Abstract
Thermochemical conversion technologies present an opportunity to flip the paradigm of wastewater biosolids management operations from energy-intense and expensive waste management processes into energy-positive and economical resource extraction centers. Herein, we present a uniform “grading framework” to consistently evaluate the environmental and commercial benefits of established and emerging wastewater biosolids management processes from a life cycle and techno-economic perspective. Application of this approach reveals that established wastewater biosolids management practices such as landfilling, land application, incineration, and anaerobic digestion, while commercially viable, offer little environmental benefit. On the other hand, emerging thermochemical bioresource recovery technologies such as hydrothermal liquefaction, gasification, pyrolysis, and torrefaction show potential to provide substantial economic and environmental benefit through the recovery of carbon and nutrients from wastewater biosolids in the form of biofuels, fertilizers, and other high-value products. Some emerging thermochemical technologies have developed beyond pilot scale although their commercial viability remains to be seen.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
In the United States, 12.56 million dry metric tons of municipal wastewater biosolids (or sludge) are produced and managed annually from 15,014 publicly owned treatment works (POTW)1. For much of recorded history, wastewater biosolids and human feces have existed within a circular economy, perceived as valuable fertilizer for agricultural applications. This is evidenced by the conveyance of wastewater to agricultural fields from 300 BC to 500 AD in ancient Greece and beginning in 1189 AD by “rakers” and “gongfermors” in London, England. By 1300 AD, wastewater solids known as “night soil” were sold to farmers outside of the walls of Norwich, England, and in 14th century Florence, Italy, the “votapozzi” sold cesspit sludge to farmers for use as fertilizer2. However, despite efforts by the United Nations and the European Commission to foster circular economies and sustainable development, the reuse of wastewater biosolids has become limited as regulations have been established to protect the public from exposure to wastewater-borne pathogens3,4.
Wastewater treatment accounts for about 3% of the entire US electrical consumption and about 3% of the total US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions5,6,7,8. Much effort has been invested to improve the sustainability of wastewater treatment operations through the recovery of energy, nutrients, and other valuable resources9,10,11,12,13,14,15. Past research has focused on the fractionation of fats, oils and greases (FOG) from influent wastewater to yield energetic products10, direct thermal energy recovery from influent wastewater if adequate temperature gradients exist12,16, and nutrient recovery in-situ or from side stream unit operations to yield liquid and solid fertilizers3,11,13,17.
Wastewater biosolids management accounts for up to 30% of the total energy demand, 40–50% of the total operating costs, and 40% of the lifecycle GHG emissions of conventional wastewater treatment plants4,8,18. Therefore, the recovery of energy and renewable substitutes for fossil-based products from biosolids may have a significant impact on the energy demand, carbon footprint and economic performance of municipal wastewater treatment facilities4,8,19. Conventionally, wastewater biosolids are anaerobically digested to produce combustible biogas, incinerated in combined heat and power (CHP) units, land applied as a fertilizer supplement, or landfilled1,20. Although much effort has been invested to recover energy and nutrients from wastewater and biosolids3,4,18,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33, established practices still result in significant energy consumption, greenhouse gas emissions, economic burden, and the release of valuable carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus compounds into the environment as pollutants3.
Recently, several alternative bioresource recovery technologies including gasification (Gs)34,35,36,37,38,39,40, pyrolysis (Py)34,36,39,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51,52, torrefaction (Torr)53,54, hydrothermal liquefaction (HTL)29,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62,63,64,65,66,67, hydrothermal carbonization (HTC)39,68,69,70, transesterification (TE)71,72,73,74 and alternative fermentation22 have emerged, which rely on biochemical and thermochemical processes to convert organic waste into value-added end-products such as biofuels, fertilizers, and bioplastics4,22. These emerging bioresource recovery technologies may improve the economic and environmental performance of wastewater biosolids management operations by closing the loop of nutrient emissions, GHG emissions and energy expenditure associated with established practices.
Established and emerging biosolids management processes may be implemented individually or in combination to recover energy and value-added products (Fig. 1). However, the economic and environmental benefits derived from upcycling wastewater biosolids must be balanced with the respective impacts of processing and final disposal75. Techno-economic assessment (TEA) and life cycle assessment (LCA) are two complementary frameworks that can be used to assess the economic performance and environmental implications of technologies and to compare alternatives in a more holistic sense. TEA is a method of evaluating economic feasibility in terms of both technology and economics. To estimate the total capital investment (CAPEX) and operating costs (OPEX), a process flow diagram (PFD) must be constructed, the equipment type and size must be determined, and the mass and energy balances calculated54. LCA is an assessment of the environmental impacts of a specific product or process, which accounts for its entire life cycle76. The first LCAs were conducted in the 1960s primarily to assess the energy requirements for chemical production and packaging industries and varied widely in their methodologies77,78. LCA has since developed into a framework used to determine the global warming potential (GWP), in net CO2-equivalent (CO2e) emissions, of a product or process over its entire life cycle. Today, LCA often extends past determination of GWP to include more comprehensive analysis of environmental and social impacts such as damage to human health, ecosystems, and resource availability78,79.
TEAs and LCAs have been published assessing several established and emerging biosolids management practices11,25,26,29,34,38,42,48,51,54,57,58,63,64,65,66,67,70,72,74,80,81,82,83,84,85,86,87,88. However, most focus on comparisons of either techno-economic or environmental implications and lack integration of the two with harmonized system boundaries. Multiple authors have emphasized the need for a harmonized TEA and LCA framework with uniform system boundaries to avoid varied results when assessing the sustainability of a technology, product or process29,89,90. Effort has been made to evaluate biochemical and thermochemical resource recovery processes using harmonized LCA and TEA system boundaries25,29. However, these assessments should be extended to include more emerging technologies in the context of wastewater biosolids.
To address this knowledge gap, findings from 10 peer-reviewed LCAs and TEAs were synthesized into harmonized system boundaries presented in Fig. 1 to assess the environmental and commercial benefit of 35 bioresource recovery process options for wastewater biosolids management. A reference case was established to compare the lifecycle net present value (NPV) and GWP of each process. Additionally, this study compares each process using a uniform grading framework that accounts for environmental (residual disposal, energy balance, and CO2e emissions) and economic (CAPEX, net operating profit, and technology readiness level) factors. Results align with past harmonized biosolids management LCAs and TEAs that emerging thermochemical processes such as hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis, and gasification may provide more economic and environmental benefit to wastewater utilities in comparison to conventional management options25,29,38,42,44,54,58,64,74.
Results and discussion
Global warming potential and net present value of biosolids management
Governmental regulations, subsidies, and carbon credit markets play a substantial role in the economic feasibility of several biosolids management process options26. Processes that attain net negative CO2e emissions may benefit from the sale of carbon credits, and processes that produce net positive CO2e emissions may be detrimentally impacted by the implementation of future carbon taxes. Although carbon emissions and sequestration are valued differently by different policies and industries, the price of carbon credits and taxes should be of equal value to society91. Therefore, the NPV of each process configuration was evaluated as the cost of carbon increased from 0 to 200 USD·t CO2e−1. This aligns with the United States Interagency Working Group estimation that the social cost of carbon could increase to more than 200 USD·t CO2e−1 by the year 2035 and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) credit sale price, which has fluctuated between 60 and 200 USD in the last five years92,93.
A reference case was established to provide an objective comparison of each bioresource recovery process and the impact of carbon credits and carbon taxation on the net present value (NPV) of each process configuration. The reference case considered a biosolids management operation with a solids loading rate of 100 tonnes of dry solids per day (t TS·day−1), 330 operating days per year, a discount rate of 10%, and a project life expectancy of 20 years. Results from the NPV analysis are summarized in Tables 1–2. Detailed calculations of net CO2e emissions, CAPEX, and net operating profit (NOP) are presented in Supplementary Tables 1–36. A comparison of the net CO2e emissions and NPV of each technology and the economic impacts of carbon credits and taxes is presented in Fig. 2.
