP was reported in Fig. 1: the prevalence of energy
consumption for aeration (60%) arises, together with the significant
energy requirements for pumping (13%) and sludge treatment (15%)
[7]. Innovative approaches in biological WWTPs involve the substitu­
tion of conventional activated sludge (CAS) treatment with advanced
solutions, e.g. anaerobic MBRs and integrated fixed-film activated
sludge (IFAS)- sequencing batch reactor (SBR) processes, which allow an
enhanced energy harvest from biogas, a reduced sludge production and
a lower electricity request [15], improving the WWTP energy balance.
Recently, researchers applied the demand response concept to
WWTPs, to shift part of the energy consumption from peak to off-peak
periods, mainly through mathematical modelling approaches [1,14],
e.g. by storing the air needed for the biological process or through the
introduction of equalization tanks. The intrinsically variable renewable
energy supply (particularly when considering PV power and wind tur­
bines) asks for a significant flexibility in energy grids, and WWTPs have
been recently shown to be able to provide an elastic electricity genera­
tion and consumption [17]. Furthermore, it was proved that WWTPs are
capable of providing energy flexibility by applying load shifting,
without significantly affecting process performances [18].
In a more general perspective, the mismatch between the variable
RES generation and the electric load can cause curtailment of excess
2
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
renewable power, leading to negative effects such as green-house gases
(GHG) emission increase [19]. Recently, mathematical modelling has
been applied to investigate and compare different end-use strategies for
excess RES power (including energy storage, production of trans­
portation fuel or vehicle charging, renewable gas production), with the
aim of selecting the most effective and economic solution [19]. It was
proved that a district having high renewable capacity can fulfil the
100% RES conversion by exploiting synergism between different energy
networks, with a fundamental role played by storage systems (such as
batteries) [20].
WWTPs can be selected, as well, to provide energy flexibility in a
100% renewable energy grid, achieving a perfect match between supply
and demand [17]. More specifically, renewable energy storage through
water electrolysis can lead to meaningful fluxes of hydrogen, that can be
exploited to produce heat and electricity, and oxygen, that can partially
(or even totally) substitute compressed air injection into the biological
basins. Hydrogen is a suitable vector for storing renewable energy
converted from wind farms or photovoltaic systems for medium periods
(from a few days up to several months) [21]. On the other hand, oxygen
injection to sustain the aerobic degradation of organic pollutants in
secondary biological treatments represents one of the main operating
costs in WWTPs, as recently recognized by several studies [14,22]. The
renewable energy surplus can be used, as well, to improve final effluent
characteristics by applying an advanced tertiary treatment (including
energy-intensive processes like ultrasound, ozonation or reverse
osmosis) [23], in order to reclaim wastewater for agricultural irrigation
[24] or for industrial uses [25]. Among the different available technol­
ogies, reverse osmosis (RO) is a tertiary wastewater treatment process
that allows to obtain excellent effluent quality characteristics for reuse,
thanks to its optimum abatement of salinity, organic and inorganic
contaminants, coupled with an efficient barrier for pathogenic micro­
organisms [26].
In this work, a thorough mathematical modelling approach was
employed to assess the feasibility of using the excess of renewable en­
ergy from the electricity grid to reduce WWTP operating costs,
improving at the same time treated effluent quality. The main innova­
tive aspect of the study was the development of a simulation and opti­
mization model able to couple renewable energy conversion with energy
storage, investigating the connection with the electricity grid and
improving plant performances through the introduction of tertiary
treatments. The model was applied to a selected medium-scale WWTP
(86,400 population equivalent), located in North-East of Italy, and
successively extended to different scale plants to prove the robustness of
the developed solutions. A hybrid energy system, composed of wind
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. 2. Normalized wastewater inflow curve (adapted from Cottes et al. [14]).
Fig. 3. Monthly electricity consumption for the analysed wastewater treatment
plant (Italy) (45.6686◦ N, 13.1041◦ E).
power and PV energy conversion, was considered, evaluating the actual
availability of these RES in the selected location. The renewable energy
excess was supposed to be stored in batteries, and an electrolyser was
introduced for oxygen and hydrogen production. The oxygen flux
generated by the electrolyser was used to sustain the aeration in the
biological basins, considering the actual process need. RO was selected
as tertiary treatment technology to improve effluent characteristics,
allowing to potentially reuse the treated water. If the RO unit is sup­
ported by PV, most of the production comes in the summer season, and
consequently a surplus of high-quality water can be produced during
this period. Mostly, this season coincides with the maximum water usage
in agricultural irrigation and with the yearly peak in WWTP flowrate (in
case of touristic WWTPs, such as the present case-study), showing an
advantageous seasonal match. The proposed modelling approach is
highly flexible and applicative, and can be tailored to selected plants
having different potentiality and technical characteristics by simply
modifying model’s input parameters and boundary conditions.
2. Methods
Section 2.1 reports the main technical characteristics of the investi­
gated WWTP, while Section 2.2 describes the developed mathematical
model of the energy conversion and storage technologies included in the
investigated energy systems, as well as the RO unit. Section 2.3 illus­
trates the adopted operational strategy, and finally Section 2.4 is focused
on the applied optimization technique.
3
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
Fig. 4. Specific electricity consumption of different scale wastewater treatment
plants [15,28].
2.1. Wastewater treatment plant input data
A medium-scale WWTP (86,400 population equivalent), located in
the coastal area of Friuli-Venezia Giulia region (Italy), was selected as a
meaningful case study. The plant was characterized by a strong seasonal
behaviour, due to a consistent touristic flux in the summer period. The
treatment line was composed of wastewater pre-treatment (screening,
oil, and sand removal) followed by primary sedimentation and sec­
ondary biological treatment; finally, the treated effluent was disinfected
and directed to the sea pipeline. The sludge line included an AD reactor
and a sludge desiccation unit through centrifuges. One-year hourly data
regarding the treated flowrate were considered to build the mean 24-h
behaviour, that was shown to be consistent with typical municipal
WWTPs located in Italy [14], having a peak in the late morning (1 p.m.)
and a second peak in the afternoon (4 p.m.) (Fig. 2).
The mean plant specific electricity consumption (expressed as kWh/
m3, Fig. 3) was calculated based on the real consumption data of one
typical year: from this graph, the remarkable augment in energy demand
in the summer period becomes evident. The energy expenses for aera­
tion in the secondary biological phase were calculated considering the
installed compressor power and the treated flowrate: aeration accounted
for about 45% of the total plant electricity consumption, consistently
with previous research related to the same WWTP [14]. Consequently,
in the different operating conditions that were encountered throughout
the year, the mean amount of oxygen needed for the biological basins
was estimated as 3.54 m3 O2/m3 wastewater. The electricity cost was
directly given by the Italian authority for energy, gas, water, and waste
(ARERA) [27].
For generalization purposes, the developed model was subsequently
extended to different scale WWTPs, considering a decreasing trend in
the mean electricity consumption as plant potentiality increased (Fig. 4),
consistently with the most recent literature outcomes [15].
2.2. Modelling
To achieve a 100% RES wastewater system, a hybrid energy network,
composed of a solar photovoltaic unit and a wind generator for energy
conversion, was studied, while a li-ion battery, a hydrogen system
(electrolyser and hydrogen tank) and a RO unit were considered as
storage systems (Fig. 5). The oxygen flux produced by the electrolyser
was used within the aeration system in the biological basins to reduce
the electricity consumption for biomass oxygenation. The heat produced
by the electrolyser and fuel cells was recovered for reutilization within
the WWTP (water and sludge lines). Typically, a high renewable
P.E. Campana et al. Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214

Fig. 5. Proposed wastewater system layout. .

