water

Article
Design Aspects, Energy Consumption Evaluation,
and Offset for Drinking Water Treatment Operation
Saria Bukhary 1 , Jacimaria Batista 2 and Sajjad Ahmad 2, *
1 Department of Civil Engineering, NED University of Engineering and Technology, University Road Karachi,
Karachi City 75270, Pakistan; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Construction, University of Nevada, Las Vegas,
4505 S. Maryland Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89154-4015, USA; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]




Received: 28 April 2020; Accepted: 18 June 2020; Published: 22 June 2020


Abstract: Drinking water treatment, wastewater treatment, and water distribution are
energy-intensive processes. The goal of this study was to design the unit processes of an
existing drinking water treatment plant (DWTP), evaluate the associated energy consumption,
and then offset it using solar photovoltaics (PVs) to reduce carbon emissions. The selected DWTP,
situated in the southwestern United States, utilizes coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation, filtration,
and chlorination to treat 3.94 m3 of local river water per second. Based on the energy consumption
determined for each unit process (validated using the plant’s data) and the plant’s available
landholding, the DWTP was sized for solar PV (as a modeling study) using the system advisor model.
Total operational energy consumption was estimated to be 56.3 MWh day−1 for the DWTP including
water distribution pumps, whereas energy consumption for the DWTP excluding water distribution
pumps was 2661 kWh day−1 . The results showed that the largest consumers of energy—after the
water distribution pumps (158.1 Wh m−3 )—were the processes of coagulation (1.95 Wh m−3 ) and
flocculation (1.93 Wh m−3 ). A 500 kW PV system was found to be sufficient to offset the energy
consumption of the water treatment only operations, for a net present value of $0.24 million. The net
reduction in carbon emissions due to the PV-based design was found to be 450 and 240 metric tons
CO2 -eq year−1 with and without battery storage, respectively. This methodology can be applied to
other existing DWTPs for design and assessment of energy consumption and use of renewables.

Keywords: drinking water treatment; energy consumption; photovoltaics; system advisor model;
treatment plant design; carbon emissions

1. Introduction
Energy conservation and sustainability is one of the pressing issues being faced by the water
industry today as drinking water treatment and wastewater treatment are highly energy-intensive
processes [1]. These processes account for about 2% of the United States’ total energy use, resulting in
the emissions of about 45 million tons of greenhouse gases (GHG) [2]. One of the ways to reduce carbon
emissions is to incorporate renewables into existing water infrastructure. The objective of this study
was evaluation of the energy consumption of a large-scale drinking water treatment plant (DWTP),
associated carbon emissions, and then offsetting that energy consumption by utilizing photovoltaics
(PVs).
Energy use related to drinking water treatment may include energy for water conveyance, energy
for unit operations of the DWTP, for facility related equipment (lighting, heating and ventilation),
and energy for water distribution [3,4]. Energy use for water treatment depends on various factors such
as raw water quality, water source, age of water delivery system, conveyance distance, water storage

Water 2020, 12, 1772; doi:10.3390/w12061772 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 1772 2 of 27

capacities, as well as elevation differences. About 80% of the energy use is for conveying or pumping
the water and wastewater while the remaining is used for water treatment [5].

Literature Review
Treatment of water is an energy-intensive process. Various studies have evaluated the energy
consumption for drinking water treatment [6–12] and wastewater treatment plants [13–17]. More studies
exist for wastewater treatment facilities compared to DWTPs. Ref. [12] conducted a literature review
and compared energy consumption of a conventional water treatment in various countries including
Australia (0.01–0.2 kWh m−3 ), Spain (0.11–1.5 kWh m−3 ), New Zealand (0.15–0.44 kWh m−3 ), U.S.
(0.184–0.47 kWh m−3 ), Canada (0.38–1.33 kWh m−3 ), and Taiwan (0.16–0.25 kWh m−3 ). Similar studies
were also conducted by [9]. Ref. [8] determined the energy consumption of a DWTP, treating 0.017 m3
day−1 of river water, located in Jamshoro Pakistan, as 7.4 Wh m−3 . The largest consumers of energy
were the processes of chlorination (because of on-site generation of chlorine dioxide) and coagulation,
consuming about 34% and 31% of the total operational energy consumption of the DWTP. Ref. [11]
studied the effects of mixing intensity on floc formation as well as the associated energy consumption.
Future energy demands related to water treatment are expected to grow because of various
reasons. Energy expenditure of water operations increases due to population growth [18–22] as well
as aging infrastructure [23]. Further, pollution is caused by emission of GHG, due to the burning of
carbon-based fuels for electricity generation [24]. These can be motivating factors for DWTPs to explore
and implement different methods to reduce their overall energy consumption. Changing climate
complicates the matter further [25–34]. Changes in temperature and increased drought/flood conditions
may result in the degradation of source water [35–39]. Furthermore, in recent times, with technological
advancement and introduction of new chemicals into the environment, there has been an increased
emphasis on stringent water quality standards [40–42], enforced by the implementation of various
regulations [43], although enforcement of such standards may not be possible today because of the
high costs of treatment associated with it [44]. Employing alternate ways to generate energy such as
using renewables or using energy conservation measures can help in cost reduction [23].
Renewable energy resources including solar, wind, and biomass can be used to generate energy for
water systems, including drinking water and wastewater treatment processes and water pumping and
supply. This will lead to a decrease in fossil fuel-based energy requirements. Solar energy is gaining
popularity as a clean source of energy production. Sunlight is an abundant resource, especially in
the southwest, and application of this technology may help towards energy independence as well as
reduction in GHG emissions, as during operation, solar energy has zero carbon emissions, but there
are some emissions generated during construction and transportation of solar technologies [45].
Solar PVs generate electricity by converting sunlight directly into electricity by utilizing the
photoelectric effect and the photovoltaic effect. Using PV has an additional advantage of being able to
supply balanced and sustainable power throughout the day, even at the time of peak demand when
electric power is the most costly. Solar PV can be deployed at utility, commercial, and residential scale
and as decentralized or grid-connected systems [46].
Deployment of solar energy depends on financial viability since it entails large capital costs,
recurring costs for operation and maintenance (O&M), and government taxes paid over the life of the
project [47,48]. Different governmental incentives and policies help dissipate these costs and assist in
making solar energy economically competitive with other sources of energy generation [49]. The costs
associated with solar installations can also be dissipated indirectly due to the corresponding reduction
in carbon emissions, leading to improved health of the community and the environment [50,51].
Application of PV depends on land availability, and deployment requires a large land area [45,52].
PV can be ground-mounted or installed on rooftops. Drinking water treatment plants are usually
located upstream of the community they serve while wastewater plants are located downstream of the
community and are provided with sufficient land acreage based on anticipated future development
and redevelopment. The existing landholdings of the treatment plant can be utilized for the installation
Water 2020, 12, 1772 3 of 27