All established and emerging biosolids management processes attained negative NPVs for the provided reference case without carbon credits or taxes. Established processes attain NPVs ranging from −170 to −91 million USD without carbon credits or taxes. Emerging processes evaluated in this study focus on resource recovery and valorization of biosolids and most attain favorable NPVs without carbon credits or taxes. Most notably, HTL-CAS_FP, HTL-CAS_BC, and TE-PBR-TD-MWPy attain favorable NPVs ranging from −32 to −6 million USD, which can be attributed to modest CAPEX and improved net operating profits (NOP). However, some emerging processes suffer high CAPEX or operating expenses OPEX that result in low NPV. Most notably, HTL-CHG-CHP_BC, HTL-CHG-Boiler_BC, TD-Py, and HTC-AD-CHP-LA suffer from high CAPEX or OPEX, resulting in low NPVs ranging from −305 to −225 million USD.
Carbon credits and taxes have a large impact on processes that are more net CO2e negative or positive, respectively, and have a lesser impact on processes that are near carbon neutral. LA, TH-AD-CHP-LA, AD-CHP-LF_LFG and AD-CHP-LA were near carbon neutral and provided the highest NPV of all established processes with the implementation of the social cost of carbon (−112 and −102 million USD, respectively), yet still pose a significant cost burden. Processes that dispose of final residues in landfills without landfill gas collection and processes that have high net energy inputs (LF, TD-LF, TD-INC-LF, AD-CHP-TD-LF, AD-CHP-TD-INC-LF, and TH-AD-CHP-TD-INC-LF) have the highest net CO2e emissions (3.1–7.4 t CO2e·t TS−1) and are most detrimentally impacted by the social cost of carbon. The NPV of these processes range from −545 to −298 million USD when the social cost carbon is priced at 200 USD per tonne of CO2e.
Emerging thermochemical technologies attain lower net CO2e emissions (−0.2 to −3.6 t CO2e·t TS−1), making them eligible for additional revenue from carbon credits. The NPV of emerging processes increased by as little as 11 million USD for TD-StmGs-CHP, and as much as 203 million USD for FD-Torr_BSF from the revenue of carbon credits. However, only HTL-CAS_BC, HTL-CAS_FP, HTL-NH3-CAS_FP, FD-Torr_BSF, and TE-PBR-TD-MWPy attain a positive NPV (5–47 million USD) when revenues from carbon credit sales are considered. HTL-CAS_FP and FD-Torr_BSF attain an NPV of 47 and 46 million USD, respectively, when carbon credits are applied due to the high yield of bio-derived fuel products, which displace the consumption of carbon-intense fossil fuels. It is worth noting that the large improvement in NPV for FD-Torr_BSF is attributed to the displacement of fossil-based coal, which has a life-cycle emission factor of 1023 g CO2e·kWh−1 94. Although TE-PBR-TD-MWPy provides a favorable NPV, it lacks the commercial maturity for immediate adoption in industry at its current technology readiness level (TRL) of 3. Gasification technologies did not attain positive NPVs in this scenario, but they attained NPVs that were 15–18 million USD greater than AD-CHP-LA. HTL-CAS and gasification technologies are currently at TRL 7, indicating they may be commercially mature enough for wide-scale market adoption soon. TD-Py attained net negative CO2e emissions comparable to HTL-CAS and gasification processes but suffered from high OPEX, which could not be ameliorated from additional revenue sourced from carbon credits.
The implementation of future carbon taxes will have a detrimental impact on the economic feasibility of established processes that produce high CO2e emissions such as LF, AD-CHP-LF, and TH-AD-CHP-LF. Paired with the sale of carbon credits, emerging thermochemical processes that attain net negative CO2e emissions may become economically desirable, especially if carbon taxation is implemented.
It should be noted that in addition to variability in performance across different technologies, there is uncertainty associated with the TEA and LCA estimates for any given technology. Variability in TRL, scale, energy mix, input costs (e.g., energy, materials, interest rates), output prices, distance to final disposal, useful life etc. Each render both the economic and environmental performance of each pathway uncertain. In general, for any given technology, an increase in TRL leads to the greatest reduction in uncertainty in economic and environmental performance.
Environmental implications of bioresource recovery technologies
Table 3 presents the inputs and outputs of the environmental benefits grading framework. Commercially established biosolids management practices (denoted with an asterisk) are typically associated with the transportation of large amounts of waste residues to final disposal, modest net energy benefit, and high net CO2e emissions relative to state-of-the-art bioresource production processes. Established practices yield between 2 and 5 metric tons of wet residuals per metric ton of total dry solids (TS) processed and have a lifecycle energy benefit ranging between −3,036 and 597 kWh·t TS−1. Lifecycle CO2e emissions from established processes range between 170 and 7362 kg CO2e·t TS−1 with AD-CHP-LF_LFG, TH-AD-CHP-LA and TH-AD-CHP-LF_LFG being the most favorable while also attaining a modest net lifecycle energy export of 67 and 597 kWh·t TS−1, respectively.
Emerging thermochemical processes have shown potential to improve the environmental implications of wastewater biosolids management through the recovery of bioresources such as fuel products, soil amendments, and other more valuable products4. Emerging processes tend to yield less waste residues that must be transported to final disposal (0–2 wet t·t TS−1) while producing improved net energy exports (491–5006 kWh·t TS−1) and lifecycle CO2e emissions (−191 to −3610 kg CO2e·t TS−1). Process options that include HTL attain the most favorable net energy benefit (up to 5006 kWh·t TS−1) and improved lifecycle CO2e emissions (as low as −1512 kg CO2e·t TS−1). Furthermore, HTL paired with catalytic hydrothermal gasification (HTL-CHG) produces the most favorable net energy benefit (4591–5006 kWh·t TS−1) and net CO2e emissions (−1335 to −1512 t CO2e·t TS−1) largely attributed to improved energy recovery from CHG while also limiting the waste residuals sent to disposal (0.13 wet t·t TS−1)57,58,63. Processes that utilize torrefaction and pyrolysis attain the lowest lifecycle CO2e emissions (as low as −3610 kg CO2e·t TS−1) due to the displacement of fossil-sourced coal with biochar. Hydrothermal carbonization and gasification also effectively reduce the yield of waste residues (0–0.05 wet t·t TS−1) and attain net negative lifecycle CO2e emissions (−1087 to −246 kg CO2e·t TS−1) but have lower net energy benefit (491–978 kWh·t TS−1) in comparison to hydrothermal liquefaction, pyrolysis, and torrefaction, due to limited end-product recovery38.
Techno-economic implications of bioresource recovery technologies
Table 4 presents the inputs and outputs of the commercial benefits grading framework. Established biosolids management practices are typically associated with low CAPEX (36–921 thousand USD·t TS−1·d−1), but poor NOP (−347 to −232 USD·t TS−1). Established biosolids management practices that implement anaerobic digestion have improved NOP from biogas recovery and reduced transportation and disposal costs but have higher CAPEX, which results in a lower NPV.
Emerging thermochemical processes have shown potential to improve NOP of wastewater biosolids management operations by limiting the amount of waste residues sent to final disposal and by enabling the recovery of higher value products such as biofuels. However, emerging technologies often suffer from high CAPEX (up to 1.6 million USD·t TS−1·d−1) and lack commercial maturity (TRL 3–7). While in some cases the CAPEX of emerging technologies may be economically justified by the improved NPV, resource-limited municipalities may have difficulty fronting such a large expenditure4. HTL processes that utilize existing conventional activated sludge (CAS) infrastructure to manage aqueous co-products have a relatively moderate CAPEX (196–448 thousand USD·t TS−1·d−1) while also producing improved net operating profits (−196 to 76 USD·t TS−1) without government subsidies or carbon credits57. Gasification, pyrolysis and torrefaction processes also benefit from modest CAPEX (69 to 444 thousand USD·t TS−1·d−1) but suffer from negative net operating profits (−776 to −135 USD·t TS−1) due to increased costs associated with drying influent feedstock38.