Adapted from [9,30]

to have an ideal MPPT tracker. The efficiency of the power conversion

Table 1
unit was assumed equal to the efficiency curve of the inverter Steca Grid
Technical characteristics of SunPower SPRX22-360 photovoltaic module.
3000 [33]. The solar radiation hitting the PV array was calculated using
Parameter Value the Perez1990 transposition model [34]. The solar cells temperature
Power peak (Wp) 360 referred to the model developed by Skoplaki et al. [35].
Panel efficiency (%) 22.2
Maximum power point voltage (V) 59.1
2.2.2. Wind turbine
Maximum power point current (A) 6.09
Open-circuit voltage (V) 69.5
The wind speed (v) at the hub height was calculated with the loga­
Short-circuit current (A) 6.48 rithmic wind law [36]:
Power temperature coefficient (%/◦ C) − 0.29 [ ( ) ]
Voltage temperature coefficient (mV/◦ C) − 167.4 v* z− d
v= ln +ψ (2)
Current temperature coefficient (mA/◦ C) 2.9 κ z0
Where, v* is the friction velocity (m/s), κ is the Von Karman constant
penetration energy system leads to significant electricity surpluses that (≈0.4), z is the hub height (m), d is the zero-plane displacement (m), z0
are not economically viable to store, and thus are dumped or curtailed. is the surface roughness (m), and ψ is a stability term. The hourly power
By adopting the concept of multi-vector energy system, it was decided to production from the wind turbine was calculated through interpolation
exploit the energy surpluses that were not economically viable by by using the power curve of Vestas V112-3.45 MW [37] as a reference.
introducing RO as tertiary wastewater treatment, improving in a sub­
stantial way treated effluent quality in view of its possible reuse. The 2.2.3. Battery model
meteorological data (global horizontal radiation, diffuse horizontal ra­ The implemented battery model referred to the Shepherd model
diation, ambient temperature, and wind speed at 10 m) for a typical [38,39]. In this study, it was assumed to have a thermal energy man­
meteorological year (TMY) in the selected location were retrieved from agement that prevented battery capacity fading.
Meteonorm® [29].
2.2.4. Hydrogen system
2.2.1. Photovoltaic system The hydrogen system was composed of an alkaline electrolyser, a
The PV unit was simulated by implementing the one-diode five pa­ compressor, a hydrogen tank and a proton-exchange membrane (PEM)
rameters model to simulate the current–voltage (I-V) characteristic fuel cell. The modelling of the electrolyser and fuel cell was accom­
curve of solar cells by using the following equation [31]: plished by using the efficiency curves (i.e., power input versus hydrogen
[ ( ) ] production for the electrolyser [40], and power required versus
V + IRs V + IRs
I = IL − I0 exp − 1 − (1) hydrogen consumption for the fuel cell [41]). The power consumption of
a Rsh
the compressor, Wc (W), was calculated using the following equation
[42]:
Where, I (A) is the operating current, IL is the light generated current (A),
I0 is the diode reverse saturation current (A), RS is the series resistance T1
(( )r−r 1
P2
)
(Ω), a is the modified ideality factor, Rsh is the shunt resistance (Ω). The Wc = c p − 1 mH2 ,el (3)
ηc P1
PV module selected as reference was SunPower SPRX22-360 [32],
whose technical characteristics were summarized in Table 1. Concerning Where, cp is the specific heat of hydrogen (kJ/(kg K)), T1 is the inlet
the maximum power point tracking (MPPT) algorithm, it was supposed hydrogen temperature (K), ηc is the compressor efficiency (%), P1 and P2

4
P.E. Campana et al. Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214

are the inlet and output pressures (bar), r is the isentropic exponent of Table 2
hydrogen (1.4), and mH2,el is the compressed hydrogen mass (kg). The Lower and upper bounds of the decisional variables for the optimization prob­
hydrogen tank model performed the hydrogen mass balance at each time lem in the generalization scenario.
step. Parameter Lower bound Upper bound

Tilt angle (◦ )
2.2.5. Reverse osmosis Azimuth angle (◦ )
If the renewable power surplus could not be stored into the hydrogen PV system capacity (MWp)
system because the latter was at its full capacity, the extra power was Wind turbine capacity (MWr)
Wind turbine tower height (m)
supposed to be converted into freshwater through a tertiary wastewater
Battery capacity (MWh)
treatment, composed of a RO unit. The power requirement of the RO Electrolyser capacity (MW)
system, PRO (W), was modelled by assuming an energy recovery system Hydrogen storage tank (MWh)
for the high-pressure brine according to the following equation [43]: Fuel cell capacity (MW)
0 90
− 45 45
0 3
0 2
0 100
0 20
0 5
0 20
0 2

