Professional Documents
Culture Documents
NEW YORK
ENERGY
RESEARCH
STATE
AND
DEVELOPME
AUTHORITY
The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is a public benefit
corporation created in 1975 by the New York State Legislature. F. William Valentino is President and
Chief Operating Officer.
NYSERDA's primary mission is to carry out a broad program of energy research, development and
demonstration projects designed to develop and apply efficient technologies to help ensure that New
York has secure and economical future supplies of energy, while protecting environmental values and
promoting economic growth.
NYSERDA derives its basic research revenues from an assessment levied on the intrastate sales of New
York State's investor-owned electric and gas utilities. Additional research dollars come from limited
corporate funds and a voluntary annual contribution by the New York Power Authority.
In its research program, NYSERDA stresses consultation and collaboration with other organizations,
including utilities, universities, industries, private engineering and scientific research firms, local
governments, and State and federal agencies. These efforts stretch NYSERDA's limited research funds
and ensure the involvement of those who can use the results of the research.
In its federally funded Energy Services program, NYSERDA provides technical assistance to improve
the energy and environmental performance of businesses and institutions, helps secure energy-project
funding from private and public sources, and converts fleet vehicles to alternative fuels. The Energy
Analysis program focuses on using energy, regulatory, and environmental policies to help New York
State businesses grow and to meet the needs of New York State's energy consumers.
NYSERDA also has responsibility for:
Managing the 3,300-acre Western New York Nuclear Service Center at West Valley 35 miles
south of Buffalo, the site of a former commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing plant and a low-level
radioactive waste disposal area These responsibilities include:
Participating in the West Valley Demonstration Project, a joint federal/State effort to
solidify the high-level radioactive wastes left over from the reprocessing operation and
to clean up the facilities used.
Maintaining the portion of the site not being used in the Demonstration Project, including
the shut-down low-level radioactive waste disposal area
Issuing tax-exempt bonds to finance facilities for electric and gas utilities and energy projects
for private companies.
Constructing and operating facilities for disposal of low-level radioactive wastes produced in
New York State, once the State makes disposal method and site decisions and approvals have
been issued by State regulatory agencies.
Managing a 365-acre portion of a Superfund clean-up site in Malta, 20 miles north of Albany.
Part of the site was once owned by the federal government Portions of it have been used by
the federal government and its contractors since the 1940s for activities that have included rocket
engine and fuel testing, weapons testing, and space research.
For more information, contact the Technical Communications unit, NY SERDA, 2 Empire State Plaza,
Suite 1901, Albany, New York 12223-1253, (518) 465-6251.
NEW YORK
ENERGY
RESEARCH
STATE
AND
DEVELOPME
AUTHORITY
Lawrence J. Pakenas is a Senior Project Manager in the Environmental Research Program at the
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. He is responsible for research,
development, and demonstration project... in the areas of potable water, wastewater treatment, and
residuals management.
Mr. Pakenas holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Civil and Environmental Engineering from
Clarkson College of Technology, and a Masters degree in Business Administration from the State
University of New York at Albany. He is a licensed Professional Engineer in New York State.
INTRODUCTION
Wastewater treatment plants consume large
amounts of energy. They also have the capa
bility to produce a fuel, biogas (a combination
of methane and carbon dioxide), through anaer
obic digestion of sewage sludge. A secondary
treatment plant may use as much as 1500 to
1700 kilowatt hours (kWh) of electricity to
treat one million gallons of sewage and manage
the resulting sludge and residuals.!
Natural gas, fuel oil, and biogas are usually
burned in boilers to provide heat energy for
some sludge management practices and plant
heating and cooling.
NYSERDA Estimates
The New York State Energy Research and
Development Authority (NY SERDA) estimates
that municipal wastewater treattnent plants
(WWTPs) in New York State consume about
1.5 billion kWh of electricity each year for
sewage treatment and sludge management
based on the predominant types of treatment
plants, the results of an energy use survey, and
recent trends in the amounts of electricity
WWTPs use nationwide. 2
According to NYSERDA estimates. 170
million therms of gas and 16 million gallons of
fuel oil are used yearly for sludge processing
and space heating.