Comparison of established and emerging bioresource recovery pathways
While each process option has its own merits and advantages in specific circumstances, a uniform comparison of the environmental and commercial benefits of each process is presented in Fig. 3a a comparison of the environmental benefit and TRL is presented in Fig. 3b. The ideal process configuration offers both environmental and commercial benefit (upper right quadrant). The proposed environmental benefit grading framework moderately correlates inversely (correlation factor −0.65) with the findings of the previously discussed net CO2e emissions and the proposed commercial benefit grading framework strongly correlates with the previously discussed NPV analysis (correlation factor 0.90).
Several process configurations that utilize emerging thermochemical bioresource recovery technologies including HTL-CAS, TE-PBR-TD-MWPy, TD-AirGs-CHP, TD-StmGs-CHP, HTL-AD, and TD-Py have the potential to offer both environmental and commercial benefits over established methods (Fig. 3a) but lack commercial maturity for immediate adoption (Fig. 3b). Other process configurations that utilize emerging thermochemical technologies such as HTL-CHG, FD-Torr, and SupCrit HTL provide significant environmental benefits, but provide nominal to no commercial benefits (upper left corner) due to high CAPEX and/or low NOP. While some technologies currently offer poor commercial benefit, future innovations and implementation experience could dramatically decrease CAPEX and/or OPEX thereby improving NOP and NPV. Established biosolids management practices tend to fall in or near the bottom right quadrant (commercially viable, but nominal environmental benefits) with TH-AD-CHP-LA offering the greatest commercial and environmental benefits. All established biosolids management processes have a high commercial maturity (TRL 9).
Limitations and future suggestions
In conclusion, a uniform grading framework was developed and applied to identify bioresource recovery technologies that provide both greater commercial and environmental benefits in wastewater biosolids management operations. Findings from 10 techno-economic and lifecycle assessments were synthesized into harmonized system boundaries and 35 process configurations with combinations of both established and emerging technologies were evaluated. While established wastewater biosolids management practices such as anaerobic digestion, landfilling, land application, and incineration are commercially mature, they produce significant greenhouse gas emissions and pose a large economic burden on municipalities. Emerging thermochemical bioresource recovery technologies such as hydrothermal liquefaction, gasification, pyrolysis, and torrefaction show potential to provide substantial economic and environmental benefit through the recovery of carbon and nutrients from wastewater biosolids in the form of biofuels, fertilizers, and other high-value products. Emerging technologies may reduce demand for fossil-based resources and provide additional sources of revenue for wastewater utilities.
At this time, hydrothermal liquefaction paired with existing wastewater infrastructure provides the greatest economic and environmental benefits for wastewater utilities. Readers should note that we propose this uniform grading framework to provoke critical thought rather than as an endorsement or criticism of any specific biosolids management practice. We realize limitations are inherent to any such ranking system. The most obvious limitation is that our assessment represents a “snapshot in time” of the bioresource recovery technology landscape, which is ever changing. While our intent is to provide an objective evaluation of the technologies included, we realize that our ranking may be somewhat subjective. Regardless of the current ranking, each process configuration described has potential to reduce the economic and environmental burdens posed by biosolids management to varying degrees, but each technology must be developed, implemented (at scale) and optimized to achieve commercial maturity. While detailed sensitivity assessments are presented in the referenced literature for each process, a simple sensitivity assessment is presented in Fig. 4, which evaluates the impact that a ±50% change in OPEX and end-product market value has on the NOP of each process. Aside from processes that include HTL, which are heavily reliant on the sale price of biocrude or derived fuel products, the NOP of most other processes are dominated by operating expenses. Comparisons of HTL-integrated processes remain robust because the value of biocrude derived from HTL processes is well understood at its current TRL. Although the reported market value of end products such as biochar, hydrochar, or biosolid fuel may vary in literature, NOP of processes that render these end products are dominated by operating expenses. Therefore, this analysis remains robust.
We caution that this work represents a snapshot in time, and all technologies assessed (and other emerging technologies not assessed) will continue to emerge, develop, and mature over time. Further, we encourage future evaluations of bioresource recovery technologies to utilize harmonized system boundaries to achieve holistic life cycle and techno-economic comparisons.
Methods
This study establishes a uniform grading framework to compare the environmental and commercial benefits provided by established and emerging biosolids management processes (Fig. 5). Analyses from ten techno-economic and lifecycle assessments were synthesized into the uniform boundaries presented in Fig. 1 to produce 35 distinct process scenarios. Environmental and commercial benefit were each graded along a 0–9 scale comprising of the summation of three equally weighted grading sub-categories. Data synthesized for each grading sub-category were linearly scaled between 0 and 3, with 0 being the least beneficial and 3 being most beneficial. Environmental benefit was graded as an equally weighted function of wet weight of final residues, net energy balance, and net CO2e emissions. Commercial benefit was graded as an equally weighted function of CAPEX, NOP, and TRL.
Wet weight of final residues per mass of total dry solids processed (WSf·TSi−1) was calculated based on Eq. (1):
where WSf is the total wet weight of the final residual solids sent to disposal (t·d−1); TSi is the dry weight of initial solids managed (t·d−1); TSf is the dry weight of final residual solids remaining after processing (t·d−1); MCf is the moisture content of the final residual solids. Process scenarios that did not incorporate drying steps were assumed to dewater final residues to a moisture content of 80%, a typical moisture content achieved via mechanical dewatering, before transporting to final disposal95,96. Processes that do not incorporate biochemical or thermochemical conversion steps yield large quantities of final residuals due to low total solids reduction and high moisture content. To avoid over-optimistic scoring, processes that produce more wet residuals relative to anaerobic digestion (≥2.5 WSf·TSi−1) receive a grade of 0. Processes that produce fewer wet residuals relative to anaerobic digestion (<2.5 WSf·TSi−1) receive grades ranging from 0 to 3, which are scaled linearly between the following upper and lower limits: 2.5 WSf·TSi−1 = 0 and 0 WSf·TSi−1 = 3.
The net energy balance was determined using a life-cycle approach as expressed by Eq. (2):
where ENET is the net energy balance of a process scenario (kWh·t TSi−1); Eelec,out is the electric energy export of a process (kWh·t TSi−1); Eelec,LFG is the electric energy export from Landfill gas (LFG) combustion (kWh·t TSi−1); Eelec,in is the electric energy input required for a process (kWh·t TSi−1); Eprod is the energy derived from a biofuel production as reported in literature normalized over the total solids managed for each process (kWh·t TSi−1); Ediesel is the energy required for transportation of waste residues to final disposal (kWh·t TSi−1); ENG,in is the energy import from natural gas (kWh·t TSi−1). Electricity imports, exports, and natural gas imports were calculated on a paper-by-paper basis due to the nonuniformity in data reporting in literature. CHP operating units used to recover heat and electricity from biogas were assumed to have an electrical conversion efficiency of 35%, a useful heat conversion efficiency of 38%, and an overall heat loss of 27% per Hunt et al.97. Detailed calculations are included in Supplementary Tables 1–36.
