Chad Olney

H2WOAH Research
100 Main St.
Manhattan, KS 66502

April 4, 2016

Daniel Von Holten

Kansas State University
Department of English
ECS 202
Manhattan, KS 66506
Dear Mr. Von Holten,
I have completed my research report over the current applications of cogeneration technology at
wastewater treatment plants and its potential implementation for the City of Manhattan, KS. This
report was proposed to the Manhattan city council on March 2, 2016 and approved soon after.
All previously determined research objectives have been achieved and are now ready for
submission as scheduled.
My findings are enclosed below under the title, Energy Production in Wastewater treatment, a
Study on the Current Applications of Cogeneration Technolgy. This report focused on a
selection of three communities that have experience with using cogeneration technologies at their
wastewater treatment plants. From each, helpful information was acquired that allowed a prudent
conclusion and recommendation to be made for the City of Manhattan.
If you have any questions, comments, or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me either by
phone at 555-555-5555 or by email at olney@ksu.edu. Thank you for the opportunity to write
this report.
Sincerely,

Chad Olney

Enclosure: Energy Production in Waste Water Treatment

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

ENERGY PRODCUTION
IN WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
A Study on the Current Applications of Cogeneration Technology
April 4, 2016

Submitted to:
Manhattan City Council
1101 Poyntz Ave
Manhattan, KS 66502

Submitted by:
Chad Olney
H2WOAH Research
100 Main St.
Manhattan, KS 66502

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Executive Summary
This report is the result of The City of Manhattans commission to H2WOAH Research to
determine the feasibility of implementing electrical cogeneration technology at the citys
municipal wastewater treatment plant. The research was divided into three sections, and each
was assigned to a different member of the H2WOAH Research team.
The focus of this section of the report is cogeneration technology that is already in use at
municipal wastewater treatment plants both in Kansas and around the country. The treatment
plants in Lawrence Kansas, Johnson County Kansas, and Gresham Oregon were selected for this
study. Each citys treatment plant was evaluated according to the cost benefits and the
environmental impact that were experienced in order to determine if the City of Manhattan
should invest in the technology.
From Lawrence it was learned that even despite its relatively smaller size and population
fluctuation patterns, Manhattan would be able to experience the benefits of investing in the
technology. Johnson County revealed in more depth, the benefits that can come about from
cogeneration technology, including significant reductions utility bill and greenhouse gas
immersions. And finally, Gresham, OR showed just how far a city can go with this technology
and the community welfare that results from an energy net zero facility.

Conclusion and Recommendations

It was found that all three of the facilities studied in this report benefited, both economically and
environmentally, from the implementation of cogeneration technology, each to varying
magnitudes. Although, some minor challenges were experienced regarding the maintenance and
upkeep of the systems, it was determined that these were worth the added work when compared
to the advantages of cogeneration systems.
Given this information, it is the recommendation of H2WOAH research team that the City of
Manhattan makes steps towards implementing a cogeneration system at its wastewater treatment
plant with the goal of reaching energy net zero status. It is advised that the City of Manhattan
draw from the experiences of Lawrence, Johnson County, and Gresham to achieve this goal. The
city should first seek federal financial assistance for help with the initial implementation
expenses. The city should also pursue forming a partnership with an experience private firm to
help with the learning curve and maintenance costs of the new technology. To achieve energy net
zero status, the upgraded pant will likely need to have additional on-site clean energy sources
such as wind or solar power. Energy efficient aerators and mixers will also help reduce the
energy demands of the plant. The new plant should also be able to accommodate the fats, oils
and greases from local restaurants to augment the flow of usable waste into the system as well
help with operation costs through dumping charges.
If these recommendations are pursed and achieved by the city of Manhattan, it is believed by
H2WOAH Research that substantial economic and environmental dividends would be made by
the community.