p f Qf
PRO = b − bpb Qb ηt (4)
ηp with element type SW30ULE-400i (37.2 m2 active area per element,
operating pressure of 55.2 bar, flow of 41.6 m3/day), recovery rate of
Where, b is a conversion factor, pf is the RO membrane feed pressure 50%, and TDS concentration in the feed equal to 20.6 ppm (mean data
(bar), Qf is the feed flowrate (m3/h), ηp is the pump efficiency (%), pb is from the selected WWTP).
the brine exit pressure (bar), Qb is the brine flowrate (m3/h), and ηt is
turbine efficiency (%). The permeate flowrate Qp (m3/h), given by the
difference from feed flowrate and brine flowrate, was calculated with 2.3. Operational strategy
the following equation [44–46]:
The battery was charged when the PV and the wind power produc­
Qp = kp Am TCF(Δp − Δπ ) (5) tion was higher than WWTP consumption. If the difference between the
sum of PV and wind power production and the electricity consumption
Where, kp is the membrane permeability coefficient (m/bar-h) that de­ in the WWTP was higher than the battery power, the power surplus was
pends on the membrane permeability and fouling factor, Am is the used for charging the hydrogen system. If the battery was fully charged
membrane surface effective area (m2), TCF is the temperature correction and there was a surplus of power, then the hydrogen system was
factor, Δp is the average pressure differential across the membrane charged. If both the battery and the hydrogen tank were fully charged,
(bar), and Δπ is the average difference in osmotic pressure across the the power surplus was injected into the grid. The battery was discharged
membrane (bar). TCF was given by the following relationship [47]: when WWTP power consumption was higher than the power produc­
⎧ ( ( )) tion. Similar to the discharge process, if the required power was higher
⎪
⎪
⎪ 2640 2981 − 1 than the maximum dischargeable power, the hydrogen system
⎪
⎨e 273+T
, T ≥ 25
TCF = ( ( )) (6)
⎪
⎪
⎪ Table 3
⎪ 1 − 1
Main economic parameters used in the model optimization.
⎩ 3020 298 273+T
e , T < 25
Parameter Value
Where T is the temperature (◦ C). The average pressure differential and PV system capital cost (US$/kWp) 995 [49]
the average difference in the osmotic pressure across the membrane Wind generator capital cost (US 1,473 [49]
were calculated as follows [46,48]: $/kWr)
Battery capital cost (US$/kWh) 466 [50]
pf + pb Electrolyser capital cost (US$/kW) 500 [51]
Δp = − pp (7)
2 Compressor capital cost (US$/kW) 100 [52]
Hydrogen tank capital cost (US 14 (Adapted from [53] (438 US$/kg)
πf + πb $/kWh) considering that 1 kg of hydrogen contains
Δπ = − πp (8) 33.33 kWh)
2
Fuel cell capital cost (US$/kW) 2,500 [54]
0.002654C(T + 273) Reverse osmosis capital cost (US 2.23 [55]
π= C
(9) $/m3/year)
1000 − 1000 PV system operational cost (US 10 [49]
$/kW/year)
Where pf is the RO feed water pressure (bar), pp is the RO permeate Wind generator operational cost 40 [49]
pressure (bar), πf is the osmotic pressure of RO feed water (bar), π b is the (US$/kW/year)
Battery operational cost (US$/kWh) 8 [50]
osmotic pressure of RO brine (bar), πp is the osmotic pressure of RO
Electrolyser operational cost (% of 2 [51]
permeate (bar), C is Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) concentration (ppm). A the investment cost/year)
mass balance equation was subsequently written, considering feed, Compressor operational cost (% of 4 [56]
brine, and permeate flowrates (respectively Qf, Qb, Qp (m3/h)), and the investment cost/year)
Hydrogen tank operational cost (US 0 [53]
concentrations (respectively Cf, Cb, Cp (ppm)):
$/year)
Qf Cf = Qb Cb + Qp Cp (10) Fuel cell operational cost (US 0.04 [54]
$/kWh)
The adopted design parameter was the recovery ratio, defined as Reverse osmosis operational cost (% 4 [55]
of the investment cost/year)
follows:
PV system lifetime (year) 25 [57]
Qp Wind generator lifetime (year) 25 [57]
R= (11) Battery lifetime (year) 20 [58]
Qf
Electrolyser lifetime (year) 15 [53]
The recovery ratio represented the objective function of the opti­ Compressor lifetime (year) 20 [52]
Hydrogen tank lifetime (year) 25 [53]
mization problem by varying the number of elements and the feed
Fuel cell lifetime (year) 15 [54]
pressure. The following further assumptions were made: single stage RO Reverse osmosis lifetime (year) >25 [55]

5
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. 6. Simulation results (the simulated system was composed of a 1.6 MWp PV system, 800 kWr wind turbine with 80 m tower, 2.4 MWh battery, 2.4 MW
electrolyser, 24 MWh hydrogen tank, and 800 kW fuel cell).
supported the battery system. If the battery was fully discharged, the
hydrogen system supplied the electric load. If both the battery and
hydrogen system were discharged, the electric load was met by
importing electric power from the grid. In the case the RO unit was in­
tegrated into the energy system, the power surplus to be injected into the
grid was transformed into an effluent having a superior water quality by
the tertiary wastewater treatment.
2.4. Optimization
The optimization model was set to pursue two main objectives:
maximizing the RES self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) (%) (intended as the
number of hours in which the electric load was met by the renewables
plus the storage systems over the total number of operating hours per
year) and minimizing the system net present cost (NPC) (US$). The NPC
was calculated by using the following equation:
∑
n storage capacity equal to 1 h of PV system and wind turbine operation at
CFy
NPC = ICC + , (12)
(1 + d)y
y=1
Where, ICC is the initial investment cost (US$), CFy is the cost flow in
the yth year (US$), and d is the discount rate (%). In this study, all the
economic data were referred to US Dollars (US$). The developed opti­
mization model found the optimal capacities of the systems’ components
to reach the above-mentioned objectives. The components’ capacities (i.
e., PV system power peak, wind generator rated power, battery and
hydrogen tank capacities, electrolyser and fuel cell rated power) were
the decisional variables of the optimization problem. The lower and
upper bounds of the decisional variables for the optimization problem
were summarized in Table 2. The main economic parameters considered
in the optimization process were instead reported in Table 3.
6
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
3. Results
Section 3.1 describes simulation results, while Section 3.2 is focused
on the outcomes of the optimization model.
3.1. Simulation results
A summary of the simulation results regarding the investigated en­
ergy system was provided in Fig. 6, in terms of PV and wind power
production and electricity consumption profiles (top), battery and
hydrogen tank state of charge (SOC) (middle), and electricity surplus
and deficit (down). The simulation outcomes in Fig. 6 were referred to a
non-optimized system composed of 1.6 MWp PV system (800 kW was the
annual electricity consumption peak that typically occurred during the
summer months), 800 kWp wind turbine, 2.4 MWh battery (it was
assumed to use the battery as a short term energy storage solution with a
maximum capacity), 2.4 MW electrolyser (i.e., sum of the power ca­
pacities of the PV system and wind turbine), 24 MWh hydrogen tank (i.
e., 10 h of PV system and wind turbine full capacity), and 800 kW fuel
cell. The simulated system showed a SSR of 94%; nevertheless, as could
be seen from the figure, there was a substantial electricity surplus to be
injected into the grid (1.25 GWh-el/year).
The oxygen produced during the electrolysis was used in the aeration
process to lower the electricity consumption of this key component of
the wastewater treatment chain. The annual oxygen volumeproduced in
the electrolyser was 200,000 Nm3. The resulting electricity reduction
from feeding the WWTP aeration step with the produced oxygen was 6.9
MWhel/year. The thermal energy recovered by the electrolyser and fuel
cell was 673 MWhth/year.
The substantial electricity surplus resulting from Fig. 6 could be used
for supporting further system integration and plant improvement, for
instance by connecting a RO unit at the end of the WWTP treatment
P.E. Campana et al. Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214

Fig. 8. Optimal PV and wind turbine capacities selected during the optimiza­
tion process (the projections of those points in the x-y plane form the Pareto
Fig. 7. Pareto front of the optimal solutions. front of Fig. 7).

chain. Based on the assumptions in Section 2.2.5, the specific electricity

consumption of the RO unit was calculated as 0.512 kWh/m3 of pro­
duced water. This value referred to a unit that abated the TDS concen­
tration from 20.6 ppm to 1 ppm. A similar consumption value, equal to
0.451 kWh/m3, was reported by Liu et al. [59]. A validation in terms of
specific electricity consumption (kWh/m3) between the model pre­
sented in Section 2.2.5 and the commercial software WAVE® was pro­
vided in the Appendix.

3.2. Optimization results

Sub-section 3.2.1 reports the results of the case study optimization;

Sub-section 3.2.2 is aimed at generalizing the obtained outcomes in
order to highlight the applicability of the developed model to other
relevant case-studies.