To account for the life cycle primary energy consumed or displaced, energy return on investment (EROI) values were applied to electricity imports and exports, biofuel exports, transportation fuel consumption, and natural gas consumption. Like financial return on investment, which is a measure of the efficiency or profitability of an investment, EROI is simply the ratio of the energy delivered by a particular fuel to society and the energy invested in the capture and delivery of this energy98. EROI is an indicator of the economic value addition rather than thermodynamic efficiency of a resource. Therefore, only purchased energy inputs are accounted for under energy invested while the energy consumed in creating the resource such as solar radiation or atomic energy embodied in the resources, is typically excluded. Depending on at which point in the life cycle of an energy resource one calculates this ratio, say well-head or mine mouth for a fossil fuel, production of finished fuel (e.g., refinery gate or power plant) or final use (e.g., vehicle use or space heating or cooling) different estimates will result. For instance, EROI value of natural gas will be greater when estimated at the well-head compared to at the refinery gate, which will be greater than at the power plant due to increasing energy needs for cleaning and transportation and losses in conversion to an economically more useful (i.e., lower entropy) form as one goes up the value chain98. EROI for the direct use of fossil fuels to do useful work are higher than those for the generation of electricity. EROI comparisons are, therefore, more straightforward for a given resource, say comparing the EROI of oil from different countries and across time as opposed to comparing different resources, say comparing oil to coal or gas or solar.
EROIfossil values for the direct use of fossil fuels were reported to be 5 for petroleum diesel, 24 for crude and heating oil, 20 for Naphtha, 17 for natural gas, and 42 for coal, respectively98,99,100. Biofuel yields are process-specific. For bio-derived alternatives, EROIfossil was used to determine the avoided primary energy consumption. Detailed calculations are included in Supplementary Tables 1–36. EROIdiesel and EROING are the EROI values for diesel imports for transportation and natural gas consumption for heating, respectively. Values for EROIdiesel and EROING were reported to be 5 and 17, respectively99,100. EROIelec was determined by weighting the EROI of each source of electricity generation according to its percent contribution to the US electricity grid as expressed by Eq. (3):
where %NG, %coal, %nuclear, %wind, %hydro, %solar, %diesel, and %geothermal are the percent contributions of natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar, liquid petroleum, and geothermal to the US electrical grid, respectively. In 2021 the US generated 32% of its electricity from natural gas, 26% from coal, 22% from nuclear, 8.5% from wind, 6.1% from hydroelectric, 3.8% from solar, 1% from liquid petroleum sources, and 0.6% from geothermal101. EROING, EROIcoal, EROInuclear, EROIwind, EROIhydro, EROIsolar, EROIdiesel, and EROIgeothermal are the EROIs for electricity generated from natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar, liquid petrol, and geothermal, respectively. The EROI values for electricity generation were reported to be 7 for EROING, 14 for EROIcoal, 9 for EROInuclear, 22 for EROIwind, 94 for EROIhydro, 9 for EROIsolar, 20 for EROIdiesel and 9 for EROIgeothermal100. It should be noted that EROI values are dependent on many factors, including but not limited to geographic location, time of year, and quality of the primary energy resource100. Therefore, average EROI values for each primary energy resource were used as reported in the literature98,99,100.
The energy demand for transportation to final disposal was not included in the system boundaries of most TEAs and LCAs and was therefore included in this synthesis using Eq. (4):
where Ediesel is the energy demand for transportation to final disposal (kWh·t TSi−1); ṁd is the consumption rate of diesel for transportation provided by Suh and Rousseaux102 (0.0635 kg·km−1·t WSf−1); ed is the energy density of diesel fuel provided by the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) (137,381 Btu·gal−1); dt is the distance transported to final disposal (km); 2.2046 is the conversion of kg to lbs; ρd is the density of diesel fuel (6.66 lb·gal−1); 3,412 is the conversion of BTU to kWh. It was assumed that final waste residues were transported 160 km (~100 mi) to final disposal sites, since wastewater biosolids are typically hauled by truck one-way distances of up to 160 km for landfill disposal and land application1,103. Boston, Massachusetts, and New York City, for example, transport their biosolids long distances out of state103. For process scenarios that utilize landfill disposal for final residuals, it was assumed that landfill gas was captured and combusted to minimize methane gas emissions. Electricity generation from combusted landfill gas was determined for lifecycle and economic comparison. The landfill gas production rate was determined using methods established by Zhao et al.80 and was calculated using Eq. (5):
where PLFG is the amount of CH4 produced per metric ton of total solids managed (kg CH4·t TSi−1); VSLF is the volatile solids fraction of the waste residues landfilled; DOCF is the fraction of volatile solids converted to biogas, which was assumed to be 0.5; 16/12 is the ratio of molar masses of methane and carbon; MCF is the methane conversion factor, which was assumed to be 1; OX is the factor of methane oxidized by the landfill soil cover, which was assumed to be 0.25; FCH4 is the fraction of methane in the landfill gas, which was assumed to be 0.580. The effective electricity generation was calculated using Eq. (6):
Where ELFG is the effective electricity generation and export from captured landfill gas per metric ton of total solids managed (kWh·t TSi−1); RLFG is the landfill gas recovery efficiency (%). The landfill gas recovery efficiency was assumed to be 80% according to Zhao et al.80. HCH4 is the lower heating value of methane, which was reported to be 55.048 MJ kg−1 by McAllister et al. 2011104. ηcomb is the conversion efficiency for electricity generation from landfill gas, which was assumed to be 55% according to Storm 2020105. A positive ENET value corresponds with a net energy export from the system boundaries. Each process receives a grade ranging from 0 to 3 scaled linearly between the lowest and highest ENET values as follows: −3036 kWh·t TSi−1 = 0 and 5006 kWh·t TSi−1 = 3.
Net CO2e emissions were calculated using a life cycle approach for electricity and fuel imports, transportation fuel consumption, fugitive CH4 emissions from landfilling, fugitive N2O emissions from land application and incineration, and avoided emissions from fossil-based products displaced by bioderived fuel, electricity, and fertilizers. Biogenic CO2 emissions were not considered to have any impact on global warming potential and were therefore excluded from this analysis. Net CO2e emissions were calculated using Eq. (7):
where CO2eLFG,rel is the CO2e of CH4 emissions from fugitive landfill gas; CO2eN2O,LA is the CO2e of fugitive N2O emissions from land application; CO2eN2O,Inc is the CO2e of fugitive N2O emissions from incineration; CO2edisp,fuels is the CO2e emissions avoided from the displacement of fossil-based products with biofuels; CO2edisp,fertilizers is the CO2e emissions avoided from the displacement of fossil-based fertilizers with biosolids soil amendment, which was estimated to be 130 kg CO2e·t TSi−1 based on Zhao et al. 201980. Detailed calculations for CO2edisp,fertilizers is included in Supplementary Table 36. All values were normalized to the CO2e emissions per metric ton of solids managed (kg CO2e·t TSi−1). To account for the lifecycle CO2e emissions of primary energy consumption and displacement, emission factors were applied to electricity, natural gas, and diesel imports and exports reported as g CO2e·kWh−1. EFelec, EFNG,in, and EFdiesel, are the emission factors for electricity, natural gas, and diesel, respectively. EFNG,in and EFdiesel were reported in literature to be 434 and 454 g CO2e·kWh−1, respectively99,106. EFelec was determined by weighting the emission factors of each source of electricity generation according to its percent contribution to the US electricity grid as expressed by Eq. (8):
