Search

Could carbon financing boost green wastewater treatment?

We are an online community created around a smart and easy to access information hub which is focused on providing proven global and local insights about sustainability

24 Apr, 2024

This post was originally published on Sustainability Matters

Researchers from Colorado State University have explored the potential of using carbon financing to fund green wastewater-treatment approaches that go beyond existing greywater treatment practices.

Carbon financing is the mechanism by which companies will voluntarily buy ‘carbon credits’ on an open market in order to offset their own emissions. These credits represent a reduction or removal of carbon from the atmosphere that can be accomplished in a variety of ways (eg, tree planting, renewable energy projects, carbon sequestration).

Based on data collected at over 22,000 facilities, the report from Colorado’s Walter Scott, Jr. College of Engineering explored the relationship between emissions, costs and treatment capabilities for utility operators and decision-makers. It found that if carbon financing were to subsidise green infrastructure and technology solutions, this could save US$15.6 billion and just under 30 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent emissions over 40 years. The findings have been published in Nature Communications Earth and Environment.

The work examined both point-source water treatment and non-point sources of water pollution.

Traditional point-source water treatment facilities — or ‘grey-infrastructure’ systems — such as sewage plants remove problem nutrients like nitrogen and phosphorus before releasing water back into circulation. Existing facilities already account for 2% of all energy use in the US and 45 million tonnes of CO2 emissions, according to Braden Limb, first author on the paper and a PhD student in the Department of Systems Engineering.

A significant source of freshwater contamination in the US comes from non-point source activity such as fertiliser runoff from agriculture entering rivers. Other non-point sources of pollution can come from wildfires — aided by climate change — or urban development, for example.

Limb said that rather than building more grey-infrastructure treatment facilities to address these growing issues, the paper explores green approaches financed through carbon markets that can tackle both types simultaneously.

“There could be a switch to nature-based solutions such as constructing wetlands or reforestation instead of building yet another treatment facility,” he said. “Those options could sequester over 4.2 million carbon dioxide emissions per year over a 40-year time horizon and have other complementary benefits we should be aiming for, such as cheaper overall costs.”

While there are financing markets for water that operate in a similar way to carbon financing, water has the challenge of being more localised than air quality and carbon — something that has limited the value of water market trades in the past. The paper suggests that these existing markets could be improved, and that carbon markets could also be leveraged to change some of the financial incentives farmers have around water treatment and impacts from their activity.

The researchers found that using the markets could generate $679 million annually in revenue, representing an opportunity to further motivate green infrastructure solutions within water quality trading programs to meet regulated standards.

“These findings draw a line in the sand that shows what the potential for adopting green approaches in this space is — both in terms of money saved and total emissions reduced,” said Braden Limb, first author on the paper and a PhD student in the Department of Systems Engineering.

“It is a starting point to understand what routes are available to us now and how financing strategies can elevate water treatment from a somewhat local issue into something that is addressed globally through market incentives.”

Mechanical Engineering Professor Jason Quinn, a co-author on the study, said the findings had some limitations, but were an important first step in modelling both the problem and opportunity available now. He said the results in the paper have supported new research at CSU with the National Science Foundation to further develop the needed carbon credit methodology with stakeholders.

“This is the first time we are considering air and water quality simultaneously — water is local and carbon is global,” he said. “But by bringing these market mechanisms together we can capitalise on a window of opportunity to accelerate the improvement of America’s rivers as we transition to a renewable energy and restored watershed future.”

Image caption: The Big Thompson River in Rocky Mountain National Park. Image credit: Colorado State University.

Pass over the stars to rate this post. Your opinion is always welcome.
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

You may also like…

Energy Efficiency as an Imperative Climate Strategy

Energy Efficiency as an Imperative Climate Strategy

With mandatory climate statement disclosure rolling out in Australia, businesses need to start reporting on their emissions and sustainability plans for the future. As companies begin assessing the relevant risks and opportunities related to various climate scenarios, energy efficiency presents itself as an immediate climate-strategy with long-term benefits.