of solar energy [53,54]. If the landholdings of the treatment plant are not sufficient, then additional
land area would need to be acquired.
Design and performance analysis of solar PV can be achieved using available modeling tools.
The system advisor model (SAM) developed by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in 2005 [55]
is a performance and cost-modeling tool and facilitates in decision making for renewables of solar,
wind, and geothermal and biomass combustion. Various studies have used SAM for analyzing solar
technologies, particularly photovoltaics [56–59]. Ref. [59] utilized SAM to generate hourly performance
simulations for the validation of their solar PV design. Solar PV was used to generate power for
the aerators, utilized for the treatment of acid mine drainage at Hwangji Youchang facility, located
in Korea. The 30.1 kW PV system, using a factor of safety of 5, resulted in electricity production of
3016 kWh month−1 , to meet the 342.39 kWh month−1 electricity demand [59]. Ref. [56] utilized SAM to
generate life cycle costs per kWh for utility-scale development of solar PV as well as for using solar PV
to meet the electricity demands for residential and commercial sectors in the United States. Ref. [58]
employed SAM for analyzing life cycle energy production and associated costs of a solar PV system
and solar water heater for a residential dwelling unit in Houston, Texas.
Solar energy has great potential as a clean source of energy for water treatment processes [7,60–62],
wastewater treatment processes [63–66], and desalination [67–71]. Studies evaluating the potential
of existing DWTPs to incorporate solar energy technologies are limited. Ref. [61] made performance
comparisons between a conventional DWTP and a wind-solar-powered nano-filtration pilot plant
located in Spain. Ref. [62] explored the potential of using wind and solar energy for a large-scale water
treatment plant in the Netherlands. The goal of this study was to:

(a) Design and determine the energy consumption and energy intensity of each unit operation
(validated using plant’s data) of an existing DWTP,
(b) Conduct a modeling study and size the DWTP for solar PV, to offset the energy consumption of
the plant, based on available landholdings and economic assessment,
(c) Determine the net reduction in carbon emissions due to solar PV installation compared to non-PV
based design.

The approach used in this study can be utilized as a guide to design DWTPs and analyze their
energy consumption. This is useful for engineers and researchers as generally consulting firms do
not publicly disclose such information. For a meaningful design, data was collected from an existing
DWTP. Further, sustainability is incorporated into the design of the plant by using solar PV, with the
long-term goal of energy independence and reduced carbon emissions for an existing DWTP.

2. Study Area
For this study, the selected treatment plant is located in southwestern United States, serving a
city with a population of 0.24 million. The primary water supply for the city is a river originating
from a lake, enduring a 161 km course through different canyons and ultimately having an outfall
in another lake. Only 6% of the water flowing through the river is used by the community, and in
addition, almost half of that 6% is returned to the river after the generated wastewater is treated at
the wastewater treatment plants. Hence, only 3% of the water flowing through the river is used in a
non-drought year, while 8% is used in a drought year. The DWTP has the capacity to treat 3.94 m3 of
source water per second. For confidentiality reasons, the location of the plant cannot be disclosed,
as required by the DWTP’s management, since data was collected from the DWTP’s managers for
validation of the results generated in this study. However, for the purpose of analysis of the PV system,
it was assumed that the plant was located in Nevada (direct beam insolation level 6.3 kWh m−2 day−1 ),
having insolation levels favorable for solar deployment.

3. Data Sources
Data sources for this study are as follows:
 Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 30

3. Data Sources
Data sources for this study are as follows:
Water 2020, 12, 1772 4 of 27

3.1. Process Flow Diagram

3.1. Process Flow Diagram
A process flow diagram was acquired from the treatment plant managers. The process flow
diagram discussed
A process flow in this section
diagram for the DWTP
was acquired from isthebased on the plant
treatment information
managers.provided.
The process flow
diagram Figure 1 shows
discussed the process
in this flow
section for thediagram
DWTP is forbased
the plant,
on thewhich utilizesprovided.
information a conventional treatment
train to treat
Figure 1 shows3.94the
mprocess
3 of river
flowwater perfor
diagram second. Raw
the plant, water
which froma conventional
utilizes the river at treatment
first undergoes
train
topre-treatment
treat 3.94 m of3 and passes
river waterthrough bar screens,
per second. Raw water rawfrom
water
thebasins,
river atand
firstthen automatic
undergoes screens for
pre-treatment
removal
and passesof larger bar
through debris, settlement
screens, raw waterof heavier
basins, grit, and automatic
and then removal ofscreens
smallerfordebris,
removalrespectively.
of larger
Then, settlement
debris, the water isofcoagulated andand
heavier grit, flocculated.
removal Next, the water
of smaller is filtered
debris, through
respectively. dual-media
Then, filters.
the water is
Lastly, the
coagulated andwater is disinfected
flocculated. Next, theby application
water is filteredof sodium
through hypochlorite
dual-media filters.and thenthestored
Lastly, water isfor
distribution
disinfected by throughout
application the city. hypochlorite and then stored for distribution throughout the city.
of sodium

Figure
Figure 1. Process
1. Process flowflow diagram
diagram for thefor the selected
selected drinkingdrinking water treatment
water treatment plant. Solidplant.
arrowsSolid arrows
determine
determine
the the of
progression progression of water
water treatment, treatment,
dashed arrowsdashed arrows
determine determineinjection
the chemical the chemical
points,injection
while
points,
dotted whiledetermine
arrows dotted arrows determine the
the progression for progression for residual management.
residual management.