3.2.1. Case study

The Pareto front of the optimal solutions for the selected WWTP was
depicted in Fig. 7. As can be seen, the curve was divided in two distinct
parts, because the entire Pareto frontier was obtained through two
separate optimizations. In the first optimization, the objective functions
were NPC minimization and SSR maximization (as described in Section
2.4), while in the second step the objective functions were NPC mini­
mization and SSR minimization. This was performed because the Pareto
front showed a knee in correspondence of a SSR of 80%. The NPC
decreased by increasing the renewable penetration from 10% until
70–80%, while, on the other hand, the NPC augmented exponentially by
further increasing the renewable penetration (from 80% up to 100%).
By performing the reference optimization (as described in Section 2.4),
only the upper part of the Pareto front was obtained. This outcome was
related to the theory of double objective optimization and non­
dominated solutions (a solution among the feasible solutions is called
nondominated if none of the objective functions can be improved in
their value without degrading some of the other objective values [60]).
Indeed, those solutions were dominant when compared to the solutions
that formed the lower part of the Pareto front (part 1), also explaining
the gap between parts 1 and 2 of the Pareto fronts. Fig. 7 shows the
Pareto front for both systems (with and without RO unit). The RO unit
had a negligible effect on the NPC for low SSR values (i.e., SSR below
50%), since the surplus electricity was null or extremely low. For high
renewable penetrations (i.e., SSR higher than 50%), the electricity sur­
plus became relevant and, accordingly, the size of the RO unit and the
Fig. 9. Optimal battery and hydrogen tank capacities selected during the
optimization process (the projections of those points in the x-y plane form the
Pareto front of Fig. 7).
related investment and operational costs significantly affected the NPC.
This aspect was evident at SSR between 70% and 90%, where the Pareto
front showed a significantly higher NPC at equal SSR as compared to the
system without RO unit. Moreover, the system with RO unit showed
remarkable differences with the system without RO unit in proximity of
100% SSR, where the NPC for the system with RO unit was more than 40
MUS$, higher than the system without RO unit. Besides representing the
optimal solutions, the corresponding values of the decisional variables
in terms of PV and wind power capacities, battery and hydrogen tank
capacities, and the dimensions of the hydrogen system components were
presented in Figs. 8-10.
The optimal capacities of the PV system and wind turbine were
depicted in Fig. 8 in form of a 3D scatter plot. The projections of those
points in the x-y plane formed the Pareto front of Fig. 7. As can be seen
from Fig. 8, PV system was the technology that drove the optimization
from low to high renewable penetration scenarios. The wind turbine
instead played a key role only at high renewable penetrations, because
its investment and operational costs were significantly higher than those

7
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. 10. Electrolyser, hydrogen tank and fuel cell capacities selected during the
optimization process (the projections of those points in the x-y plane form the
Pareto front of Fig. 7).
Fig. 11. Electrolyser, hydrogen tank and fuel cell capacities selected during the
optimization process using the best cost scenario for fuel cell lifetime, invest­
ment costs and operational costs.
of the PV unit (see Table 3). Nevertheless, at high renewable penetra­
tion, the energy storage technologies became necessary and started to be
selected (Fig. 9). In this selection process, the wind turbine started to be
chosen because the integration of wind turbine, due to its complemen­
tarity with solar PV production, reduced the capacity of the storage
technologies that required a much higher investment cost.
Due to the current high costs of the hydrogen storage system (elec­
trolyser + hydrogen tank + fuel cell) as compared to the battery
(Table 3), the optimization model selected primarily the battery system
as preferred energy storage technology (Fig. 9). The details of the se­
lection process for the capacities of the hydrogen storage system com­
ponents were depicted in Fig. 10. As can be seen, the fuel cell
represented the bottleneck of the subsystem. Fuel cell capacity never
went beyond 300 kW, despite the electricity consumption peaked up to
800 kW, and considering the fact that the fuel cell should work as back-
up power. This result was related to the techno-economic nature of the
optimization model, and was in accordance with the extremely high
investments costs of the fuel cell (Table 3). Motivated by this fact, a
further sub-scenario was investigated, considering future optimistic
8
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
projections of fuel cell costs. The results were depicted in Fig. 11, and
referred to a fuel cell marked out by an investment cost of 1,500 US
$/kW, an operational cost of 0.25 US$/kWh and a lifetime of 25 years
[54]. By using the most optimistic scenario for the fuel cell, the selection
process with fuel cell was improved until capacities up to 700 kW. In
addition, the selection process started to choose high fuel cell capacities,
in the order of 150 kW upwards, beginning from SSR of 70%.
A further detail of the optimization process was represented by the
selection of the optimal tilt and azimuth angles of the PV unit. The
relationship between optimal tilt and azimuth angles and SSR was
depicted in Fig. 12. High SSR values were only achieved at high tilt
angles. This could be explained by analysing Fig. 3, which showed that
WWTP electricity consumption was higher during the summer months
(due to the touristic fluxes). Thus, the optimization algorithm selected
those tilt angles that led to a higher electricity production during sum­
mer months. Concerning the azimuth angle, most of the optimal values
at high SSR were negatives (i.e., optimal PV array orientation towards
east). This can be explained by a further analysis of Fig. 2: a significant
ramp-up of the wastewater flowrate was observed from 9 a.m. until 1 p.
m., and consequently the optimal tilt angles towards east led to a higher
PV production during this period of the day.
3.2.2. Generalization
The generalization of the developed model was carried out by using
the weather conditions corresponding to three different climates (i.e.,
Stockholm, Rome, and Johannesburg). Moreover, a further scenario
considering different WWTP sizes (i.e., influent flowrate of 100 m3/day,
1,000 m3/day, 10,000 m3/day, and 100,000 m3/day) was analysed for
Rome. The specific WWTPs electricity consumption was calculated by
using the relationship provided by Gu et al. [15]. While performing the
model generalization, the optimization problem was modified in terms
of lower and upper bounds as reported in Table 4.
The Pareto fronts for the optimization carried out for Johannesburg,
Rome and Stockholm for a WWTP treating 100,000 m3/day were pro­
vided in Fig. 13. The figure referred to a WWTP without a RO unit.
200 MUS$ was the NPC of the system without any renewable and
storage technology integration (i.e., it represented the life cycle cost of
the electricity paid by the WWTP managing company by assuming an
electricity price of 0.18 US$/kWh [27]). The highest renewable pene­
trations were achieved with NPC in the order of 20%, 65% and 60%
higher than the case without renewable and storage systems for
Johannesburg, Rome, and Stockholm respectively. By assuming the
lower and upper bounds of Table 4, only Johannesburg could achieve a
100% renewable-based wastewater treatment system, whereas Rome
and Stockholm could reach maximum values respectively of 97% and
95%, due to the lower solar energy availability for Rome and Stockholm.
The lowest NPC was achieved with SSR values in the range of 70% for
both cases, consistently with the results obtained on the selected WWTP
(Fig. 7). For high SSR values, more consistent capacities of the storage
technologies were required, leading to an exponential increase of the
NPC due to the current market prices. The details of the optimal ca­
pacities of the system components selected during the optimization
process were summarized in Fig. 14.
Similar to the selected WWTP scenario, solar PV was the first
renewable technology being selected by the optimization algorithm, due
to the lower investment and operational costs when compared to wind
turbines. Nevertheless, except for Johannesburg (marked out by an
extremely high solar energy potential), high renewable penetrations
could only be achieved by combining solar PV and wind turbines,
exploiting solar and wind temporal complementarity [61]. Differently
from the analysed WWTP, marked out by a strong seasonality (see Fig. 3)
that coincided with the PV production, the electricity consumption for
the WWTPs of Johannesburg, Rome, and Stockholm was assumed to
have a flatter load (see Section 2.1). This affected the selection of the
optimum storage system. Due to the match between PV power supply
and electricity consumption, the most favourable electricity storage
P.E. Campana et al. Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214

Fig. 12. Relationship between optimal tilt and azimuth angles and self-sufficiency ratio (SSR) of the photovoltaic (PV) unit.