where %NG, %coal, %nuclear, %wind, %hydro, %solar, and %petrol are the percent contributions of natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar, and liquid petroleum to the US electrical grid, respectively, used in Eq. (3). EFNG, EFcoal, EFnuclear, EFwind, EFhydro, EFsolar, EFpetrol, and EFgeothermal are the emission factors for electricity generation source from natural gas, coal, nuclear, wind, hydroelectric, solar, and liquid petroleum, respectively. Emission factors were reported in literature to be 434 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFNG, 1023 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFcoal, 5.13 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFnuclear, 12.4 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFwind, 10.7 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFhydro, 36.7 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFsolar, 454 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFpetrol 47 g CO2e·kWh−1 for EFgeothermal94,99,106,107. Fugitive CH4 and N2O emissions from final disposal practices were determined using methodologies established by Zhao et al80. CO2e of fugitive CH4 emissions from landfilled waste residues were calculated using Eq. (9):
where, RLFG is the landfill gas recovery efficiency, which was assumed to be 80% for process scenarios that incorporated LFG collection at final disposal; 25 is the CO2e of CH4 global warming potential80. CO2e of fugitive N2O emissions from land-applied waste residues were calculated using Eq. (10):
where TSf,LA is the mass of land-applied residues, TNLA is the nitrogen fraction in TSf,LA, which is assumed to be 0.04. EFN2O is the fraction of TNLA emitted as N2O, which is assumed to be 0.012. 44/28 is the ratio of molar masses of nitrous oxide and nitrogen; 298 is the CO2e of N2O global warming potential80. CO2e of fugitive N2O emissions from incinerated waste residues were calculated using Eq. (11):
where TSINC is the total solids incinerated (metric ton); TNINC is the nitrogen fraction in TSINC, which was assumed to be 0.04. EFN2O,INC is the fraction of TNINC emitted as N2O, which is assumed to be 0.388 per Zhao et al.80. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions avoided from the displacement of fossil-derived fertilizers with biosolid soil amendment was estimated to be 130 kg CO2e·t TSi−1 based on Zhao et al.80. CO2e emissions avoided from the displacement of fossil fuels (CO2edisp,fuels) was calculated for the biofuels derived from each process scenario on a paper-by-paper basis and used conversion factors to normalize all values to the unit mass CO2e displaced per metric ton of solids managed. Detailed calculations are included for each process scenario in Supplementary Tables 1–36. The life cycle CO2e emissions displaced from the sale of biofuels was calculated from the total thermal energy of a derived biofuel per tonne of solids managed multiplied by the life cycle emission factor (EF) of the displaced fossil fuel according to Eq. (12):
where Eprod is the energy derived from a biofuel production as reported in literature normalized over the total solids managed for each process (kWh·t TSi−1); EFfossil is the well-to-wheel emission factor for the displaced fossil fuel (g CO2e·kWh−1); Displaced fossil fuels included diesel, crude oil, naphtha, natural gas, and coal. Well-to-wheel emission factors for each fossil fuel were 454, 319, 460, 434, and 1,023 g CO2e·kWh−1 for diesel, crude oil, naphtha, natural gas, and coal, respectively, per values reported in literature94,106,108. The sale of biocrude oil displaces greenhouse gas emissions related to extraction of crude oil and the combustion of derived fuels from crude oil. However, greenhouse gas emissions related to the refining of crude oil are not avoided through the sale of biocrude oil. Therefore, EFdisp,fuels for crude oil (EFdisp,crude) was calculated from values provided Rahman et al. according to Eq. (13):
Where Ygasoline, Ydiesel, and Yjet fuel are the volumetric yields of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, respectively, from California’s Kern County heavy oil; EFgasoline, EFdiesel, and EFjet fuel are the well-to-wheel emission factors for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, respectively; EFrefining,gasoline, EFrefining,diesel, and EFrefining,jet fuel are the emission factors associated with the refining of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, respectively. The volumetric yields of gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel were reported to be 0.46, 0.28, and 0.07 barrel-per-barrel, respectively, from California’s Kern County heavy oil. Well-to-wheel emission factors for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel were reported to be 127.74, 126.02, and 118.17 g CO2e·MJ−1, respectively. The emission factors associated with refining crude oil into saleable fuel products were 18.70, 15.33, and 9.92 g CO2e·MJ−1 for gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel, respectively106. To avoid over-optimistic scoring, processes that produce higher net CO2e emissions relative to anaerobic digestion followed by landfill application (≥2.06 t CO2e·t TSi−1) receive a grade of 0. Processes that produce less net CO2e emissions than anaerobic digestion followed by landfill application (<2.06 t CO2e·t TSi−1) receive grades ranging from 0 to 3, which are scaled linearly between the following upper and lower limits: 2.06 t CO2e·t TSi−1 = 0 and −3.61 t CO2e·t TSi−1 = 3.
CAPEX includes the total installed cost of equipment as reported for each process scenario in literature and excludes other direct costs such as site civil development, and indirect costs such as project contingency, startup permits, legal, working capital, and land requirements. The cost of land and equipment associated with landfill infrastructure is also not included as part of CAPEX. All CAPEX values reported in literature are adjusted to the 2019 economic year and normalized to the respective plant capacity (USD·t TSi−1·d−1). Emerging catalytic hydrothermal gasification processes had a significantly higher CAPEX than other processes. To avoid skewed scoring of the rest of the process options all CAPEX values higher than 1-million USD·t TSi−1 receive a grade of 0. Processes that have a CAPEX less than 1-million USD·t TSi−1 receive grades ranging from 0 to 3, which are scaled linearly according to the following upper and lower limits: 1-million USD·t TSi−1 = 0 and 0 USD·t TSi−1 = 3.
Net operating profit included the deduction of all operating expenses from the revenues produced by each process and was calculated using Eq. (14):
Where NOP is net operating profit normalized to the initial dry mass of solids managed (USD·t TSi−1); R is the revenue from the sale of end-products and electricity exports. Revenues from the sale of end-products was included as reported for each process. Revenue values used in this analysis are included in Supplementary Tables 1–35. Although the NPV of a process configuration may be calculated as a function of CAPEX and NOP, these variables were considered separately in the commercial benefit grading framework because high CAPEX has been observed to be a deterring factor for municipalities despite potentially improved NPV from increased net operating profits4. OPEX is operating expenses normalized to the initial dry mass of solids managed (USD·t TSi−1). Operating expenses were included as reported for each process scenario in literature and included all variable and fixed operating expenses normalized to the initial dry mass of solids managed (USD·t TSi−1). TDC is transportation and disposal costs normalized to the initial dry mass of solids managed (USD·t TSi−1). Transportation and disposal costs were often not reported for each respective process scenario and were therefore calculated using Eq. (15) derived from Marufuzzaman et al. 201595:
Where TDC is transportation and disposal cost normalized to the initial dry mass of solids managed (USD·t TSi−1); TF is the tipping fee, which was reported to have a median cost of 45 USD per wet metric ton in 2015 California by CalRecycle109. FC and VC are the fixed and variable trucking costs, respectively, associated with transportation of sewage sludge to final disposal. FC was assumed to be 3.42 USD·m−3 of wastewater biosolids transported and VC was assumed to be 0.058 USD·m−3·mi−1 as reported by Marufuzzaman et al.95. The standard conversion from miles to kilometers is 1.61. dT is the distance to final disposal and was assumed to be 160 km as described above. ρs is the density of solids used to convert cubic meters to kilograms, which was assumed to be 1100 kg·m−3. 1,000 is the standard conversion from metric tons to kilograms. 1.08 is a multiplier to account for the 8% inflation between FY 2015 and 2019. The NOP calculated for thermal drying followed by pyrolysis is significantly lower than all other process scenarios. To avoid skewed scoring of other processes, NOP values lower than −400 USD·t TSi−1 receive a grade of 0. All other processes receive grades ranging from 0 to 3, which are scaled linearly between the following upper and lower limits: −400 USD·t TSi−1 = 0 and 76 USD·t TSi−1 = 3. Although carbon credits and carbon taxes may have a significant impact on the net operating profit of both high and low CO2e emitting processes, these assessed separately from this analysis due to rapidly evolving implementation globally.
TRLs were reported based on the commercial maturity of each respective technology according to methodologies established by NASA110,111. Each process receives a grade ranging from 0 to 3, which is scaled linearly between TRL scores of 0–9, respectively.