3.2. Water Quality Report

3.2. Water Quality Report
A raw water quality report was acquired from the DWTP’s managers, and any missing data
A raw water quality report was acquired from the DWTP’s managers, and any missing data
was reproduced from [43]. The design for each unit process is dependent upon the raw water
was reproduced from [43]. The design for each unit process is dependent upon the raw water
characteristics as well as the corresponding maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and secondary
characteristics as well as the corresponding maximum contaminant levels (MCL) and secondary
maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
maximum contaminant levels (SMCL) determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), as shown in Table 1 [72].
(USEPA), as shown in Table 1 [72].
Table 1. Raw water quality report obtained from the drinking water treatment plant’s managers.
Table 1. Raw water quality report obtained from the drinking water treatment plant’s managers.
Parameter Units Average Value USEPA* MCL **/SMCL *** Guidelines
Parameter Units Average Value USEPA* MCL **/SMCL *** Guidelines
pH N/A 8.2 6.5–8.5
pH ◦N/A 8.2 6.5–8.5
Water temperature (winter) C 5 Not regulated
Watertemperature
Water temperature (winter)
(summer) ◦ C°C 5
19 Notregulated
Not regulated
Water temperature
Turbidity (summer) NTU °C 19
4 Not 0.3
regulated
* USEPA: Turbidity NTU
U.S. Environmental Protection 4 maximum contaminant level. ***
Agency. ** MCL: 0.3SMCL: secondary
maximum contaminant level. *USEPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

**MCL: maximum contaminant level. *** SMCL: secondary maximum contaminant level.
3.3. Treatment Plant Design Criteria
3.3.Sizing was Plant
Treatment achieved by using
Design industry accepted design criteria [43,73–75] and discussed in detail
Criteria
in Section 4.
Sizing was achieved by using industry accepted design criteria [43,73–75] and discussed in
detail
3.4. in Section
Carbon 4.0.
Emissions

3.4.Data sources
Carbon and parameters for carbon dioxide emissions and southwestern state’s energy-source
Emissions
mix for electricity generation is shown in Table 2. Carbon emissions data in units of gCO2 -eq kWh−1 ,
for different energy sources for electricity generation, was obtained from [76]. Nevada’s electricity
source mix for various energy sources was obtained from U.S. Energy Information Administration
(USEIA) [77].
Water 2020, 12, 1772 5 of 27

Table 2. Carbon emissions [76] and Nevada’s electricity source mix [77].

Carbon Emissions
Sources for Electricity Generation State Electricity Source Mix
(gCO2eq kWh−1 )
Coal 1001 23.51
Natural Gas 469 56.41
Petroleum 840 0.07
Nuclear 16 0
Hydropower 4 7.42
Bio-power 18 0.1
Geothermal 45 8.5
Wind 12 0.95
Solar 46 3.04

3.5. PV System
Parameters used for sizing solar PV, related to the PV module, inverter, and battery storage are
shown in Table 3. The PV system was sized as 2-axis tracking and consists of a mono-crystalline
silicone module assumed to be ground mounted. A 2-axis tracking system allows higher energy output
compared to single-axis trackers or fixed systems. The module type selected was Helio USA 7T2
305 [78]. Inverters are used to convert the direct current output of the solar modules into alternating
current, so that the generated electricity can be utilized by the DWTP or the excess generation can be
utilized by the electricity grid. The inverter type selected was Fronius Symo 10.0 240V. The battery
type chosen was lead acid flooded [79,80] (Table 3).

Table 3. Photovoltaic system design parameters utilized as inputs in system advisor model [78–80].

Parameter Unit Value

Module Module Name - Helio USA 7T2 305
Module Area m2 1.952
Module Material - Mono C-Si
Nominal Efficiency % 15.6
Maximum Power Pmp Watt 305
Maximum Power Voltage Vmp Volt 36.7
Maximum Power Current Imp Ampere 8.3
Open Circuit Voltage Voc Volt 45.1
Short Circuit Voltage Isc Ampere 8.9
Inverter Inverter Name - Fronius-Symo 10.0-3 240V
Weighted Efficiency % 96.5
Maximum AC Power Watt 9995
Maximum DC Power Watt 10,359
Nominal AC Voltage Volt 240
Maximum DC Voltage Volt 600
Maximum DC Current Ampere 41.5
Minimum MPPT DC Voltage Volt 300
Nominal DC Voltage Volt 371.6
Maximum MPPT DC Voltage Volt 500
Water 2020, 12, 1772 6 of 27

Table 3. Cont.

Parameter Unit Value

Battery Name - Lead Acid Flooded
Cell Nominal Voltage Volt 2
Internal Resistance Ohm 0.1
C-rate of discharge Curve 0.05
Fully Charged Cell Voltage Volt 2.2
Exponential Zone Cell Voltage Volt 2.06
Nominal Zone Cell Voltage Volt 2.03
Charged Removed at Exponential Point % 0.25
Charge Removed at Nominal Point % 90
Cell Capacity Ah 1284
Max C-rate of Charge h−1 0.12
Max C-rate of Discharge h−1 0.12
Minimum State of Charge % 10
Maximum State of Charge % 95
Minimum Time at Charge State min 10

Various financial parameters incorporated within the economic model of SAM, are listed in
Table 4. These parameters were based upon the review of published literature in the years 2016 and
2017 [81–88].

Table 4. Financial parameters used for economical assessment using system advisor model.