Table 4
Lower and upper bounds of the decisional variables for the optimization prob­
lem in the generalization scenario.
Parameter
Tilt angle (◦ )
Azimuth angle (◦ )
PV system capacity (MWp)
Wind turbine capacity (MWr)
Wind turbine tower height (m)
Battery capacity (MWh)
Electrolyser capacity (MW)
Hydrogen storage tank (MWh)
Fuel cell capacity (MW)
Lower bound Upper bound
0 90
− 45 45
0 5
0 5
0 100
0 20
0 20
0 20
0 5
water (LCOW) and SSR. The levelized cost of water is defined as the ratio
between the NPC and the sum of the discounted water treated by the
WWTP during its lifetime, and allows to compare technologies with
different operational scales [62]. As can be seen, low capacity WWTPs
were marked out by high LCOW values. Nevertheless, except for the
WWTP characterized by a treated water flowrate of 100 m3/day, the
LCOW did not substantially increase. In the case of the WWTP treating
100 m3/day, the LCOW varied from 17 US$/m3 up to 23 US$/m3, while
for the 1,000 m3/day and for the 100,000 m3/day WWTPs, the LCOW
was in the range of 9.5–11.5 US$/m3, and 2.5–4.5 US$/m3, respectively.
For larger scale WWTPs, the LCOW did not substantially increase when
compared to the reference case (i.e., electricity consumption covered
through the electric grid and electricity price of 0.18 US$/kWh).

4. Discussion

Section 4.1 analyses RES integration in WWTPs, discussing the future

perspectives in the field by analysing relevant literature studies. Section
4.2 deals with the improvement of the treated effluent quality for its
recovery, while Section 4.3 discusses model generalization and reports
some final remarks.

4.1. Renewable energy utilization and optimization in wastewater

treatment plants

As previously mentioned, about 45% of the overall electricity con­

Fig. 13. Pareto fronts for Johannesburg, Rome and Stockholm for a wastewater
treatment plant of 100,000 m3/day without reverse osmosis.
system was the battery for short-term storage (Fig. 9). Nevertheless, for
Johannesburg, Rome and Stockholm, due to the reduced match between
supply and demand, the selection of the hydrogen storage played a
significant role as a long-term storage solution.
The results of the scenario considering different WWTP sizes were
summarized in Fig. 15 in terms of relationship between levelized cost of
sumption in the selected WWTP was due to aeration, considering the
relevant oxygen fluxes that needed to be injected into the biological
basins to sustain aerobic pollutant degradation. The total WWTP elec­
tricity consumption was calculated as 0.27 kWh/m3 of wastewater, and
was coherent with other literature studies [9,11]. Waste heat recovery
was not considered in this study, since it was decided to focus only on
electricity and hydrogen as energy vectors. However, the waste heat
could be used to supply thermal energy for buildings within the WWTP
or exported/traded through a district heating and cooling system
network [14]. Recent literature studies [63] proposed in addition heat
recovery from biological wastewater effluents: by investigating a full-
scale sequencing batch biofilter granular reactor (SBBGR), the installa­
tion of a water source heat pump was proposed, including a PV unit to
power the heat compressor engine and energy storage through two
phase change material tanks. It was shown that the recovered thermal
energy strongly depended on the environmental temperature; however,
it was possible to produce up to 14.5 kWh of thermal energy without
affecting process performances [63]. Elsewhere, combined heating and
cooling systems were proposed to satisfy electrical, heating and cooling