ii

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Table of Contents
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ ii
Conclusion and Recommendations ............................................................................................. ii
List of Tables and Figures.............................................................................................................. iv
Figure 1: .................................................................................................................................. iv
Figure 2: .................................................................................................................................. iv
Figure 3: .................................................................................................................................. iv
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Purpose ........................................................................................................................................ 1
Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 1
Limitations .................................................................................................................................. 1
Criteria......................................................................................................................................... 1
Background Information ................................................................................................................. 2
Manhattan .................................................................................................................................... 2
Process of Cogeneration .............................................................................................................. 2
Analysis of Other Uses of Cogeneration ........................................................................................ 4
Lawrence, Kansas........................................................................................................................ 4
Johnson County, Kansas ............................................................................................................. 4
Gresham, Oregon ........................................................................................................................ 5
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendation ............................................................................................................................ 7
Annex B, Bibliography ................................................................................................................... 8
Annex C, Glossary ........................................................................................................................ 10

iii

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

List of Tables and Figures

Figure 1:
(Title Page) Arial photograph taken of the Gresham City Wastewater Treatment Plant, noted for
its energy net zero status, it is used as the gold standard for cogeneration technology for this
report.
Figure 2:
(Page 6) Shows the process of aerobic digestion [7].
Figure 3:
(Page 7) Shows the process of cogeneration [7].

iv

Introduction
The world is facing an energy crisis. Our countrys dependence on dwindling fossil fuel reserves
is forcing cities around the United States to consider methods and systems that can bring about
both economic and environmental sustainability. One very promising approach that
municipalities have begun to implement is the use of electrical cogeneration technology by
methane capture at their wastewater treatment plants. There are examples of cities that have seen
substantial annual savings in utility costs. However, not all cites are viable candidates for this
technology. A great deal of preliminary research must be done to determine if cogeneration
technology is the right course of action for a particular community.

Purpose
This report will attempt to determine if the City of Manhattan would benefit from the
implementation of cogeneration technology at its wastewater treatment plant based on the
successes and experiences of other cities. The end goal is save the city and its citizens money
over an extended period of time while also providing a safe and clean environment for the
community to live in.

Scope
The research conducted for this report, as well as, the conclusions and recommendations drawn,
will only consider cost benefits and environmental impacts of the implementation of
cogeneration technology specifically for the City of Manhattan. The findings are not intended to
be used as a reference for other municipalities, as the use of cogeneration technology is
dependent upon the specific attributes of the city in question.

Methods
To accomplish the goals of this report, a selection of three cities wastewater treatment plants
that already use cogeneration technology will be researched and analyzed based on a set of
criteria which are outlined below. Government publications, professional and academic reports,
and information provided by public directors of wastewater departments will be the main sources
of information for this report

Limitations
This research will be limited to public access documents and files that can be found online and
the academic resource catalogs that are available to undergraduate students at Kansa State
University. Because of time constraints, no primary research will be conducted for this report
outside of email and phone correspondences with the city officials.

Criteria
In order to evaluate each city uniformly, each will be evaluated according to two criteria: cost
and environmental impact. For cost, operating expenditures before and after implantation and the
initial conversion cost will all be assessed. For environmental impact, air and water pollution as a
result of the treatment process will be considered.

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Background Information
Manhattan
As of 2014, the City of Manhattan, KS had a population of 56,078, a number is growing at a
rapid pace, up 7.2% from 2010 [2]. To accommodate the needs of all these people, the citys
wastewater treatment plants takes in 5.55 million gallons of sewage per day. To pay for this,
$12.8 million, roughly nine percent of the annual city budget, has been allocated to wastewater
treatment for the 2016 fiscal year [3]. The current wastewater facility does not have any
cogeneration technology as part of its treatment process. As such, it spends about $570 thousand
a year on electricity alone [6].

Process of Cogeneration
Below is a brief synopsis of the processes that are being discussed in this report. It has been
significantly condensed because the aim of this report is to study the successes and experiences
that other cities have had with the technology and not to study the technology itself.
Wastewater treatment at Manhattans treatment plant is done by a process known as aerobic
digestion. In order to separate the water from the contaminants, microorganisms are used to
digest the organic material in the wastewater. After consuming the organic waste the
microorganisms are then separated from the now clean water using a cell separator. They are
then either recycled back into the system or sent off as sludge for further treatment. A basic
diagram of this process is shown in Figure 2.

Figure 2: Shows the process of aerobic digestion [7].

The air or pure O2 that is going into the Reactor is what makes it an aerobic. Although
affective at separating the sludge from the water, this process is very energy intensive and
produces polluting biogases such as methane. However, because methane is a highly combustible
gas, it can be captured and burned to run a turbine and produce electricity that can then be used
to offset a significant portion of the energy used for the aeration process. This process is shown
in Figure 3.

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Figure 3: Shows the process of cogeneration [7].