Nevada New York

Parameter Unit References
Values Values
Module $ Watt−1 1.6 1.6 [78]
Direct Cost
Inverter $ Watt−1 5.0 5.0 [79]
Battery bank $ kWh−1 157.7 157.7 [80]
Battery bank replacement cost $ kWh−1 112 112 [62]
Electrical Balance of equipment cost $ Watt−1 0.12 0.18 [82]
2-axis-tracking equipment $ Watt−1 0.2 0.2 [89]
Installation labor $ Watt−1 0.15 0.18 [82]
Contingency % 4.0 4.0 [82]
Permitting, environmental studies,
$ Watt−1 0.1 0.12 [82]
grid interconnection
Indirect Cost Engineering and developer overhead $ Watt−1 0.53 0.55 [82]
Installer margin and overhead $ Watt−1 0.19 0.19 [82]
O&M Cost Fixed annual cost $ kW−1 year−1 18 18 [82]
SAM default
Inflation rate % 2.5 2.5
value
Real discount rate % 8.0 8.0 [85]
Federal income tax rate % year−1 28 28 [83]
Financial Rates State income tax rate % year−1 0.0 8.82 [90]
Sales tax % 8.1 4.375 [49,90]
Insurance rate % of 0.25 0.25 [88]
installed costs
Salvage value 20 20 [91]
Property tax rate % year−1 0.0 2.0 [49]

3.6. Federal and State Incentives

Federal and state incentives were obtained from the Database of State Incentives for Renewables
& Efficiency (DSIRE) [49]. These incentives were applied in this study for economic assessment.
Water 2020, 12, 1772 7 of 27

Federal investment tax credit (ITC) represents a percentage of investments that the owners are allowed
to deduct from their taxes, dollar-to-dollar. Solar projects of a commercial, industrial, or agricultural
nature, implemented before or during the year 2019, can claim 30% ITC, while 26%, 22%, and 10%
ITC can be claimed by projects implemented during 2020, 2021, and 2022 and onwards, respectively.
If federal taxes owed are less than 30% of installed costs, solar PV owners owe no taxes for that
year, and any unused tax credit is carried over to the next year. A state property tax exemption
incentive, applicable for the design life of solar PV, was also incorporated into the economic analysis.
This incentive cannot be claimed if another state tax abatement or exemption is claimed by the same
building. Therefore, only these two incentives were incorporated in the analysis.

4. Methodology
The first step of the current research focused on sizing the DWTP by designing the various
unit processes involved. Sizing was achieved by using industry accepted design criteria [43,73,74].
Design of the plant and estimation of energy consumption were determined for the maximum
day demand flow anticipated for the design life of the plant (3.94 m3 s−1 ). Thus, the analysis is
representative of the worst-case scenario for the DWTP. Other parameters chosen were also reflective
of the extreme conditions.
Each unit process was designed and its energy driving units were identified; then,
energy consumption (kWh day−1 and kWh m−3 ) for each unit process (coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, chlorination, residual management) was individually determined and
validated using the plant’s data (Section 4.1). Computations were made using Microsoft Excel
Spreadsheet. Next, the system advisor model (SAM) was used to conduct a modeling study to
determine the techno-economic performance of using solar PV (by sizing solar PV and battery
storage based on economic metrics) to offset the energy consumption of the DWTP (Section 4.2).
Land requirements of the PV deployment were compared against available landholdings of the plant
to check for the sufficiency of the available area for PV deployment (Section 4.3). Net reduction in
carbon emissions was determined by comparing a PV-based design (modeling study) to a non-PV
based design (actual plant operation) (Section 4.4).

4.1. Design and Energy Consumption for the DWTP

4.1.1. Pre-Sedimentation
Pre-sedimentation initiates suspended solids removal and equalizing of variable turbid loadings
entering a DWTP. Typically, plants treating river water are equipped with raw water basins, as river
water is high in turbidity [92]. Two tanks should be provided at a minimum to incorporate redundancy
in the system. Surface loading rates vary between 200 and 400 m3 m−2 day−1 , while detention time
varies between 6 and 15 min [43].

4.1.2. Coagulation
Application of a coagulant assists in destabilizing a colloidal suspension, causing collides to
agglomerate and form flocs. A coagulant’s dose and type is dependent upon the results of a jar test.
The selected DWTP utilized ferric sulphate Fe2 (SO4 )3 as a coagulant. After the coagulant is added,
rapid or flash mixing ensures uniform dispersion of the coagulant throughout the basin. In this case,
a static mixer was used because mixing was achieved in the conveyance pipe between the coagulant
intake pipe and flocculation basin. At least two mixers should be provided. A Reynolds number >2000
implies turbulence and good coagulation performance [75]. Velocity gradient (G) remains a significant
parameter for the design of mixers. The equation to compute the G value of a static mixer [75] is
as follows: r
P
G= (1)
µV
Water 2020, 12, 1772 8 of 27

where G = root-mean-square velocity gradient (s−1 ), P = power imparted to water (N-m s−1 ),
V = mixer volume = product of pipe area and length of mixer (m3 ), and µ = dynamic viscosity
(N-s m−2 ). Energy consumption (E) in the units of kWh day−1 of the mixers was found using the
following equation [75].
(G2 )(µ)(V)(tm )
E = (2)
f
where tm = motor run time (h day−1 ), and f = motor efficiency factor. Typically, motor efficiency is in
the range 0.7–0.9 [93]. For this study, a value of 0.8 was used. Since the plant operates 24 h per day,
a motor run time of 24 h was used. Energy consumption of the metering pump was determined using
the brake horsepower (BHP) equation [94], which is as follows:

γQH
BHP (kW) = (3)
e

where γ = specific weight (kN m−3 ), Q = flow rate (m3 s−1 ), H = total dynamic head (m),
and e = wire-to-water efficiency. Wire-to-water efficiency can be estimated as the product of pump,
motor, and drive efficiency. A jet diffuser pump was used to flash-mix coagulant aid polymer. Power (P)
estimations were made using following equation [75].