9
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. 14. Optimization results for Johannesburg (a-c), Rome (e-g) and Stockholm (h-j) for a 100,000 m3/day wastewater plant.
WWTP demands, analysing the technical and economic profitability of
the newly suggested devices under various operating parameters [64].
In literature, mathematical modelling was used to prove the feasi­
bility of obtaining a 100% renewable energy grid, using WWTPs as en­
ergy flexibility providers [17]. From the electric grid perspective, in fact,
the RO unit, as well as the battery and the hydrogen tank (and by
considering a macro level, the entire wastewater system) [14], represent
key technologies able to provide remunerable flexibility services to the
grid itself, while producing useful by-products (water for different reuse
purposes). In this framework, Ali et al. [17] showed that using WWTPs
for load and generation shift could moderately reduce the size of a 100%
renewable electricity grid in Australia (from 152.2 GW, without flexi­
bility, down to 148.6 GW with flexibility). Differently from the present
outcomes, where PV generation was preponderant, wind power
accounted for 39% of the total electric power, while concentrated solar
thermal power and PV power supplied respectively 29% and 21% of the
electricity generation. On the other hand, electricity from sewage sludge
AD provided only 1% of the total load [17].
Beside RES implementation, energy audits can be a useful tool to
improve WWTP energy efficiency, upgrading the process treatment
scheme or optimizing the existing treatment units [65]. The aggregation
of common key performance indicators (KPIs), referred to treated
flowrate, COD or other process parameters, in a global index can convey
10
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
in a direct way the overall WWTP energy performances, better identi­
fying the margins for energy saving and optimization [13] and allowing,
in addition, an easier benchmarking.
Energy neutrality in WWTPs can be achieved by means of different
strategies, including an optimization of the energy consumption in water
and sludge lines, an augment of energy recovery from internal sources,
the use of additional external RES [9]. Remarkable energy-positive case-
studies were proposed in the scientific literature. Energy recovery from
excess sludge AD, as an example, could be increased by co-digesting
other locally available biodegradable organic waste (such as dairy
waste or organic fraction of municipal solid waste), contributing to the
circular economy and sustainability perspectives sustained by European
Union (EU) [66]. Energy recovery from WWTPs can reduce the oper­
ating costs and thus lower process’ environmental impact, providing
electricity and heat needed for the various plant operations [65]. The
long-term goal of WWTPs is to move towards water and energy recovery
facilities (WERFs) by achieving an energy-neutral (or even an energy-
positive) status [67]. Considering this framework, the proposed
approach can boost this transition, exploiting in a virtuous way the
locally available RES, improving at the same time treated effluent
quality through tertiary treatment.
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. 15. Relationship between levelized cost of water treated (LCOW) for
different sizes of wastewater treatment plants in Rome.
4.2. Effluent quality improvement and water reclamation
The electricity surplus used for the RO tertiary treatment could yield
a meaningful superior effluent quality production (up to 200,000 m3/
year in the case of the analysed WWTP). The produced water could be
reused (and even sold) for different purposes, such as drinking water,
livestock watering, industrial applications, and agricultural irrigation. It
is beyond the scope of this study to discuss the aspects influencing water
reuse regulations as analysed by Salgot and Folch [68]; however, the
specific thresholds in pollutant concentrations should be properly
accounted when dealing with wastewater reuse schemes, and conse­
quently a continuous effluent monitoring is fundamental. Moreover, the
specific electricity consumption of the tertiary RO unit could be reduced,
if lower water qualities would be required. Finally, the presence of
subsidies promoting higher effluent standards could further justify RO
unit integration in the analysed WWTP [69].
WWTPs are supposed to treat the inflow streams with efficient pro­
cesses, leading to treated effluents that respect the quality requirements
related to the pollutant concentration limits. However, the effluent
concentration thresholds for the recovered wastewater remarkably vary
across different countries [70]. In few European countries, economic
incentives were introduced during the last decade to promote a better
effluent quality and water reclamation practices. Above all, Belgium and
Denmark excel for their policies and initiatives on wastewater recovery
and reuse: to promote an improved effluent quality, the plant managing
companies are forced to pay a fee for each kg of organic matter and
nutrients released into the environment [71]. These incentives could
encourage the WWTP managers to achieve a better effluent quality.
More generally, the presence of ad-hoc incentives, policies and pre­
scriptions for treated water reclamation, able to reach a compromise
between treated water quality, energy consumption and economic
impact, can boost this virtuous practice, by considering an integrated
framework able to address environmental, financial and regulatory gaps
[72].
4.3. Model generalization and final remarks
The results reported for the model generalization (Section 3.2.2)
were somehow in agreement with what claimed by Campana et al. [73]
that studied high renewable penetration in shrimp farms in Thailand. In
that study, renewable penetrations up to 40% led to the lowest levelized
11
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
cost of electricity; nevertheless, higher investment costs were reported
for RES and storage technologies if compared to the current study.
It was previously shown (Fig. 15) that in large scale WWTPs high
renewable penetrations did not significantly affect the LCOW value; this
outcome could be an important signal for WWTP operators to boost an
enhanced renewable energy generation in the sector, particularly tar­
geted at centralized plants, where a dedicated process and energy con­
sumption optimization can be feasible [14]. Future studies in the field
could include the evaluation of the environmental impacts of the pro­
posed technical solutions through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) [74],
together with investigation of alternative technologies to CAS (such as
granular activated sludge [75] or microalgae [76]) to recover nutrients
from wastewater. The present study can help the entire wastewater
treatment sector to move towards a smarter, energy-efficient and inno­
vative platform, able to provide energy, nutrients and clean water for
different high-value purposes, exploiting the interconnection with
existing energy grids and improving traditional treatment schemes.
5. Conclusions
This study investigated the possibility to reach high renewable
penetration scenarios (up to 100%) in wastewater treatment plants
through a dynamic simulation and optimization approach. The main
findings of the study can be summarized as follows:
• The highest renewable wastewater system could be achieved at a net
present cost that was 20%-65% higher than the reference value,
mostly depending on the available solar energy resources.
• For all the investigated scenarios and cases, it could be recommended
to design renewable and storage systems marked out by a self-
sufficiency ratio of 70%, as this value corresponded to the lowest
net present cost.
• The levelized cost of treated water for high capacity (i.e., greater
than 1,000 m3/day) wastewater treatment plants did not substan­
tially increase for high renewable penetration scenarios (i.e., greater
than 90%) when compared to the reference case (i.e., electricity
demand covered by the electric grid).
This study analysed only the costs associated with the installation
and operation of high renewable penetration wastewater treatment
plants. Nevertheless, high renewable based wastewater systems have the
opportunity to provide several benefits in terms of flexibility services to
electric and district heating networks, as well as to produce several co-
benefits (i.e., heat production from the hydrogen system components
and improved wastewater effluent quality for reutilization in different
applications) that can be easily monetized. Thus, future studies on the
topic will be aimed at deepening not only the cost analysis, but also the
economic profitability.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Pietro Elia Campana: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software,
Validation, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing - original draft,
Visualization, Writing - review & editing. Matia Mainardis: Concep­
tualization, Methodology, Investigation, Data curation, Writing - orig­