Limited Incentive
There are more than 570 WWTPs in New
York State. with 96 percent providing a mini
mum of secondary level of treatment? Approx
imately 75 plants in metropolitan New York
City and Long Island treat 60 percent of the
State's total wastewater flow of 3.5 billion
gallons per day.3 Plants range from treating
less than 100,000 gallons to more than 300
million gallons per day.3 Some 15 million to
20 million gallons, or 1,000 dry tons of sludge,
are produced by New York State WWTPs
every day.4
While several reliable energy-saving tech
nologies could be implemented at these
WWTPs, most municipalities have had limited
Report Highlights
Describes DSM opportunities for WWTPs
in New York State;
According
to NYSERDA
estimates,
170 million therms
of gas and 16
million gallons of
fuel oil are used
yearly for sludge
processing and
space heating.
DSM OPPORTUNITIES
DSM means actions that a utility may take
to control or influence its customers' electricity
use. For example, demand reduction is easily
achieved using energy-efficient lighting, high
efficiency motors, electric-load controllers, and
adjustable-speed drives.
DSM includes conservation, energy efficien
cy, and control of power requirements, and can
include a redistribution of electricity use over
time, usually a 24-hour day. Some DSM activ
ities, however, may increase electricity use.
contributing to load growth.
1
On-site Generation
On-site generation would in most cases use
an internal combustion engine-generator set or,
wben appropriate, gas turbine-generators. Fuel,
natural gas or fuel oil, for the system could be
purcbased andlor produced by anaerobic sludge
digesters (biogas), if available. Project eco
nomics would probably require cogeneration.
Electricity generated on-site would displace
energy purcbases from the utility, and beat
from the system could be recovered for thermal
load applications including sludge drying, di
gester beating, and space conditioning.
9% Other Loads
3% Lighting
67% Aeration
Aeration Efficiency
Sewage aeration at an activated sludge
WWTP accounts for about 30 to 80 percent of
the total plant electricity demand. 5 Figure 1
illustrates a typical energy-use distribution for
an activated sludge plant.
Variations of the activated sludge process
are commonly used for municipal wastewater
treatment in New York State. Aeration electric
demand and energy consumption could be
reduced by using fine-pore diffused
air systems and aeration process
controls, or lowering the sludge age
(mean cell residence time or
MCRT).
Outfall Hydropower
Installing a turbine-generator in the outfall
pipeline or parallel to the pipeline of a WWTP
to capture the energy of the flowing effluent
may be feasible at some WWTPs. Tecbnically,
a bead of only five feet is required to operate a
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
Time of Day
Figure 2. Variation in influent wastewater strength over 24 hours for a typical treatment plant.
2
Storing Wastewater
FLOW
1
POWERHOUSE WI
TURBINE-GENERATORS
BYPASS OR
EXCESS
FLOW
Interconnections
Shifting electrical load from on-peak to off
peak hours, or levelizing electricity use
throughout the day usually requires temporary
storage of the influent wastewater either at the
treatment plant site or within the sewerage
system, and possibly sludge storage for batch
processing.
Some sewerage systems are designed to
collect and transport sewage so flows at the
WWTP are reasonably constant. If there is no
existing storage capacity, constructing new
storage facilities specifically to process
wastewater and sludge during off-peak hours
may not be cost-effective.
The costs and benefits of wastewater stor
age and time-of-day electricity pricing need fur
ther development; these topics will not be in
cluded in the following analysis. A qualitative
assessment of how time-of-day pricing may
influence implementing DSM technologies
appears in the conclusion.
OUTFALL HYDROPOWER
Turbines suitable for low-head effluent hy
dropower applications are generally custom
designed and manufactured by specialists in
hydro-turbine construction.
The range of flows and heads at New York
State WWTPs suggests that axial-flow tube tur
bines would be the preferred equipment. Sev
eral sewage-pump manufacturers offer "pumps
as turbines," using an off-the-shelf wastewater
pump converted to operate as a turbine. This
standardized design and manufacturing ap
proach never achieved its anticipated impact in
the hydropower market, so current equipment
offerings are limited.
Figure 3 illustrates an effluent hydropower
concept. Treated sewage effluent, diverted
from the outfall pipeline, passes through one or
more turbine-generator units before flowing
RECEIVING WATER
Figure 3. Diagram
shows how a treatment
planfs effluent could be
diverted to a hydropow
er generating station to
produce electricity.