Qγgvjet
P(kW) = (4)
2g

where vjet is the jet velocity emerging from the orifice (m s−1 ), and g = acceleration due to gravity
(9.81 m s−2 ). As in Equation (3), Q = flow rate, and γ = specific weight of water.

4.1.3. Flocculation
After coagulation, the flocculation process assists in the formation of flocs, which are later
separated through the processes of sedimentation and filtration. In contrast to the coagulation process,
which involves flash mixing to disperse the coagulant within the feed water, the flocculation process
involves slow mixing to enhance the contact between the coagulant and the feed water and for the
subsequent formation of flocs. Paddle wheels are used for the flocculation process (rotational speed
0.3–3 rev min−1 ). The coagulated water flows into the flocculation basins, where flocculation is achieved
in stages with varying velocity gradient (5–40 s−1 ) [43]. The following equation was used to estimate
the energy consumption of paddle wheel flocculators.
   
  (G2 )(µ) Q f (ts )(tm ) n f
E kWh day−1 = (5)
f

where nf = number of flocculation basins, Qf = flow rate in each flocculation basin (m3 min−1 ),
and ts = detention time per stage (minute). The variables G, µ, f, and tm are the same in as in
Equation (2).

4.1.4. Sedimentation
After the water is coagulated and flocculated, it moves into the sedimentation basins so that
heavier flocs settle out of suspension. Compared to conventional gravity sedimentation, parallel plate
settlers provide enhanced solids removal capabilities in a smaller area, even during periods of extremely
high solid loadings to the plant. Parallel plate sellers were designed based on the criteria provided
by [43,75,95]. The energy consumer for the parallel plate settlers were sludge transfer pumps, and their
brake horsepower can be estimated using Equation (3).
Water 2020, 12, 1772 9 of 27

4.1.5. Filtration
A dual-media (anthracite and sand) filter is employed to trap the flocculated water, using a rapid
filtration process, to provide a finished water quality of ≤0.3 NTU and 4 log removal of cryptosporidium.
Parameters used for the filter design [74] include filtration rate (14.5 m h−1 ), effective size of filter
media (anthracite 1 mm, sand 0.5 mm), filter media depth (anthracite 1.4 m, sand 0.25 m), and net
available head (1.8–3.0 m).
Typically, to arrive at the plant the water has to be pumped from the water source to the plant.
For the selected DWTP, raw water flows by gravity from the river, passes through bar screens and
flows by gravity through the rest of the plant. The raw water usually flows by gravity between
one unit to the next, in a typical water treatment facility. In the selected plant, after undergoing
the processes of coagulation, flocculation, and sedimentation, raw water flows by gravity into the
filtration unit. The filtered water is chlorinated and then moved into the finished water reservoir.
The energy-consuming part of the filtration process is the backwash system (backwash pumps and air
scour). Air blowers operate by developing a pressure differential to move air between the entrance and
exit points [75]. Air scour of the filter media was achieved for 4 min before the application of water
backwash. The power estimation for the air blower was made using the following equation [96].
!0.283
wRT P2
P(kW) = [ − 1] (6)
8.41e P1

where w = air mass flow (kg s−1 ), R = universal gas constant (kJ k−1 mole ◦ K), T = air temperature
at inlet (◦ K), P1 = absolute pressure at entrance (Pascal), P2 = absolute pressure at exit (Pascal),
e = efficiency = 0.8, n = (k−1) (k−1 )= 0.283 for air, and 8.41 is constant for air (kg k−1 mole).
The filter is backwashed when the head loss exceeds the available head or increased turbidity
is displayed in the filter effluent. The backwash system was designed [43] using the data obtained
from the DWTP (backwash duration 9 min, backwash frequency 24 h). The energy consumption of the
backwash pumps can be determined using Equation (3).

4.1.6. Chlorination
Disinfection can be accomplished through chlorination, ultra-violet radiation treatment,
or ozonation. For the DWTP, filtered water was disinfected through chlorination using sodium
hypochloride (NaOCl) applied in liquid form. The chlorination design was achieved using the design
criteria provided by [93,97–99]. The surface water treatment rule was applied for 4 log inactivation of
viruses and 3 log inactivation of giardia. A minimum one-hour detention at average design flow or
30 min detention at peak hourly flow was used, whichever was greater. The energy consumers for
the chlorination process were the metering pumps; the energy consumption can be determined using
Equation (3). Finished water was distributed throughout the city using highly energy-intensive zone-1,
zone-2, and zone-3 pumps.

4.1.7. Residual Management

Filtration backwash wastewater and sedimentation sludge generated during filtration and
sedimentation is treated using decant basin and water recovery basins, designed using the same criteria
as pre-sedimentation basins. At these facilities, plant waste solids are concentrated and dewatered to
recover water and to facilitate ultimate solids disposal. Decanted water is recycled through the plant,
while the decant basin settled solids are pumped by solids transfer pumps to water recovery basins for
secondary solids settling. Dewatering of drinking water sludge will vary depending upon coagulant
type used, solids loading, and pH [100].
Energy consumption was evaluated for two main scenarios for the selected treatment plant.
Scenario 1 (S-1) represents analysis for the DWTP including water distribution pumps, whereas Scenario
2 (S-2) represents the analysis for the DWTP without including the water distribution pumps.
Water 2020, 12, 1772 10 of 27

4.2. System Advisor Model

Energy consumption for each unit process of the DWTP was determined (Section 4.1) and used as
an input for SAM, a modeling tool utilized to evaluate the techno-economic performance of using solar
PV to offset the energy consumption of the DWTP.