inal draft, Writing - review & editing. Alessandro Moretti:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation. Mattia Cottes:
Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
P.E. Campana et al.
Fig. A1. Comparison of reverse osmosis specific electricity consumption with
the commercial software WAVE® for different types of waters.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge CAFC S.p.A. water utility for the collabo­
ration in data gathering. Pietro Elia Campana acknowledges the finan­
cial support of the Swedish Knowledge Foundation through the project
“Pilot Feasibility of Renewable Energy Integrated with Energy Storage in
Buildings (FREE)” and the Swedish Energy Agency through the projects
“Self-sufficient residential area in an urban environment - energy anal­
ysis and dimensioning”, and “System perspective for efficient produc­
tion and use of hydrogen in connection to district heating”.
Appendix
The comparison in terms of specific electricity consumption (kWh/
m3) of the RO unit between the model presented in Section 2.2.5 and the
commercial software WAVE® was depicted in Fig. A1. The results were
referred to a 100 m3/h feed flowrate, a recovery rate of 50%, a water
temperature of 25 ◦ C, and specific conditions (i.e., TDS in the feed and
permeate flow) as defined in the WAVE® library. The figure shows a
good agreement between the model developed in this study and one of
the reference commercial software’s for the RO sector.
References
[1] Kirchem D, Lynch MÁ, Bertsch V, Casey E. Modelling demand response with
process models and energy systems models: Potential applications for wastewater
treatment within the energy-water nexus. Appl Energy 2020;260:114321. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114321.
[2] Nguyen HT, Safder U, Nhu Nguyen XQ, Yoo C. Multi-objective decision-making
and optimal sizing of a hybrid renewable energy system to meet the dynamic
energy demands of a wastewater treatment plant. Energy 2020;191:116570.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2019.116570.
[3] Colacicco A, Zacchei E. Optimization of energy consumptions of oxidation tanks in
urban wastewater treatment plants with solar photovoltaic systems. J Environ
Manage 2020;276:111353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111353.
[4] Kollmann R, Neugebauer G, Kretschmer F, Truger B, Kindermann H, Stoeglehner G,
et al. Renewable energy from wastewater - practical aspects of integrating a
wastewater treatment plant into local energy supply concepts. J Cleaner Prod
2017;155:119–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.08.168.
[5] Mainardis M, Buttazzoni M, Goi D. Up-flow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB)
technology for energy recovery: a review on state-of-the-art and recent
technological advances. Bioengineering 2020;7:43. https://doi.org/10.3390/
bioengineering7020043.
[6] Oluleye G, Wigh D, Shah N, Napoli M, Hawkes A. A Framework for Biogas
Exploitation in Italian Waste Water Treatment Plants. 1 2019; 76:991–6. https://
doi.org/10.3303/CET1976166.
12
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
[7] Gu J, Xu G, Liu Y. An integrated AMBBR and IFAS-SBR process for municipal
wastewater treatment towards enhanced energy recovery, reduced energy
consumption and sludge production. Water Res 2017;110:262–9. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.watres.2016.12.031.
[8] Borzooei S, Campo G, Cerutti A, Meucci L, Panepinto D, Ravina M, et al.
Optimization of the wastewater treatment plant: From energy saving to
environmental impact mitigation. Sci Total Environ 2019;691:1182–9. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.07.241.
[9] Maktabifard M, Zaborowska E, Makinia J. Achieving energy neutrality in
wastewater treatment plants through energy savings and enhancing renewable
energy production. Rev Environ Sci Biotechnol 2018;17:655–89. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s11157-018-9478-x.
[10] Gude VG. Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power
generation systems. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2015;45:52–68. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2015.01.055.
[11] He Y, Zhu Y, Chen J, Huang M, Wang P, Wang G, et al. Assessment of energy
consumption of municipal wastewater treatment plants in China. J Cleaner Prod
2019;228:399–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.04.320.
[12] Wang S, Zou L, Li H, Zheng K, Wang Y, Zheng G, et al. Full-scale membrane
bioreactor process WWTPs in East Taihu basin: Wastewater characteristics, energy
consumption and sustainability. Sci Total Environ 2020;723:137983. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2020.137983.
[13] Sabia G, Petta L, Avolio F, Caporossi E. Energy saving in wastewater treatment
plants: a methodology based on common key performance indicators for the
evaluation of plant energy performance, classification and benchmarking. Energy
Convers Manage 2020;220:113067. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2020.113067.
[14] Cottes M, Mainardis M, Goi D, Simeoni P. Demand-response application in
wastewater treatment plants using compressed air storage system: a modelling
approach. Energies 2020;13:4780. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13184780.
[15] Gu Y, Li Y, Li X, Luo P, Wang H, Wang X, et al. Energy self-sufficient wastewater
treatment plants: feasibilities and challenges. Energy Procedia 2017;105:3741–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.egypro.2017.03.868.
[16] Energy Solutions. Energy Efficiency and GHG Reduction in Wastewater Facilities
2009.
[17] Ali SMH, Lenzen M, Sack F, Yousefzadeh M. Electricity generation and demand
flexibility in wastewater treatment plants: Benefits for 100% renewable electricity
grids. Appl Energy 2020;268:114960. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2020.114960.
[18] Schäfer M, Hobus I, Schmitt TG. Energetic flexibility on wastewater treatment
plants. Water Sci Technol 2017;76:1225–33. https://doi.org/10.2166/
wst.2017.308.
[19] Wang S, Tarroja B, Schell LS, Shaffer B, Samuelsen S. Prioritizing among the end
uses of excess renewable energy for cost-effective greenhouse gas emission
reductions. Appl Energy 2019;235:284–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2018.10.071.
[20] Bartolini A, Carducci F, Muñoz CB, Comodi G. Energy storage and multi energy
systems in local energy communities with high renewable energy penetration.
Renew Energy 2020;159:595–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.05.131.
[21] Seitz M, von Storch H, Nechache A, Bauer D. Techno economic design of a solid
oxide electrolysis system with solar thermal steam supply and thermal energy
storage for the generation of renewable hydrogen. Int J Hydrogen Energy 2017;42:
26192–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhydene.2017.08.192.
[22] Lizarralde I, Fernández-Arévalo T, Beltrán S, Ayesa E, Grau P. Validation of a multi-
phase plant-wide model for the description of the aeration process in a WWTP.
Water Res 2018;129:305–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2017.10.061.
[23] Rossi G, Mainardis M, Aneggi E, Weavers LK, Goi D. Combined ultrasound-ozone
treatment for reutilization of primary effluent—a preliminary study. Environ Sci
Pollut Res 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-020-10467-y.
[24] Arzate S, Pfister S, Oberschelp C, Sánchez-Pérez JA. Environmental impacts of an
advanced oxidation process as tertiary treatment in a wastewater treatment plant.
Sci Total Environ 2019;694:133572. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
scitotenv.2019.07.378.
[25] Riggio VA, Ruffino B, Campo G, Comino E, Comoglio C, Zanetti M. Constructed
wetlands for the reuse of industrial wastewater: a case-study. J Cleaner Prod 2018;
171:723–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.10.081.
[26] Pype M-L, Lawrence MG, Keller J, Gernjak W. Reverse osmosis integrity monitoring
in water reuse: the challenge to verify virus removal – a review. Water Res 2016;
98:384–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.watres.2016.04.040.
[27] Autorità di Regolazione Energia Reti e Ambiente (ARERA). Electricity Prices for
Industrial Users 2020.
[28] Mizuta K, Shimada M. Benchmarking energy consumption in municipal
wastewater treatment plants in Japan. Water Sci Technol 2010;62:2256–62.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2010.510.
[29] Meteonorm. Worldwide irradiation data 2020.
[30] J Daw J, Hallett K, DeWolfe J, Venner I. Energy Efficiency Strategies for Municipal
Wastewater Treatment Facilities. National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden,
CO (United States); 2012. https://doi.org/10.2172/1036045.
[31] Duffie JA, Beckman WA. Solar engineering of thermal processes. 3rd edition.
Wiley; 2006.
[32] Sunpower. Sunpower Commercial Solutions 2020.
[33] Steca. Steca (KATEK Brand) 2020.
[34] Perez R, Ineichen P, Seals R, Michalsky J, Stewart R. Modeling daylight availability
and irradiance components from direct and global irradiance. Sol Energy 1990;44:
271–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/0038-092X(90)90055-H.
P.E. Campana et al.
[35] Skoplaki E, Boudouvis AG, Palyvos JA. A simple correlation for the operating