Here, the biogas coming out of the digester is the methane gas produced by the aerobic
digestion of the wastewater. The electricity produced by the micro-turbines(s) is used to power
pumps for the Air injection into the aerator. Leftover heat from the turbines is also vented
back to the digester as it helps catalyzes the digestion process [7].
The implementation of cogeneration technology can often offset as much as 25-50% of treatment
a plants energy needs, translating to a significant reduction in energy costs. Also, rather than
allowing the methane to be emitted into the atmosphere as happens with simple aerobic
digestion, the only exhaust associated with the cogeneration process is carbon dioxide, which is a
much less potent greenhouse gas than methane [8].

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Analysis of Other Uses of Cogeneration

In order to determine whether Manhattan would benefit from the implementation of cogeneration
technology, the communities of Lawrence Kansas, Gresham Oregon, and Johnson County
Kansas have been selected for their experience with the technology at their wastewater treatment
plants. Each presents a unique perspective that can be applied to helping Manhattan make a
proper decision on the matter of pursing the technology for their wastewater treatment plant.

Lawrence, Kansas
Although having a moderately larger population, (about 87 thousand residents), Lawrence was
selected for this research because it is the city which most closely resembles the City of
Manhattan, while also having a cogenerating treatment plant. Both are division one college
towns, and so have similar fluctuation patterns, and both are from the same region Kansas,
giving them similar climates and relative energy prices [2].
The Lawrence wastewater treatment plant was budget for just over $9 million for 2016 [10],
compared to Manhattans nearly $13 million budget [3]. When these numbers are divided by
their respective populations, it is found that Lawrence residents each pay an average of about
$150 less per year on their wastewater treatment.
Because Lawrence and Manhattan are of a similar size and have an environment and power
market that closely mirror each other, it is possible to assume that the savings that Lawrence
experienced, would also be seen in Manhattan if it decided to invest in cogeneration technology.
The fact that Lawrence has had success with the cogeneration system at their wastewater
treatment plant even though they have a fluctuating student population, shows that the
technology would also work in Manhattan, which has similar fluctuation patterns.

Johnson County, Kansas

Johnson County just recently updated their system to include cogeneration, which combined with
it being a significantly larger facility, means that there is a great deal more information available
on it. Because it is so much larger than Manhattan, servicing about 400 thousand people [11], it
would not be prudent to make direct cost comparisons between the two. However there is still
much to learn about its initial implementation process and the general success and challenges
that they have experience.
The $17.8 million facility broke ground in 2009 and was funded by the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act. Because it was considered a green project, $8.1 million of that was as
principle forgiveness, meaning the county did not have to pay it back [11]. Since its completion,
it has saved bill payers an estimated $500 thousand a year in utility costs, paying off the
remaining investment about 19 years after implementation. It is also estimated that the project
added around 270 new jobs to the market.
The new plant produces 7 million kWh of green energy [11], reducing the countys carbon
footprint by 9,700 metric tons per year [12]. The plant is part of an initiative by the county to
drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions by a third by the year 2020.
4

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Despite the many clear benefits of the new system, it was found that there were also a number of
challenges that were experienced by county officials. When the Johnson County Waste Water
operations engineer, Doug Nolkmper, was asked about cost savings from the cogeneration
system he said, There are a lot of fixed costs in the electrical bill, and so reduction in electric
costs is not linear with production. He also mentioned that, there has been a learning curve
regarding the time and maintenance. This is not our main line of work, and we do not have
specialized staff to attend to [the new parts of the system] [13].
The Johnson County treatment plant shows what the next step looks like for wastewater
cogeneration. The county was able to save its residents a significant amount in utility bills and
dramatically reduce their carbon footprint. However the challenges that they experiences would
likely be experience to a greater degree by Manhattan. The fluctuation in demand attributed to
Kansas State University students could make the power savings harder to come by since
reduction in electric cost is not linear with production as Nolkmper stated. Also, since
Manhattan is even smaller than Johnson County, it is likely to face an even steeper learning
curve associated with the new technology as Manhattan is even less likely to have qualified staff
available to maintain and oversee the complex cogeneration systems.