4.2.1. Technical Analysis

SAM evaluates energy performance and cost for grid-connected systems based on location and
system design parameters. Electric load of the DWTP, electric rate, typical meteorological year (TMY3)
data of the location, as well as the parameters related to PV panels were the primary inputs for SAM.
An analysis period of 25 years was used.
The energy consumption estimate determined using the steps outlined in Section 4.1 was used as
an electric load input for sizing solar PV. Electricity generation by the PV system meets the facility’s
electrical load that would otherwise be met by electricity from the grid and hence reduces the electric
bill. Time of use (TOU) electricity rates for large general service were applied that mainly consist
of energy charges, demand charges, fixed monthly charges, and facilities charges. Summer months
comprised of July, August, and September, whereas the remaining months were treated as winter
months. Electricity rates are different for summer and winter months. Rate charges are also based upon
voltage levels categorized as secondary (≤600 V), primary (levels between 600–25,000 V), and high
voltage transmission (>25,000 V). Rates for secondary voltage levels were applied for the DWTP.
The PV system was sized using SAM by using the inputs of desired array size and a DC-to-AC
ratio. Using the parameters of the selected module and inverter, the number of inverters and modules
were determined. Nameplate capacity was determined as the product of the module’s maximum rated
power and total number of modules. Some of the equations used to size solar PV are as follows:

Vmppt−max + Vmppt−min
Mstring = (7)
2Vmax

C
Mparrallel = (8)
Ipmax Mstring
(Mn )(Mmp )
In =   (9)
DC − AC Ratio Imap
Mn = Mstring × Mparallel (10)

where Mstring = modules per string, Mparallel = module strings in parallel, Vmppt-max = maximum MPPT
voltage, Vmppt-min = minimum MPPT voltage, Vmax = maximum power voltage, C = array nameplate
capacity (kW), Ipmax = module maximum power, In = number of inverters, Mmp = Module maximum
power, Imap = Inverter maximum AC power, and Mn = total number of modules.
Battery storage was also provided, primarily to meet energy demands at nighttime since the
treatment plant operates for 24 h per day. SAM allows the analysis of three types of batteries: lead-acid,
lithium-ion, and vanadium redox flow. For this study, a lead-acid battery was used. The battery was
assumed to be connected on the AC side. Battery bank size can be specified as either the number of
battery cells in a series and battery strings in parallel, or it is estimated using SAM using the inputs of
desired bank capacity and bank voltage.

Bdbv
Bns = (11)
Bncv

Bnbv = Bncv × Bns (12)

Bdbc
Bnp = (13)
Bnbv × Bcc
Water 2020, 12, 1772 11 of 27

Bnbc = Bns × Bnp × Bcc (14)

where Bns = number of battery cells in series, Bdbv = desired bank voltage, Bncv = battery nominal cell
voltage, Bnbv = nominal bank voltage, Bnp = number of battery strings in parallel, Bcc = battery cell
capacity, Bnbc = nominal bank capacity, and Bdb c = desired bank capacity.
Nominal cell voltage was the manufacturer reported voltage (volt) of a single cell in a battery,
which was used to size the battery storage. C-rate governed the charge and discharge rate of the battery.
Max C-rate of charge and discharge of 0.12 per hour was used. SAM utilized a lifetime model that
considered battery charge cycles as the main reason for capacity degradation. Capacity degradation
was simulated as a function of depth of discharge and number of charge cycles, where depth of
discharge described the state of the battery’s remaining charge. The capacity losses were incorporated
into the maximum battery capacity after each charge cycle had elapsed. SAM does not incorporate the
thermal behavior of the battery into the lifetime model; hence, it was assumed that the battery was
stored in an air-conditioned room, at constant temperature.

4.2.2. Financial Analysis

Economic performance was analyzed using SAM by employing the parameters of net present
value (NPV) and levelized cost of electricity (LCOE). NPV for a system examines the difference between
the present value of revenues and costs. A positive NPV means that the present expenses incurred are
predicted to provide a return greater than the initial investment. If the NPV is negative, then the cash
inflows are predicted to be less than the cash outflows and the investment is not financially beneficial.
LCOE was also estimated, which is the present value of the life cycle cost of the PV system. Real
LCOE is adjusted for inflation, whereas nominal LCOE is not. Net savings in $ year−1 are estimated by
taking the difference between the costs for purchased electricity, with and without the solar system.
For this study, NPV was used as the primary metric for financial assessment of the PV system. This is
because the analysis includes the input parameters of taxes and incentives, which may complicate
the estimation of more simplistic metrics such as payback period. In addition, payback period is
not recommended when investment is to be considered explicitly. NPV gives value to the size of
investment, while the metrics of LCOE and payback period do not [101].
Various financial parameters incorporated within the economic model of SAM are listed in Table 4,
while others are discussed in the following sections. An analysis period of 25 years was used based
upon the warranty period of the PV panels.
Net capital cost of the solar system was calculated using SAM, by subtracting cash incentives from
total installed costs (sum of direct and indirect cost) (Table 4). Annual costs incurred for the operation,
maintenance, and repairs of the solar system, after it has been installed, constitute the O&M cost
($18 kW−1 year−1 ), which increased each year based on the inflation rate for this analysis. Any savings
through the application of state or federal incentives was also taxable. Savings achieved due to the
installation of a solar system were not taxable; however, O&M costs were taxable. Debt percentage,
which is a fraction of the net capital costs, was specified as 100%, and the debt payments were assumed
constant. Principal amount was estimated using SAM as the product of total installed cost and
debt percentage. A loan term of 25 years and interest rate of 3.5% were used as inputs to SAM [87].
Salvage values were taken as 20% of installed costs [91].
If land required for installation of a PV system needs to be purchased, the land cost can be
incorporated in SAM’s financial model. This study assumed that the existing empty land acreage of
the treatment plant would be utilized for the installation of the PV system. Hence, land purchase costs
were taken as zero.
In SAM, the inflation rate (2.5%) applied to the system costs, electricity rates, and cash incentives,
among others, was the yearly mean consumer price index data between the years 1991 and 2012.
The real discount rate (8%) is the nominal discount rate minus the inflation rate and is used for the
estimation of NPV and LCOE using SAM. In SAM, yearly insurance cost and property tax cost is tax
deductible for commercial projects and is a component of the annual operating costs. The insurance
Water 2020, 12, 1772 12 of 27