To compare the effect of carbon credits and carbon taxation on the NPV each process configuration included in Table 1, a separate analysis was conducted based on a reference case. NPV was calculated according to Eq. (16):
where NOP is the net operating profit including any applicable carbon credits or taxes; t is the expected project life expectancy; i is the discount rate. The reference case included a system solids loading rate of 100 metric tons of dry solids per day (t TSi·d−1), 330 operating days per year, a discount rate of 10%, and a project life expectancy of 20 years. According to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) Low Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) Credit Bank and Transfer System (CBTS), credits may be sold at prices as high as 200 USD per metric ton of net negative CO2e emissions92. Although carbon taxes are not currently established in the US, there are several proposals to do so. According to the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions, a carbon tax could cost approximately 50 USD per metric ton of net positive CO2e emissions112.
Boundaries for analysis presented in Fig. 1 assumed combined primary and secondary wastewater biosolids entered the system at a moisture content of 97–99%4. CO2 equivalence and costs of natural gas and electricity imports for heat and power, respectively, were taken into consideration as inputs to the system boundary. The costs of required chemical usage for each process were also taken into consideration as an input to the system boundary. At the exit of the system boundary CO2e displaced by electricity and end-product exports and their respective revenues were accounted for. Transportation and disposal costs for non-saleable residues, including land-applied biosolids, were accounted for at the exit boundary. Transportation emissions and fugitive CH4 and N2O emissions associated with final disposal practices were accounted for at the exit boundary. Process-specific calculations used to synthesize data extracted from literature into the boundary conditions are provided in Supplementary Tables 1–36.
The selection and analysis of scientific literature were made considering the following criteria. Bibliometric sources such as Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Science Direct were used to retrieve articles, book chapters, and conference proceedings. Keywords used in different combinations to identify relevant articles included: wastewater, biosolids, sludge, techno-economic, and lifecycle. The initial search resulted in 139 articles that were filtered down to those that specifically discuss domestic wastewater biosolids and/or sludge and included integrated techno-economic and lifecycle assessments with harmonized system boundaries for energy and mass balances, and capital and operating expense breakdowns. 10 studies were finally identified, which included 35 process scenarios including established and emerging biosolids management processes. The literature survey in Table 5 presents the operating conditions of the 35 process scenarios. In total, the relevant content of this paper includes 112 articles (in journals and conference proceedings), reports, books, and databases.
Data availability
The authors declare that the data supporting the findings of this study are available within the paper and its supplementary information files.
References
Seiple, T. E., Coleman, A. M. & Skaggs, R. L. Municipal wastewater sludge as a sustainable bioresource in the United States. J. Environ. Manag. 197, 673–680 (2017).
Lofrano, G. & Brown, J. Wastewater management through the ages: a history of mankind. Sci. Total Environ. 408, 5254–5264 (2010).
Chojnacka, K., Moustakas, K. & Witek-Krowiak, A. Bio-based fertilizers: a practical approach towards circular economy. Bioresour. Technol. 295, 122223 (2020).
Gherghel, A., Teodosiu, C. & Gisi, S. D. A review on wastewater sludge valorisation and its challenges in the context of circular economy. J. Clean. Prod. 228, 244–263 (2019).
Capodaglio, A. G. & Olsson, G. Energy issues in sustainable urban wastewater management: use, demand reduction and recovery in the urban water cycle. Sustainability 12, 266 (2019).
US Department of Energy (DOE). The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities. 1–240 (2014).
US EPA. Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 1990–2019. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks (2021).
Brown, S., Beecher, N. & Carpenter, A. Calculator tool for determining greenhouse gas emissions for biosolids processing and end use. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44, 9509–9515 (2010).
Shizas, I. & Bagley, D. M. Experimental determination of energy content of unknown organics in municipal wastewater streams. J. Energy Eng. 130, 45–53 (2004).
Pastore, C., Pagano, M., Lopez, A., Mininni, G. & Mascolo, G. Fat, oil and grease waste from municipal wastewater: characterization, activation and sustainable conversion into biofuel. Water Sci. Technol. 71, 1151–1157 (2015).
Egle, L., Rechberger, H., Krampe, J. & Zessner, M. Phosphorus recovery from municipal wastewater: an integrated comparative technological, environmental and economic assessment of P recovery technologies. Sci. Total Environ. 571, 522–542 (2016).
Hao, X., Li, J., Loosdrecht, M. C. M., van, Jiang, H. & Liu, R. Energy recovery from wastewater: heat over organics. Water Res. 161, 74–77 (2019).
Guadie, A. et al. Enhanced struvite recovery from wastewater using a novel cone-inserted fluidized bed reactor. J. Environ. Sci. 26, 765–774 (2014).
Heidrich, E. S., Curtis, T. P. & Dolfing, J. Determination of the internal chemical energy of wastewater. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 827–832 (2011).
McCarty, P. L., Bae, J. & Kim, J. Domestic wastewater treatment as a net energy producer–can this be achieved? Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 7100–7106 (2011).
Diaz-Elsayed, N., Rezaei, N., Guo, T., Mohebbi, S. & Zhang, Q. Wastewater-based resource recovery technologies across scale: a review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 145, 94–112 (2019).
Zelm, R. et al. Life cycle assessment of side stream removal and recovery of nitrogen from wastewater treatment plants. J. Ind. Ecol. 24, 913–922 (2020).
Tyagi, V. K. & Lo, S.-L. Sludge: A waste or renewable source for energy and resources recovery? Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 25, 708–728 (2013).
Pilli, S., Yan, S., Tyagi, R. D. & Surampalli, R. Y. Overview of Fenton pre-treatment of sludge aiming to enhance anaerobic digestion. Rev. Environ. Sci. BioTechnol. 14, 453–472 (2015).
U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2016 Billion-Ton Report: Advancing Domestic Resources for a Thriving Bioeconomy, Volume 1: Economic Availability of Feedstocks. 448 https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2016/12/f34/2016_billion_ton_report_12.2.16_0.pdf (2016).
Lin, Q. H., Cheng, H. & Chen, G. Y. Preparation and characterization of carbonaceous adsorbents from sewage sludge using a pilot-scale microwave heating equipment. J. Anal. Appl. Pyrol. 93, 113–119 (2012).
Balasubramanian, S. & Tyagi, R. D. Current developments in biotechnology and bioengineering. 27–42 (2017) https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-444-63664-5.00002-2.
Oladejo, J., Shi, K., Luo, X., Yang, G. & Wu, T. A review of sludge-to-energy recovery methods. Energies 12, 60 (2018).
Neyens, E. & Baeyens, J. A review of thermal sludge pre-treatment processes to improve dewaterability. J. Hazard Mater. 98, 51–67 (2003).
Bora, R. R., Lei, M., Tester, J. W., Lehmann, J. & You, F. Life cycle assessment and technoeconomic analysis of thermochemical conversion technologies applied to poultry litter with energy and nutrient recovery. ACS Sustain Chem. Eng. 8, 8436–8447 (2020).
Li, W. & Wright, M. M. Negative emission energy production technologies: a techno-economic and life cycle analyses review. Energy Technol.-ger. 8, 1900871 (2020).
Selvaraj, P. S. et al. Novel resources recovery from anaerobic digestates: current trends and future perspectives. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/10643389.2020.1864957 (2021).
Liu, X., Zhu, F., Zhang, R., Zhao, L. & Qi, J. Recent progress on biodiesel production from municipal sewage sludge. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 135, 110260 (2021).
Tian, X., Richardson, R. E., Tester, J. W., Lozano, J. L. & You, F. Retrofitting municipal wastewater treatment facilities toward a greener and circular economy by virtue of resource recovery: techno-economic analysis and life cycle assessment. ACS Sustain Chem. Eng. 8, 13823–13837 (2020).
Bora, A. P., Gupta, D. P. & Durbha, K. S. Sewage sludge to bio-fuel: a review on the sustainable approach of transforming sewage waste to alternative fuel. Fuel 259, 116262 (2020).
Bora, R. R. et al. Techno-economic feasibility and spatial analysis of thermochemical conversion pathways for regional poultry waste valorization. ACS Sustain Chem. Eng. 8, 5763–5775 (2020).