Gresham, Oregon
The City of Gresham, OR was chosen to be used as an example of the gold standard for what
cogeneration technology can be. Gresham is about twice the size as Manhattan by population [2],
however, thanks to its cogeneration system and a host of other green technologies such as high
efficiency turbo blowers for the aeration system and linear motion mixers for the digesters [16],
its wastewater treatment facility does not spend anything on electricity, having reached what is
known as energy net zero status. 92% of the on-site power needs of the facility are produced by
its cogeneration system. The other 8% is produced by an array of photovoltaic solar panels on
the facility grounds. Gresham is one of only a handful in the country to achieve energy net zero
status, prompting it to win a number of awards for sustainability. Often the plant even produces
more electricity than it needs in which case the excess electricity is sent to the Portland General
Electric grid under a net metering agreement. PGE uses that excess electricity to help families
qualifying for energy assistance [4].
Greshams wastewater treatment plant averages $500 thousand a year in avoided utility costs. In
addition to this, the facility is also accepts fats, oils, and grease from area restaurants, from which
it earns $250 thousand a year. All told, the initial conversion costs were payed back in just three
years. [4].
The City of Gresham took a fairly unique approach to managing its plant. It is contractually
managed by Veolia Water North America, a private water and wastewater service provider. This
partnership has been mutually beneficial for both parties; Veolia won a contract worth $21
million, while the city has saved between $18-20 thousand a month in utility payments versus if
they had maintained the facility themselves [16].
As with Johnson County, the Senior Engineer for the City of Gresham, Alan Johnston, was
contacted in order to gain an insight into any challenges that were faced with their system. In a
5

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

phone interview, Johnson commented that it is important to note that roughly a quarter of
avoided utility cost is neglected by added operation maintenance expenditures [14]. This
subtraction was already factored in to the previous numbers however, indicating that the gross
savings before the operation maintenance expenditures were accounted for, were even higher.
This indicates that these added costs are essentially nonconsequential when it comes to the
overall savings of the system.
Achieving a wastewater treatment plant on par with that of the City of Greshams would require
a great deal of initiative on the part of Manhattan elected and appointed officials. However, it by
no means would be impossible. Doing so could result in many of the same benefits that Gresham
residents enjoy, such as: lower utility bills, energy assistance programs for low income families,
and a significantly reduced carbon footprint. Even the added operation maintenance expenditures
could be looked at as a net gain, since it would mean the creation of jobs in the community.
Manhattan could also consider for implementation, individual aspects of the Gresham treatment
plants that experienced success, such as: solar arrays, efficient blowers and mixers, and/or a
private partnership.

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Conclusion
After studying each of the selected wastewater treatment plants, it was found that all three
facilities benefited from the implementation of cogeneration technology. From Lawrence it was
learned that even despite its relatively smaller size and population fluctuation patterns,
Manhattan would also be able to experience the benefits of investing in the technology. Johnson
County revealed in more depth the benefits that can come about from cogeneration technology,
including significant reductions utility bill and greenhouse gas immersions. And finally,
Gresham, OR showed just how far a city can go with this technology and the improvements in
community welfare that an energy net zero facility can achieve.
It was also discovered that some challenges do arise with the implementation of cogeneration
systems. Johnson County faced a steep learning curve associated with the maintenance of the
new technologies, a problem that could potentially be a bigger issue for Manhattan given its
smaller pool of qualified staff. Also associated with the upkeep of the new systems are added
labor cost, which neglect about a quarter of the savings that were experienced at Gresham, OR.
However, in comparison to the benefits of the technology, these challenges are a relatively small
price to pay and in fact may be considered a good thing for the community because of the
creation of jobs.

Recommendation
It is the recommendation of H2WOAH research team that the City of Manhattan makes steps
towards implementing cogeneration system at its wastewater treatment plant with the goal of
reaching energy net zero status. It is advised that the City of Manhattan draw from the
experiences of Lawrence, Johnson County, and Gresham to achieve this. The city should first
seek federal financial assistance for help with the initial implementation expenses. Next, the city
should pursue forming a partnership with an experience private firm to help with the learning
curve and maintenance costs of the new technology. To achieve energy net zero status, the
upgraded pant will likely need to have additional on-site clean energy sources such as wind or
solar power. Energy efficient aerators and mixers will also help reduce the energy demands of
the plant. The new plant should also be able to accommodate the fats, oils and greases from local
restaurants to augment the flow of usable waste into the system as well help with operation costs
through dumping charges.
If these recommendations are pursed and achieved by the city of Manhattan, it is believed by
H2WOAH Research that substantial economic and environmental dividends would be made by
the community.