rate was taken as 0.25% of the installed costs [88]. For the first year, the insurance amount was a product
of the insurance rate and total installed cost, which is then increased by an inflation rate of 2.5% for
later years. The property tax amount is the product of the property tax rate and assessed value of the
property. The property tax rate was taken as zero to incorporate the property tax exemption incentive.
Depreciation reduces the federal and state taxable income. Different depreciation methods are
available. Sometimes the method used to estimate depreciation is dictated by the Federal Government
or the state. MACRS (modified accelerated cost recovery system), a depreciation method to help
recover capital costs and reduce tax liability, was utilized for this analysis since qualifying systems are
those that claim the 30% ITC. Commercial PV is eligible to depreciate over a five-year period [49] as
determined by the Internal Revenue Service at depreciation rates of 20%, 32%, 19.2%, 11.52%, 11.52%,
and 5.76% for year 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, respectively. The renewable energy system’s taxable basis can be
reduced by one half of the investment tax credit of 30%, hence 85% of the taxable basis can be reduced.
A bonus depreciation of 50%, 40%, and 30% can be further applied for PV systems placed in service
before the year 2018, during 2018, and during 2019, respectively.
Sales tax amount was estimated as the product of sales tax % and direct cost. Since SAM
incorporates the sales tax amount as a part of the total installed costs of the solar system, the sales tax
amount influences the estimates of depreciation, debt amount, and debt interest payments, as well
as the debt interest payment deductible estimate from federal and state income tax. The sales tax is
partially exempted based on Nevada state incentives, but the selected DWTP was not eligible because
Nevada’s property tax exemption was incorporated in the analysis. A sales tax of 8.1% was used.
Scenarios were simulated to reveal the effects of battery storage, governmental incentives,
and geographical location on the techno-economic performance of the PV system. A sensitivity analysis
was also performed.

4.3. Land Area Requirements

Land area requirements for the PV system were estimated using SAM by dividing the total module
area (product of a single PV module area and number of modules) with the ground coverage ratio
(GCR). GCR is the ratio of the side view diagonal length of one row to bottom length spacing between
two rows [102]. The GCR value ranges between 0.01 and 0.99; a value close to zero implies the PV
arrays are spaced further apart compared to a GCR value close to 1. For the analysis, a GCR value of 0.3
was selected based on a self-shading analysis [103] for tracking type PV modules. Other than the reason
of minimizing self-shading, spacing between the modules is required for access and maintenance work.
Land area availability for the development of solar PV was determined by estimating the available
landholdings of the DWTP using ArcGIS 9.0 software.

4.4. Carbon Emissions

Carbon emissions were estimated by making use of the data provided in Table 2. Nevada’s
electricity source distribution was used to estimate carbon emissions in the case of the non-PV-based
design. Carbon emissions related to the PV-based design were subtracted from those of the
non-PV-based design to determine net reduction in the units of carbon emissions per kWh.
Carbon emissions generated due to PVs are those generated during its transportation, construction,
and disposal phase, but during operation of a solar installation, there are negligible emissions [104].

5. Results

5.1. DWTP Design and Energy Consumption

The results for the analysis are discussed as follows.
Water 2020, 12, 1772 13 of 27

5.1.1. Pre-Sedimentation
Typically, to arrive at the plant the water has to be pumped from the water source to the plant.
For the selected DWTP, raw river water flows by gravity from the river canal, passing through bar
screens, and flows by gravity through the rest of the plant. The bar screens are cleaned manually.
Next, the water flows by gravity through the pre-sedimentation basins and the screening facility.
Two pre-sedimentation basins (44.5 m × 10 m × 4 m) are provided to avoid the settling of suspended
solids in the DWTP’s piping. For this study, a surface loading rate of 380 m3 m−2 day−1 was used.
The raw water basins are cleaned manually using wheel loaders. Next, the water flows into the
screening facility, which is designed to remove floatable solids from the raw water. The fine-screen
opening size is 9.53 mm, and each screen area is 1.4 m2 . This screen accomplishes 90% of solid removal
larger than 4.7 mm. The screens are cleaned using backwashing jets (551.6 kPa) for 15 min day−1
(Table 5).

Table 5. Results for the estimation of energy consumption for the various unit processes of the drinking
water treatment plant (Scenario S-2).

Plant Motor Size Estimated

Energy Driving (Data Obtained from Motor Size Motor Size Efficiency
s.No. Unit Process Sub-Processes (This study)
Unit Plant’s Managers) (This Study) (%)
(hp) (hp) (kWh day−1 )

Automatic Screen Backwashing Jet

1. 3 3.4 1.3 49
Screens Cleaning Pump
Coagulant
Metering Pump N/A 5 85.8 76
Addition
2. Coagulation
Polymer
Jet Diffuser Pump 7.5 7.25 202.8 64
addition
Flash Mixing Static Mixer 15 16.8 375.2 80
3. Flocculation Slow Mixing Paddle Wheels 5 4.9 658.8 80
Sludge Transfer
4. Sedimentation 7.7 7.5 411 72
Pumps
5. Filtration Air Scour 250 247.6 169.2 80
Backwash Water
200 199.6 272.9 77
Transfer Pumps
Water Transfer
6. Water Recovery Basins 50 49 292.4 76
Pumps
Water Transfer
7. Decant Basin 30 29.2 65.4 76
Pumps
Sludge Transfer
7.5 7.7 17.2 72
Pumps
Chlorine
8. Chlorination Metering Pumps N/A 3 52 76
Addition
Soda Ash
9. Soda Ash Mixer 0.75 0.75 16.7 80
System
Slurry Feed Pump N/A 1.7 40.7 72
Total 2661.4

5.1.2. Coagulation
Screened raw water flows into the coagulation facility where in-line rapid mixers and a jet diffuser
are used to flash-mix coagulant and coagulant aid polymer, respectively. Two in-line mixers are
provided. Each 12.5 kW mixer is housed in a 1.5 m diameter pipe and operated for 24 h a day. The jet
diffuser pump utilizes a diffuser with a diameter of 0.01 m. The energy consumption was found to be
202.8 kWh day−1 (Table 5).