Commencing 1 January 2025, businesses that meet two of the three conditions — more than 500 employees, gross assets above $1 billion or $500 million or more in consolidated gross revenue — are required to lodge a climate statement, which discloses their climate-related plans, financial risks and obligations. As part of the gradual roll-out, by 1 July 2027, businesses that meet two of these conditions — more than 100 employees, gross assets above $25 million or exceeding $50 million in consolidated gross revenue — will also be required to report.

This climate statement will need to include the company’s sustainability governance, climate risks and opportunities, including those physical and transition related. They will also need to disclose their Scope 1 and 2 emissions, strategy to decarbonise, and conduct scenario analysis on the short, medium and long term impacts on the business. By the second year of reporting, businesses will also be expected to report on Scope 3 emissions.

Scenario analysis will be based on various assumptions of the state of the climate, one of which includes a possible future where global temperature has increased 2.5°C or more. They will be required to share their climate strategy and steps they are taking long-term in preparation for this scenario.

Common themes within climate strategies will include switching to renewable energy sources, electrifying fleet vehicles, purchasing carbon credits, and carbon capture and storage. Many of these methods look at reducing emissions through the energy source, or targeting the carbon aspect directly; however, climate strategies can also include reducing the amount of energy used. By investing in more energy efficient equipment, sites can maintain production whilst using less energy and producing less emissions.

When increasing energy efficiency and reducing energy consumption first, businesses will see short-term impacts; however, in the long term, they are also improving their foundation for an energy transition. Assuming no other changes, higher energy efficiency can lead to decreased energy demand, allowing for reduced system requirements when specifying and planning for self-generation or energy costs.

To understand what opportunities are available for upgrading to more energy efficient equipment, businesses can start with an energy audit to understand how energy is being consumed across site. Energy audits, like the ABB Energy Appraisal, can provide a roadmap for where and how equipment can be upgraded for the best energy saving potential. An energy audit identifies areas that can be immediately improved with existing equipment on the market, so there is no need to wait for the commercialization or development of more sustainable technology. Going beyond just changing all lights to LEDs, efficiency recommendations may include areas where variable speed drives can be added to control motor speed or upgrading from an IE3 motor to an IE5 ultra-premium efficiency or IE6 hyper-premium efficiency motor to reduce energy losses by 40% or more. This area can often be overlooked on sites as the Minimum Energy Performance Standard (MEPS) in Australia for motors is just IE2.

Mostly used in pumps, compressors, conveyors and fans, motors may seem like a minor part of a site; however, with 45% of the world’s electricity converted into motion by industrial electric motors, there are many opportunities for energy savings. In fact, a recent survey commissioned by ABB IEC Low voltage motors, showed that 92% of surveyed businesses in Australia recognize the important role of electric motors in achieving sustainability targets. In this same survey, participants ranked a reduction in operating cost as a more important driver for investing in energy efficiency than lowering their organization’s emissions. This is because upgrading to newer, more efficient equipment provides benefits beyond just emission reduction. For example, ABB’s Synchronous Reluctance (SynRM) Motors, available in IE5 ultra-premium efficiency or IE6 hyper-premium efficiency, use no rare earth metals or magnets. Running quieter and with bearing temperatures reduced by up to 15°C and winding temperatures by up to 30°, SynRM motors have longer maintenance periods, superior reliability, and contribute to a better operational environment.

Looking ahead, upgrading to an IE5 SynRM motor also provides more visibility into Scope 3 emissions, as SynRM motors meet ABB’s circularity criteria and transparency on environmental impact is provided through Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs).

By requiring companies to disclose their climate information, these new legal requirements are opening the door and facilitating more internal discussions on environmental impact and emission reduction. Whilst mandatory climate reporting is only required of large business entities this year, the progressive roll-out and Scope 3 emission reporting requirements mean that businesses of all sizes in Australia will be impacted by these new requirements. As businesses become more conscious of how sustainability should be integrated into their operations and finances, there is no better time to start investing in energy efficient solutions.

For more information, click here.

Image credit: iStock.com/denizunlusu

0 Comments