temperature of photovoltaic modules of arbitrary mounting. Sol Energy Mater Sol
Cells 2008;92:1393–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solmat.2008.05.016.
[36] Kent CW, Grimmond CSB, Gatey D, Barlow JF. Assessing methods to extrapolate
the vertical wind-speed profile from surface observations in a city centre during
strong winds. J Wind Eng Ind Aerodyn 2018;173:100–11. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jweia.2017.09.007.
[37] Vestas. Vestas Wind Systems 2020.
[38] Li S, Ke B. Study of battery modeling using mathematical and circuit oriented
approaches. IEEE Power Energy Society General Meeting 2011;2011:1–8. https://
doi.org/10.1109/PES.2011.6039230.
[39] DiOrio N, Dobos A, Janzou S. Economic Analysis Case Studies of Battery Energy
Storage with SAM. National Renewable Energy Lab. (NREL), Golden, CO (United
States); 2015. https://doi.org/10.2172/1226239.
[40] Green Hydrogen Systems. Green Hydrogen Systems (Denmark) 2020.
[41] PowerCell Sweden AB. PowerCellution 2020.
[42] Zhang Y, Campana PE, Lundblad A, Yan J. Comparative study of hydrogen storage
and battery storage in grid connected photovoltaic system: storage sizing and rule-
based operation. Appl Energy 2017;201:397–411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2017.03.123.
[43] Bilton AM, Wiesman R, Arif AFM, Zubair SM, Dubowsky S. On the feasibility of
community-scale photovoltaic-powered reverse osmosis desalination systems for
remote locations. Renew Energy 2011;36:3246–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
renene.2011.03.040.
[44] Sarai Atab M, Smallbone AJ, Roskilly AP. An operational and economic study of a
reverse osmosis desalination system for potable water and land irrigation.
Desalination 2016;397:174–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.06.020.
[45] Yu Y-H, Jenne D. Numerical modeling and dynamic analysis of a wave-powered
reverse-osmosis system. J Marine Sci Eng 2018;6:132. https://doi.org/10.3390/
jmse6040132.
[46] El-Dessouki HT, Ettouney HM. Fundamentals of salt water desalination. 1st ed.
Elsevier; 2002.
[47] Lenntech. Filmtec membranes – system design: system performance projection
2020.
[48] Jones MA, Odeh I, Haddad M, Mohammad AH, Quinn JC. Economic analysis of
photovoltaic (PV) powered water pumping and desalination without energy
storage for agriculture. Desalination 2016;387:35–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
desal.2016.02.035.
[49] IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Renewable Power Generation
Costs in 2019 Abu Dhabi 2020.
[50] IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Electricity Storage Valuation
Framework: Assessing system value and ensuring project viability. Abu Dhabi:
2020.
[51] IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency). Hydrogen from renewable
power: Technology outlook for the energy transition 2018 Abu Dhabi.
[52] Korner A, Tam C, Bennett S, Gagné J. Technology Roadmap Hydrogen and Fuel
Cells Technical Annex. Paris, France: International Energy Agency (IEA); 2015.
[53] Kharel S, Shabani B. Hydrogen as a long-term large-scale energy storage solution to
support renewables. Energies 2018;11:2825. https://doi.org/10.3390/
en11102825.
[54] Weidner E, Ortiz Cebolla R, Davis J. Global deployment of large capacity stationary
fuel cells, EUR 29693 EN. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union;
2019.
[55] Caldera U, Bogdanov D, Breyer C. Local cost of seawater RO desalination based on
solar PV and wind energy: a global estimate. Desalination 2016;385:207–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.desal.2016.02.004.
[56] Sdanghi G, Maranzana G, Celzard A, Fierro V. Towards Non-Mechanical Hybrid
Hydrogen Compression for Decentralized Hydrogen Facilities. Energies 2020;13:
3145. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13123145.
[57] Khiareddine A, Ben Salah C, Rekioua D, Mimouni MF. Sizing methodology for
hybrid photovoltaic /wind/ hydrogen/battery integrated to energy management
strategy for pumping system. Energy 2018;153:743–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
energy.2018.04.073.
[58] Jülch V. Comparison of electricity storage options using levelized cost of storage
(LCOS) method. Appl Energy 2016;183:1594–606. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
apenergy.2016.08.165.
13
Energy Conversion and Management 239 (2021) 114214
[59] Liu H, Gu J, Wang S, Zhang M, Liu Y. Performance, membrane fouling control and
cost analysis of an integrated anaerobic fixed-film MBR and reverse osmosis
process for municipal wastewater reclamation to NEWater-like product water.
J Membr Sci 2020;593:117442. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.memsci.2019.117442.
[60] Miettinen K. Nonlinear multiobjective optimization (Vol. 12). Springer Science &
Business Media; 2012.
[61] Jurasz J, Canales FA, Kies A, Guezgouz M, Beluco A. A review on the
complementarity of renewable energy sources: Concept, metrics, application and
future research directions. Sol Energy 2020;195:703–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.solener.2019.11.087.
[62] Leiva-Illanes R, Escobar R, Cardemil JM, Alarcón-Padilla D-C. Comparison of the
levelized cost and thermoeconomic methodologies – Cost allocation in a solar
polygeneration plant to produce power, desalted water, cooling and process heat.
Energy Convers Manage 2018;168:215–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.04.107.
[63] Piergrossi V, De Sanctis M, Chimienti S, Di Iaconi C. Energy recovery capacity
evaluation within innovative biological wastewater treatment process. Energy
Convers Manage 2018;172:529–39. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
enconman.2018.07.013.
[64] Tamjidi Farahbakhsh M, Chahartaghi M. Performance analysis and economic
assessment of a combined cooling heating and power (CCHP) system in wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs). Energy Convers Manage 2020;224:113351. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113351.
[65] Di Fraia S, Massarotti N, Vanoli L. A novel energy assessment of urban wastewater
treatment plants. Energy Convers Manage 2018;163:304–13. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2018.02.058.
[66] Mainardis M, Flaibani S, Trigatti M, Goi D. Techno-economic feasibility of
anaerobic digestion of cheese whey in small Italian dairies and effect of ultrasound
pre-treatment on methane yield. J Environ Manage 2019;246:557–63. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2019.06.014.
[67] Sarpong G, Gude VG, Magbanua BS, Truax DD. Evaluation of energy recovery
potential in wastewater treatment based on codigestion and combined heat and
power schemes. Energy Convers Manage 2020;222:113147. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.enconman.2020.113147.
[68] Salgot M, Folch M. Wastewater treatment and water reuse. Current Opinion
Environ Sci Health 2018;2:64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coesh.2018.03.005.
[69] Zhang Y, Zhang C, Qiu Y, Li B, Pang H, Xue Y, et al. Wastewater treatment
technology selection under various influent conditions and effluent standards
based on life cycle assessment. Resour Conserv Recycl 2020;154:104562. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2019.104562.
[70] Shoushtarian F, Negahban-Azar M. Worldwide regulations and guidelines for
agricultural water reuse: a critical review. Water 2020;12:971. https://doi.org/
10.3390/w12040971.
[71] Jeppsson U, Alex J, Pons MN, Spanjers H, Vanrolleghem PA. Status and future
trends of ICA in wastewater treatment – a European perspective. Water Sci Technol
2002;45:485–94. https://doi.org/10.2166/wst.2002.0653.
[72] Cipolletta G, Ozbayram EG, Eusebi AL, Akyol Ç, Malamis S, Mino E, et al. Policy
and legislative barriers to close water-related loops in innovative small water and
wastewater systems in Europe: A critical analysis. J Cleaner Prod 2021;288:
125604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.125604.
[73] Campana PE, Wästhage L, Nookuea W, Tan Y, Yan J. Optimization and assessment
of floating and floating-tracking PV systems integrated in on- and off-grid hybrid
energy systems. Sol Energy 2019;177:782–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
solener.2018.11.045.
[74] R. Prateep Na Talang S. Sirivithayapakorn S. Polruang Environmental impacts and
cost-effectiveness of Thailand’s centralized municipal wastewater treatment plants
with different nutrient removal processes Journal of Cleaner Production 2020;256:
120433. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.120433.
[75] Tan X, Xie G-J, Nie W-B, Xing D-F, Liu B-F, Ding J, et al. High value-added
biomaterials recovery from granular sludge based wastewater treatment process.
Resour Conserv Recycl 2021;169:105481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
resconrec.2021.105481.
[76] F. Hussain S.Z. Shah H. Ahmad S.A. Abubshait H.A. Abubshait A. Laref et al.
Microalgae an ecofriendly and sustainable wastewater treatment option: Biomass
application in biofuel and bio-fertilizer production. A review Renewable and
Sustainable Energy Reviews 2021; 137:110603. 10.1016/j.rser.2020.110603.