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Annex B, Bibliography
[1] Encina Wastewater Authority. (2000, Nov. 14). Success Story [Online PDF]. Available:
http://www.energy.ca.gov/process/pubs/encina.pdf
[2] United States Census Bureau. (2010, Apr. 1). 2010 Census [Online]. Available:
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml#

[3] City Managers Office of Manhattan, KS (2015, Oct. 22). Annual Operating Budget. [Online
PDF]. Available: http://cityofmhk.com/DocumentCenter/View/35221
[4] Gresham Waste Water Services (2015, Apr. 17). Reaching Net Zero [Online]. Available:
https://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/environmental-services/wastewaterdivision/template.aspx?id=4330
[5] Gresham Waste Water Services (2015, Apr. 17). Gresham Water Treatment Plant [Online].
Available: https://greshamoregon.gov/city/city-departments/environmental-services/wastewaterdivision/template.aspx?id=4330
[6] DeWitt, Randy (2016, Mar. 30). Information Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant.
[Online]. Available e-mail: dewitt@cityofmhk.com
[7] Dartmout School of Engineering. Aerobic Digestion, in Engs37. [Online PDF]. Available:
http://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d30345d/courses/engs37/AnaerobicDigestion.pdf
[8] Perry McCarty, Jaeho Bae, and Jeonghwan Kim (2011, July 12), Domestic Wastewater
Treatment as a Net Energy Producer Can This be Achieved? in Environmental Science and
Technology,. [Online PDF] Available: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es2014264
[9] City of Lawrence Utilities (2016). Wastewater Treatment in Department
Information.[Online] Available: https://lawrenceks.org/utilities/wwtreatment
[10] City Managers Office of Lawrence, KS (2015, Jan. 15). Recommended Operating Budget
and Capital Improvement. [Online PDF]. Available:
https://lawrenceks.org/assets/budget/2016/2016_recommended_budget.pdf
[11] Johnson County Wastewater Department (2015), DLSMP Cogeneration in Engineering
Public Projects. [Online]. Available:
http://www.jocogov.org/dept/wastewater/engineering/public-projects/dlsmb-cogeneration
[12] Mid-America Regional Council (2010), Douglas L. Smith Treatment Plant Co-generation
Project in Sustainable Success Stories [Online PDF]. Available:
http://www.marc.org/Government/GTI/pdf/Sustainable-Success-Stories/Douglas-L-SmithTreatment-Plant-Cogeneration-P-(1).aspx
[13] Nolkemper, Doug (2016, Mar. 30). Information Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant.
[Online]. Available e-mail: Doug.Nolkemper@jcw.org

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

[14] Johnston, Alan (2016, Mar. 30). ). Information Regarding Wastewater Treatment Plant.
[Phone Call]. Available office number: 503-618-2431
[15] Procter, Paul. Achieving Energy Independence at the Gresham Wastewater Treatment
Plant in Water World, vol. 27, issue 3 [Online]. Available:
http://www.waterworld.com/articles/print/volume-27/issue-3/editorial-features/water-utilitymanagement-special-section/achieving-energy-independence-at-the-gresham-wastewatertreatment-plant.html
[16] National Council for Public-Private Partnerships (2008). City of Gresham Wastewater
Treatment Plant in 2008 NCPPP Innovation Service Awards. [Online]. Available:
http://www.ncppp.org/resources/case-studies/waterwastewater-infrastructure/city-of-greshamwastewater-treatment-plant/

Energy Production in Wastewater Treatment

April 4, 2016

Annex C, Glossary
Aerobic Digestion; The process of microbial digestion in which air or oxygen is injected into
the digester to help with the microbial digestion. The process is energy intensive and produces
gasses such as methane as a byproduct. This process is shown in Figure 2.
Carbon Footprint; A quantification of how much greenhouse gases are produced by something.
Cogeneration; The process of generating electricity by capturing the biogases that come from
the anaerobic digestion of wastewater and using it as a fuel source. This process is shown in
Figure 3.
Energy Net Zero; A status of creating all the energy required for a system on sight, Gresham,
ORs wastewater treatment plant has achieved this.
Greenhouse Gases; Atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide and methane that absorb thermal
energy from the sun leading to global warming.
Methane; Chemical formula: CH4, a highly combustible gas that is a product of microbial
digestion of wastewater, is a powerful greenhouse gas.

10