COGENERA TION
Cogeneration appears ideal for a WWTP.
Biogas fuel for generating power can be pro
duced on-site using anaerobic sludge digestion.
To increase the energy capacity of a system,
the biogas could be supplemented with natural
gas, if available. The electricity generated and
recovered heat have many uses in the plant and
any excess electricity could be offered for sale
to the utility.
Internal combustion engines and generators
are available that range from 10 to 6,000 kilo
watts (kW). Small gas turbine-generators usu
ally have output from 800 and 15,000 kW, but
units with less than 50 kW of capacity could be
feasible. 6
Installations of 1,000 kW or less generally
use engine-generators; gas turbines are pre
ferred for capacities of 6,000 kW or more.
Interconnection and regulatory requirements are
similar to those described previously for efflu
ent hydropower.
250
200
150
100
Figure 4. Number of
treatment plants in New
York State that use
various forms of sec
ondary wastewater
treatment.
50
TRICKLING
FILTER
ACTIVATED
SLUDGE
PHYSICAL
CHEMICAL
OTHER
Waste Heat
,l,ERATlO!J
SECONDARY
SETTLING
8ETURN SLuDGE"
FINAlEFFlUEfH
'------'
WASTE
ACTIVATED SLUDGE
"'. .
.,,,,0,\,,,
"
'."r-",,,._ _ _
~"'"
THICKH"~j(;
n _
fLOIATlm.
IO"'CCN'RAnON
~L-_ _ _ _~-"-DO-RD-'ISP-os-,,~
DtWATHm,r,
--
SuJl)!;E
TO DISPOSAL
MECHANICAL AERATION
MOTOR
WATER LEVEL
... .......
-....
..: ...... -... .-.-. : ......
I
4
DIRECTION
OF AERATION
MIXING
AERATION TANK
COARSE-BUBBLE AERATION
VALVETO CONTROL
AIR SUPPLY
AIR SUPPLY
HEADER
WATER LEVEL
.~DIRECTION OF ~
"
AERATION MIXING
"
Figure 7. A cross
section of a typical
coarse-bubble aeration
tank at an activated
sludge treatment plant.
Figure 6. A cross-sec
tion of a typical me
chanical aeration tank
at an activated sludge
treatment plant.
FINE-BUBBLE AERATION
Figure 8. A cross-sec
tion of a typical fine
bubble aeration tank at
an activated sludge
treatment plant.
Bubbles Differentiate
The number of bubbles produced per unit
volume of air and the bubble diameter differen
tiate the two systems. The smaller-diameter
bubbles produced by the fine-pore system pro
vide more surface area for better oxygen trans
fer efficiency than both coarse-bubble systems
and mechanical aeration.
Oxygen transfer efficiency for coarse-bubble
systems is about the same as mechanical aera
tion. 11 Fine-pore diffusers have an oxygen
transfer efficiency of about 4.0 to 8.0 lb.
O/hp-hr.11
Fine-Pore Systems
The capital cost of a fine-pore aeration sys
tem will probably be higher; however, the total
annual cost for the system will be less than the
annual cost of coarse-bubble aerators. 12 For
example, the fme-pore system could reduce
energy consumption from 40 to 50 percent, and
overall life-cycle costs from 10 to 20 percent
compared to other diffused-air systems. 12
Based on the oxygen transfer efficiencies given
previously, energy cost savings using fine-pore
diffusers compared to mechanical aerators will
be similar. Actual cost savings will be site
specific.
Oxygen Transfer Efficiency
The diffuser layout will affect oxygen trans
fer efficiency, aeration tank mixing, and energy
use. Two typical diffuser arrangements are the
spiral roll and the total floor coverage.
For the same aeration tank configuration and
diffuser type, the total floor coverage will pro
duce a higher oxygen transfer efficiency and
use less energy than the spiral roll arrange
ment. 12 The spiral roll layout, however, pro
vides better mixing of the aeration tank mixed
liquor. I 2
Diffuser Maintenance and Cleaning
Fine-pore aeration systems may increase the
maintenance requirements compared to other
types of aerators, because fine-pore clogging in
the air diffusers is a major problem. Diffuser
fouling can occur on the air side and/or the
water side.