Gao, N., Kamran, K., Quan, C. & Williams, P. T. Thermochemical conversion of sewage sludge: a critical review. Prog. Energ. Combust. 79, 100843 (2020).
Syed-Hassan, S. S. A., Wang, Y., Hu, S., Su, S. & Xiang, J. Thermochemical processing of sewage sludge to energy and fuel: fundamentals, challenges and considerations. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 80, 888–913 (2017).
Gil-Lalaguna, N., Sánchez, J. L., Murillo, M. B., Atienza-Martínez, M. & Gea, G. Energetic assessment of air-steam gasification of sewage sludge and of the integration of sewage sludge pyrolysis and air-steam gasification of char. Energy 76, 652–662 (2014).
Watson, J., Zhang, Y., Si, B., Chen, W.-T. & de Souza, R. Gasification of biowaste: a critical review and outlooks. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 83, 1–17 (2018).
Lü, F., Hua, Z., Shao, L. & He, P. Loop bioenergy production and carbon sequestration of polymeric waste by integrating biochemical and thermochemical conversion processes: a conceptual framework and recent advances. Renew. Energ. 124, 202–211 (2018).
Balafkandeh, S., Zare, V. & Gholamian, E. Multi-objective optimization of a tri-generation system based on biomass gasification/digestion combined with S-CO2 cycle and absorption chiller. Energ. Convers. Manag. 200, 112057 (2019).
Lumley, N. P. G. et al. Techno-economic analysis of wastewater sludge gasification: a decentralized urban perspective. Bioresour. Technol. 161, 385–394 (2014).
Pecchi, M. & Baratieri, M. Coupling anaerobic digestion with gasification, pyrolysis or hydrothermal carbonization: a review. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 105, 462–475 (2019).
Liu, Z. et al. The state of technologies and research for energy recovery from municipal wastewater sludge and biosolids. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal 14, 31–36 (2020).
Patel, S. et al. A critical literature review on biosolids to biochar: an alternative biosolids management option. Rev. Environ. Sci. Bio Technol. 19, 807–841 (2020).
Kim, Y. & Parker, W. A technical and economic evaluation of the pyrolysis of sewage sludge for the production of bio-oil. Bioresour. Technol. 99, 1409–1416 (2008).
Bolognesi, S., Bernardi, G., Callegari, A., Dondi, D. & Capodaglio, A. G. Biochar production from sewage sludge and microalgae mixtures: properties, sustainability and possible role in circular economy. Biomass-. Convers. Biorefin. 11, 1–11 (2019).
Xin, C. et al. Economical feasibility of bio-oil production from sewage sludge through pyrolysis. Therm. Sci. 22, 459–467 (2018).
Tian, Y., Zuo, W., Ren, Z. & Chen, D. Estimation of a novel method to produce bio-oil from sewage sludge by microwave pyrolysis with the consideration of efficiency and safety. Bioresour. Technol. 102, 2053–2061 (2011).
Zhang, Y. et al. Fast microwave-assisted pyrolysis of wastes for biofuels production—a review. Bioresour. Technol. 297, 122480 (2019).
Luo, H. et al. Full-scale municipal sludge pyrolysis in China: design fundamentals, environmental and economic assessments, and future perspectives. Sci. Total Environ. 795, 148832 (2021).
Han, J., Elgowainy, A., Dunn, J. B. & Wang, M. Q. Life cycle analysis of fuel production from fast pyrolysis of biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 133, 421–428 (2013).
Zaker, A., Chen, Z., Wang, X. & Zhang, Q. Microwave-assisted pyrolysis of sewage sludge: a review. Fuel Process Technol. 187, 84–104 (2019).
Menéndez, J. A., Domínguez, A., Inguanzo, M. & Pis, J. J. Microwave-induced drying, pyrolysis and gasification (MWDPG) of sewage sludge: vitrification of the solid residue. J. Anal. Appl Pyrol. 74, 406–412 (2005).
Shahbeig, H. & Nosrati, M. Pyrolysis of municipal sewage sludge for bioenergy production: thermo-kinetic studies, evolved gas analysis, and techno-socio-economic assessment. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 119, 109567 (2020).
Sharifzadeh, M. et al. The multi-scale challenges of biomass fast pyrolysis and bio-oil upgrading: review of the state of art and future research directions. Prog. Energ. Combust. 71, 1–80 (2019).
Do, T. X. et al. Process modeling and energy consumption of fry-drying and torrefaction of organic solid waste. Dry. Technol. 35, 754–765 (2017).
Do, T. X. et al. Techno-economic analysis of fry-drying and torrefaction plant for bio-solid fuel production. Renew. Energ. 119, 45–53 (2018).
Chen, W.-T., Haque, M. A., Lu, T., Aierzhati, A. & Reimonn, G. A perspective on hydrothermal processing of sewage sludge. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sci. Heal 14, 63–73 (2020).
Kassem, N., Sills, D., Posmanik, R., Blair, C. & Tester, J. W. Combining anaerobic digestion and hydrothermal liquefaction in the conversion of dairy waste into energy: a techno economic model for New York state. Waste Manag. 103, 228–239 (2020).
Snowden-Swan, L. J. et al. Conceptual biorefinery design and research targeted for 2022: hydrothermal liquefacation processing of wet waste to fuels. https://doi.org/10.2172/1415710 (2017).
Snowden-Swan, L. J. et al. Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Upgrading of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plant Sludge: A Preliminary Techno-Economic Analysis. 471–475. http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1258731/ (2016).
Chen, G. et al. Hydrothermal liquefaction of sewage sludge by microwave pretreatment. Energ. Fuel 34, 1145–1152 (2019).
Qian, L., Wang, S. & Savage, P. E. Hydrothermal liquefaction of sewage sludge under isothermal and fast conditions. Bioresour. Technol. 232, 27–34 (2017).
Moeller, J., Fisher, A., Oyler, J. & Anderson, D. HYPOWERS: Hydrothermal Processing of Wastewater Solids. 1–42 (2021).
Seiple, T. E., Skaggs, R. L., Fillmore, L. & Coleman, A. M. Municipal wastewater sludge as a renewable, cost-effective feedstock for transportation biofuels using hydrothermal liquefaction. J. Environ. Manag. 270, 110852 (2020).
Doren, L. G. V., Posmanik, R., Bicalho, F. A., Tester, J. W. & Sills, D. L. Prospects for energy recovery during hydrothermal and biological processing of waste biomass. Bioresour. Technol. 225, 67–74 (2017).
Do, T. X. et al. Techno-economic analysis of bio heavy-oil production from sewage sludge using supercritical and subcritical water. Renew. Energ. 151, 30–42 (2020).
Ortiz, F. J. G. Techno-economic assessment of supercritical processes for biofuel production. J. Supercrit. Fluids 160, 104788 (2020).
Li, S. et al. Techno-economic uncertainty analysis of wet waste-to-biocrude via hydrothermal liquefaction. Appl Energ. 283, 116340 (2021).
Snowden-Swan, L. J. et al. Wet Waste Hydrothermal Liquefaction and Biocrude Upgrading to Hydrocarbon Fuels: 2019 State of Technology. U.S. Department of Energy, https://doi.org/10.2172/1617028. (U.S. Department of Energy, 2020).
Belete, Y. Z. et al. Hydrothermal carbonization of anaerobic digestate and manure from a dairy farm on energy recovery and the fate of nutrients. Bioresour. Technol. 125164 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biortech.2021.125164 (2021).
Cao, Z., Jung, D., Olszewski, M. P., Arauzo, P. J. & Kruse, A. Hydrothermal carbonization of biogas digestate: effect of digestate origin and process conditions. Waste Manag. 100, 138–150 (2019).
Medina-Martos, E. et al. Techno-economic and life cycle assessment of an integrated hydrothermal carbonization system for sewage sludge. J. Clean. Prod. 277, 122930 (2020).