On the air side, dust and dirt taken in by the
air blowers or compressors could block the
.,._00
I
ERROR
I
I
Drawbacks
This concept has several drawbacks and
costs. It cannot be used in WWTPs that rely
on biological nitrification because the shorter
MCRT is insufficient to sustain this process at
normal wastewater temperatures. The short
MCRT solids will be more difficult to settle.
Alternatives to gravity settling may be need
ed and clarifiers may require chemicals to
promote flocculation and reduce suspended
solids in the fmal effluent to meet WWfP dis
charge permit requirements.
If one-third of the solids are removed from
the system daily instead of one-twelfth, there is
an increased potential for solids washout. In
addition, the treatment plant and sludge man
agement system must be capable of handling
the increased sludge load.
Additional Costs
The added costs of chemicals and energy
for processing greater quantities of sludge must
be compared to the expected energy savings
from reduced sewage aeration; increased meth
ane production during sludge digestion; or
lower auxiliary fuel consumption and more
recoverable heat if the sludge is incinerated,
DO MEASURED
00 ---jCOMPARATORt- - - - - - - -100 SENSOR
SET-POINT
I
DO
f. - -
Figure 9. Diagram of a
control loop for adjust
ing the operation of air
blowers in relation to a
dissolved oxygen con
centration set point in a
treatment plant's aera
tion basins.
Controls Research
According to research on the aeration pro
cess at WWTPs, the process has been con
trolled through continuous monitoring of sew
age treatment variables and data feedback to a
control center where programmable controllers
or computers adjust the operation of the aera
tion equipment as shown in Figure 9.
For example, remote monitoring instruments
periodically or continuously measure the
mixed-liquor dissolved oxygen concentration in
an aeration basin. The dissolved oxygen read
ing is used to automatically adjust operation of
the aeration system in accordance with the data
received by the controller and the requirements
of good sewage treatment practice.
If an existing aeration system were retrofit
with monitoring and automatic controls to
maintain a setpoint concentration of dissolved
oxygen in the aeration tanks, aeration energy
could be lowered up to 30 percent.
Sensor Maintenance
Remote sensor biofouling as well as sensor
placement may reduce the effectiveness of this
energy-saving measure. Operators must spend
the time to keep the sensors properly main
tained and calibrated, and must be trained to
work with the automatic system to avoid un
necessary override that might reduce energy
savings.
TABLE 1
Effluent Hydropower
rlfSCHA~GE
FLOW
(FT)
!";!!"W~""",m.>;'"",,,
J~,GD)
yelf
;~i~
HEAD
10
2G
3C
40
50
60
7()
all
90
100
110
120
t60
190
5
10
16
21
26
31
37
42
47
52
58
63
68
73
79
84
89
94
100
105
10"""",,,,,,,,,,,
2g """"""""""",,;25
16
21
42
10
21
31
42
52
63
73
110
147
84
126
94
142
157
173
189
205
220
168
189
210
231
252
273
105
115
126
136
147
157
168
178
189
199
210
31
47
63
79
94
63
84
105
126
~";)I"';"""~'
"''''
35
"'~"
37
73
110
147
26
52
79
105
131
157
",?9
47
52
105
157
210
262
94
142
189
236
283
184
184
220
257
330
210
294
"f:i~
236
262
288
315
425
"367
346
404
378
441
472,
462
504
519
577
S66
SSO
629
682
734
787
S39
892
944
897
997
294
236
252
267
283
299
378
472
399
498
S66
598
"'" 45
....
<:
.r;
4E+07
en
f
:z
UJ
:'E
UJ
3E+07
c:
:::::>
aUJ
c:
>
(!J
c:
UJ
:z
UJ
...J
f-
2E+07
1E.07
f
OE+OO
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
TRICKLING FILTER
-------
....
5E+07
<:
.r;
~
en
f
:z
4E+07
UJ
:'E
UJ
!:f
3E+07
:::::>
aUJ
c:
>
(!J
c:
UJ
:z
UJ
...J
f-
2E+07
1E+07
I
OE+OO
20
40
60
80
100
120
TRICKLING FILTER
------
BIOGAS CONTRIBUTION
- - - -
140
160
:::c
S
:::c:::
--
c..:>
UJ
-l
UJ
LL.
I-
en
0
008
0.07
0.06
0.05
004
0.03
0.02
0.01
03
0.8
1.8
3.3
12
23
45
80
100
150
''\1;';':'
:::c
oDB
--
006
S
:::c:::
c..:>
UJ
-l
UJ
LL.