Pastore, C., Lopez, A., Lotito, V. & Mascolo, G. Biodiesel from dewatered wastewater sludge: a two-step process for a more advantageous production. Chemosphere 92, 667–673 (2013).
Chen, J. et al. Economic assessment of biodiesel production from wastewater sludge. Bioresour. Technol. 253, 41–48 (2018).
Choi, O. K., Lee, K., Park, K. Y., Kim, J.-K. & Lee, J. W. Pre-recovery of fatty acid methyl ester (FAME) and anaerobic digestion as a biorefinery route to valorizing waste activated sludge. Renew. Energ. 108, 548–554 (2017).
Xin, C. et al. Waste-to-biofuel integrated system and its comprehensive techno-economic assessment in wastewater treatment plants. Bioresour. Technol. 250, 523–531 (2018).
Liu, B. & Rajagopal, D. Life-cycle energy and climate benefits of energy recovery from wastes and biomass residues in the United States. Nat. Energy 4, 700–708 (2019).
Thomassen, G., Dael, M. V., Passel, S. V. & You, F. How to assess the potential of emerging green technologies? Towards a prospective environmental and techno-economic assessment framework. Green. Chem. 21, 4868–4886 (2019).
Hauschild, M. Z., Rosenbaum, R. K. & Olsen, S. I. Life Cycle Assessment, Theory and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56475-3 (Springer, Cham, 2018).
Guinée, J. B. et al. Life cycle assessment: past, present, and future. Environ. Sci. Technol. 45, 90––96 (2011).
Huijbregts, M. A. J. et al. ReCiPe2016: a harmonised life cycle impact assessment method at midpoint and endpoint level. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 22, 138–147 (2017).
Zhao, G., Garrido-Baserba, M., Reifsnyder, S., Xu, J.-C. & Rosso, D. Comparative energy and carbon footprint analysis of biosolids management strategies in water resource recovery facilities. Sci. Total Environ. 665, 762–773 (2019).
Xu, C., Chen, W. & Hong, J. Life-cycle environmental and economic assessment of sewage sludge treatment in China. J. Clean. Prod. 67, 79–87 (2014).
Mudliar, S. N., Vaidya, A. N., Kumar, M. S., Dahikar, S. & Chakrabarti, T. Techno-economic evaluation of PHB production from activated sludge. Clean. Technol. Environ. 10, 255 (2007).
Sanchez, L. A. H. Technical, Economic, and Carbon Dioxide Emission Analyses of Managing Anaerobically Digested Sewage Sludge Through Hydrothermal Carbonization (Ohio State University, 2020).
Lozano, E. M., Petersen, S. B., Paulsen, M. M., Rosendahl, L. A. & Pedersen, T. H. Techno-economic evaluation of carbon capture via physical absorption from HTL gas phase derived from woody biomass and sewage sludge. Energy Convers. Manag. X 11, 100089 (2021).
Sablayrolles, C., Gabrielle, B. & Montrejaud‐Vignoles, M. Life cycle assessment of biosolids land application and evaluation of the factors impacting human toxicity through plant uptake. J. Ind. Ecol. 14, 231–241 (2010).
Veluswamy, G. K., Shah, K., Ball, A. S., Guwy, A. J. & Dinsdale, R. M. A techno-economic case for volatile fatty acid production for increased sustainability in the wastewater treatment industry. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 7, 927–941 (2021).
Bertanza, G. et al. Techno-economic and environmental assessment of sewage sludge wet oxidation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 22, 7327–7338 (2015).
Gianico, A. et al. Upgrading a wastewater treatment plant with thermophilic digestion of thermally pre-treated secondary sludge: techno-economic and environmental assessment. J. Clean. Prod. 102, 353–361 (2015).
Thomassen, G., Dael, M. V., Lemmens, B. & Passel, S. V. A review of the sustainability of algal-based biorefineries: towards an integrated assessment framework. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 68, 876–887 (2017).
Kargbo, H., Harris, J. S. & Phan, A. N. “Drop-in” fuel production from biomass: critical review on techno-economic feasibility and sustainability. Renew. Sustain Energy Rev. 135, 110168 (2021).
Wang, P., Deng, X., Zhou, H. & Yu, S. Estimates of the social cost of carbon: a review based on meta-analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 209, 1494–1507 (2019).
California Air Resources Board (CARB). LCFS Credit Transfer Activity Reports. https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/lcfs-credit-transfer-activity-reports (2022).
United States Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases (IAWG). Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive Order 13990 (2021).
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UN). Life Cycle Assessment of Electricity Generation Options. https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf (2021).
Marufuzzaman, M., Eksioglu, S. D. & Hernandez, R. Truck versus pipeline transportation cost analysis of wastewater sludge. Transp. Res Part Policy Pract. 74, 14–30 (2015).
Hao, X., Chen, Q., Loosdrecht, M. C. M., van, Li, J. & Jiang, H. Sustainable disposal of excess sludge: Incineration without anaerobic digestion. Water Res. 170, 115298 (2019).
Hunt, D. V. L., Jefferson, I., Jankovic, L. & Hunot, K. Sustainable energy? A feasibility study for Eastside, Birmingham, UK. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Eng. Sustain. 159, 155–168 (2006).
Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G. & Balogh, S. B. EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energ. Policy 64, 141–152 (2014).
Sheehan, J., Camobreco, V., Duffield, J., Graboski, M. & Shapouri, H. An Overview of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel Life Cycles. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24772.pdf (1998).
Dale, M. A. J. Global Energy Modelling: A Biophysical Approach (GEMBA). University of Canterbury. Mechanical Engineering https://doi.org/10.26021/3239 (2010).
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). U.S. Energy Facts Explained - Consumption and Production - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/ (2022).
Suh, Y.-J. & Rousseaux, P. An LCA of alternative wastewater sludge treatment scenarios. Resour. Conserv. Recycl 35, 191–200 (2002).
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Biosolids Generation, Use, and Disposal in The United States. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2018-12/documents/biosolids-generation-use-disposal-us.pdf (1999).
McAllister, S., Chen, J.-Y. & Fernandez-Pello, A. C. Fundamentals of Combustion Processes. Mech. Eng. Ser. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7943-8 (2011).
Storm, K. Industrial Construction Estimating Manual. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-12-823362-7.00006-5 (2020).
Rahman, M. M., Canter, C. & Kumar, A. Well-to-wheel life cycle assessment of transportation fuels derived from different North American conventional crudes. Appl Energ. 156, 159–173 (2015).
Eberle, A., Heath, G. A., Petri, A. C. C. & Nicholson, S. R. Systematic Review of Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Geothermal Electricity. https://doi.org/10.2172/1398245. (2017).
Skone, T. J. et al. Life Cycle Analysis of Natural Gas Extraction and Power Generation. (2014).
California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). Landfill Tipping Fees in California (2015).
Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness levels: a white paper (1995).
Mankins, J. C. Technology readiness assessments: a retrospective. Acta Astronaut. 65, 1216–1223 (2009).
Center for Climate and Energy Solutions. Carbon Tax Basics. https://www.c2es.org/content/carbon-tax-basics/ (2022).
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided in part by Oceankind through the National Philanthropic Trust, NSF NRT: Graduate Traineeship in Integrated Urban Solutions for Food, Energy, and Water Management (INFEWS)–DGE-1735325, the UCLA Samueli School of Engineering and the UCLA Sustainable LA Grand Challenge.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
E.H. and K.C. conceived of the presented analysis. K.C. wrote the manuscript with support from E.H. and D.R. D.R. provided guidance related to life cycle assessment, greenhouse gas emissions, and energy return on investment. All authors provided critical feedback and helped shape the research, analysis, and manuscript. E.H. supervised the project.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
All authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Clack, K., Rajagopal, D. & Hoek, E.M. Life cycle and techno-economic assessment of bioresource production from wastewater. npj Clean Water 7, 22 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-024-00314-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41545-024-00314-9