10
0
I-
en
0
0.07
0.05
004
0.03
0.02
001
03
DB
1.B
3.3
12
23
45
BO
100
150
Flow
Rate
(MGD)
20%
Solids
(cydlyr)
45
80
100
150
43,820
77,903
97,378
146,067
20%
Solids
(tonslyr)
Hauling &
Disposal
38,034 $3,651,278
67,616 $6,491,160
84,520 $8,113,950
126,780 $12,170,925
25%
Solids
(cydlyr)
35,056
62,322
77,903
116,854
25%
Solids
(tonslyr)
Hauling &
Disposal
30,427
54,093
67,616
101,424
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
($lyr)"
Drying,
40%
40%
Hauling &
Disposal
Solids
Solids
(cydlyr) (tonslyr) ~
19,017
33,808
42,260
63,390
$2,206,843
$3,748,384
$4,789,688
56,888,780
60%
Solids
(cydlyr)
60%
Solids
(tonslyr)
14,607
25,968
32,459
48,689
12,678
22,539
28,173.
42,260
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
80%
80%
Solids
Solids
(cyd/yr) (tonslyr)
~
$1,598,297
$2,666,524
$3,437,363
$4,860,292
10,955
19,476
24,345
36,517
9,509
16,904
21,130
31,695
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
~
$1,294,024
$2,125,594
$2,761,201
53,846,048
TABLE 3
Flow
Rate
(MGD)
.45
80
100
150
20%
Hauling &
Disposal
~
$3,651,278
$6,491,160
$8,113,950
$12,170,925
25%
Hauling &
Disposal
($lyr)"
25%
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
($lyr)
25% Dry
vs.
20% Oew
Savings II]
40%
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
40% Dry
vs.
25% Oew
Savings (1]
~ ~
40% Dry
vs.
20% Dew
Savingsll]
60%
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
$2,921,022 $3,302,226
$5,192,928 $5,695.132
$6,491,160 57,223,873
$9,736,740 510,540,057
$349,051
$795,428
$890,077
$1,630,868
$1,444,434
$2,742,776
$3,324,262
$5,282,145
$714,179
$1,444,544
51,701,472
52,847,060
$1,598,297
52,666,524
$3,437,363
52,052,981
$3,824,636
$4,676,587
$7,310,633
$1,322,725
52,526,404
53,053,797
54,876,448
$1,294,024
$2,125,594
$2,761,201
$3,846,048
52,357,254
54,365,566
55.352.749
$8,324,877
$1,626,998
53,067,334
53,729,959
$5,890,692
52,206,843
$3,748,384
$4,789,688
$6,888,780
$4.B60,292
10
60% Dry
60% Dry
vs.
vs.
25%
Dew
20% Dew
Savings II]
Savings (1]
11
12
13
80%
Drying,
Hauling &
Disposal
80% Dry
vs.
20% Dew
Savings II]
80% Dry
vs.
25% Dew
Savings II]
11
TABLE 4
Blowers
& In-Tank
Equipment ($)
Demolition
($)
Total
Construction ($)
Annual Capital
Cost ($/year)
$/MGD
HP Reduction
(HP)
10
20
50
100
$105,000
$350,000
$650,000
$1,290,000
$4,220,000
$7,380,000
$9,000
$37,000
$78,000
$154,000
$360,000
$690,000
$114,000
$387,000
$728,000
$1,444,000
$4,580,000
$8,070,000
$10,800
$36,500
$68,700
$136,300
$432,400
$761,800
$10,800
$7,300
$6,870
$6,815
$8,648
$7,618
20
130
190
435
1,095
2,200
29
43
35
41
43
43
Payback
Period (yrs)
9.7
5.1
6.5
5.6
7.1
6.2
Notes:
1. Annual capital cost based on 7% interest for 20 years bonding (.0944)
2. Power cost based on $.09/kWh
TABLE 5
Blowers
& In-Tank
Equipment ($)
Building &
Air
Piping ($)
Demolition
($)
Total
Construction ($)
Annual Capital
Cost ($/year)
$/MGD
HP Reduction
(HP)
10
20
50
100
$105,000
$350,000
$650,000
$1,290,000
$4,220,000
$7,380,000
$130,000
$250,000
$370,000
$570,000
$1,100,000
$2,000,000
$6,000
$25,000
$55,000
$100,000
$280,000
$550,000
$241,000
$625,000
$1,075,000
$1,960,000
$5,700,000
$10,030,000
$22,800
$59,000
$101,500
$185,000
$538,000
$946,800
$22,800
$11,800
$10,150
$9,250
$10,760
$9,468
25
200
400
875
2,275
4,560
Notes:
1. Annual capital cost based on 7% interest for 20 years bonding (.0944)
2. Power cost based on $.09IkWh
12
33
53
53
58
61
61
16.4
5.3
4.6
3.8
4.3
3.7
TABLE 6
Increased
Solids
Cost ($lyr)
Decreased
Aeration
Cost ($/yr)
Net Savings
($/yr)
7,010
35,100
70,200
140,400
349,400
698,800
8,800
43,500
86,400
173,400
433,300
866,600
1,790
8,400
16,200
33,000
83,900
167,800
5
10
20
50
100
vided by cogeneration.
Approximately 270 million cubic feet of
natural gas per year would be purchased as
an auxiliary fuel.
Sludge Drying
Power Cost
No Controls
($lyr)
20% Annual
Savings
($lyr)
25% Annual
Savings
($lyr)
30% Annual
Savings
(S/yr)
Net
Savings @20%
Net
Savings @25'10
Net
Savings @30%
10
20
50
100
$29,400
$102,900
$205,800
$367,400
$867,200
$1,728,200
$5,900
$20,600
$41,200
$73,500
$173,400
$345,600
$7,400
$25,700
$51,500
$91,900
$216,800
$432,000
$8,800
$30,900
S61,700
5110,200
S260,200
$518,500
$4,300 (12.1')
$18,300 (5.5)
$36,600 (3.7)
567,700 (2 8)
$161,800 (2.8)
$328,200 (1.6)
$5,800 (9.0')
$23,400 (4.3)
$46,900 (2 9)
$86,100 (2 2)
$205,200 (2.2)
$414,600 (1.3)
$7.200 (7.2')
$28,600 (3.5)
$57,100 (2.4)
$104,400 (1.8)
$248,600 (1.8)
$501,100 (1.1)
Notes:
1 Net savings equals annual power savings minus O&M lor control system
'Payback period (yrs)
TABLE 8
Power Cost
No Controls
($/yr)
20% Annual
Savings
($lyr)
25% Annual
Savings
($/yr)
30% Annual
Savings
($/yr)
Net
Savings @ 20%
Net
Savings @25'10
Net
Savings @30%
10
20
50
100
$41,200
$179,300
$317.500
$623,100
$1,511,000
$3.021,600
$8,200
$35,900
$63,500
$124,600
$302,200
$604,300
$10,300
$44,800
$79,400
$155,800
$377,800
$755,400
$12,400
$53,800
S95,300
$186,900
$453,300
$906,500
S6,700 (8 4')
533.600 (3,7)
$58,600 (3.0)
$118,500 (2.2)
5290,700 II 7)
$586,400 (1.4)
S8,800 (6.4')
$42,500 (2 9)
$74,50012.3)
$149,700 (1 8)
$366,000 (1 4)
$737,500 PI)
$10,900 (5.1')
S51,500 (2 4)
$90,400 (1.9)
$180.800 (1.5)
$441,500 (1.1)
$888,600 (0.9)
Notes:
1. Net savings equals annual power savings minus O&M lor control syslem
'Payback period Iyrs)
13
The value of
displaced energy
purchases is
probably the key
determinant for
the economic
feasibility of
implementing DSM
technologies at
WWTPs.
DSM BARRIERS
Maintenance and Backup Services
14
Cogeneration
Aeration Process
CONCLUSIONS
Effluent Hydropower
On-site
cogeneration has
no theoretical
limits; it could be
implemented at
most New York
State WWTPs,
assuming there
are uses for the
electricity and
heat energy
products.
15
16
TABLE 9
Energy Impact
Cogeneration
Displaced
Effluent Hydro
Fine-Pore Aeration
Aeration Controls
Sludge Age Reduction
REFERENCES
14. NYSERDA
15. NYSERDA
17
Technology Assessment
9/95