5.1.3. Flocculation
Downstream of rapid mixing, treated water flows through six flocculation basins where the slow
mixing of the coagulated water is achieved through paddle wheels (Table 5). The detention time for
Water 2020, 12, 1772 14 of 27

the basins is 25 min. Three stages, with velocity gradients of 70 s−1 , 50 s−1 and 30 s−1 are provided for
each flocculation basin of volume 985.8 m3 .

5.1.4. Sedimentation
Effluent from six flocculation basins flows through submerged openings into six parallel plate
sedimentation basins. The peak hydraulic capacity of each basin is 15 MGD, with a volume of 1105.6 m3 .
The flow pattern within the sedimentation basins is across and upward through packs of parallel plates
(1.7 m × 0.75 m). Spacing provided between the plates is 60 mm, inclined at an angle of 60 degrees.
The Reynolds number was determined to be <1000 to ensure laminar flow, while the Froude number
was >10−5 . Water collected in the troughs at the top of the plate settlers discharges the effluent to the
sedimentation basin’s effluent channel and flows by gravity to the filters.

5.1.5. Filtration
Following the removal of most of the suspended solids in the sedimentation basins, water is
filtered through twelve dual-media filters, including one filter for redundancy. Water enters the filter
influent distribution channel from the sedimentation basin, enters each filter and passes through the
filter media and underdrain system to the filter flume channel and is finally conveyed to the finished
water reservoir. The area of each filter basin is 89 m2 . Clean bed head loss was determined to be 0.77m.
The net available operating head for the DWTP is 3.0 m. The filter is backwashed when the head loss
exceeds the available head or limiting head.
Filters are backwashed using both air and water. Air scour is provided to agitate the filter media
for about 4 min, before backwashing the filters with water. An airflow rate of 1.4 m3 sec−1 is used.
The filters are backwashed every 24 h, while a filter-to-waste duration of 15 min is used. Backwash
water supply is pumped from the plant pump station to the filters by backwash water supply pumps.
Recovery is 97%.

5.1.6. Chlorination
Sodium hypochlorite is used to disinfect filtered water at the two finished water reservoirs,
each having a volume of 9460 m3 . The surface water treatment rule is applied for 4 log inactivation of
viruses and 1.5 log inactivation of giardia for a CT value of 165 mg L−1 -min at pH 8. Disinfection of
cryptosporidium is achieved during filtration, hence, this was not included in the chlorination design.
A contact time of 88 min was used in this study. Residual chlorine concentration was 1.9 mg L−1 .
A length to width ratio of 47:1 was used for the baffles (hence greater than 40:1 ratio).
A soda ash system was designed to prepare and convey soda ash solution to the rapid mixer
(0.6 kW), designed for a velocity gradient of 1000 s−1 and detention time of 20 sec. Soda ash feed
pumps convey the slurry from the mixing tank to the points of application at the finished water pump
station, where it is used to increase pH and alkalinity. Finally, the water is pumped to different areas
designated as zone-1, zone-2, and zone-3.

5.1.7. Residual Management

Filtration backwash wastewater and sedimentation sludge generated during filtration and
sedimentation is conveyed to a decant basin and water recovery basins, respectively, via a 1.2 m
pipeline. Backwash wastewater flows by gravity from filters to two decant basins (37 m × 8 m × 4 m)
for primary solids settling. While one is online, the other is used as a backup during maintenance.
After a short detention period of 13 min, decanted water is pumped to a raw water junction box, where
it is recycled through the plant. Decant basin settled solids are pumped to a water recovery basin
(53 m × 8.5 m × 4 m) for secondary solids settling. An additional water recovery basin is provided as a
backup basin. The basins were designed for a surface loading rate of 375 m3 m−2 day, and a detention
time of 15 min. Wheel loaders are used for sludge removal. Where sludge drying beds are feasible due
to favorable weather, typically filter presses and centrifuge etc. are not used, as in this case.
Water 2020, 12, 1772 15 of 27

5.1.8. Energy Consumption of the DWTP

The selected DWTP is unique concerning raw water intake. Raw river water flows by gravity from
the river canal into the DWTP; thus, no energy is utilized for water intake. For scenario S-1, the total
operational energy consumption was 56.3 MWh day−1 (165.3 Wh m−3 ) for the DWTP including water
distribution pumps, whereas energy consumption for scenario S-2, i.e., for the DWTP excluding water
distribution pumps was 2661 kWh day−1 (7.8 Wh m−3 ). The energy consumption estimated by the
current study (Tables 5 and 6, Figures 2 and 3) was validated by comparing the estimated motor sizes
to the plant motor sizes. As shown by Tables 5 and 6, the values are in good agreement with each other.

Table 6. Results for estimation of energy consumption for the energy driving units of finished
water pumping.

Plant Motor Size

Estimated Motor Size Motor Size Wire-to-Water
Energy Driving (Data Obtained from
(This Study) (This Study) Efficiency
Units Plant’s Managers)
(hp) (MWh day−1 ) (%)
(hp)
Zone-1 Pump 500 496.5 8.9 80
Zone-2 Pump 400 404.7 7.2 70
400 404.7 7.2 70
Finished Water
Pumping Zone-3 Pump 250 248.1 4.4 80
460 421.1 7.8 80
500 509.6 9.1 80
500 509.6 9.1 80

Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW Total 53.9 16 of 30

Figure 2. Results for energy consumption by percentage for water intake, water treatment units,
Figure
and 2. Results
finished waterfor energy consumption
distribution by percentage
pumps for scenario for water
S-1 (energy intake, water
consumption treatment
of water units,
treatment and
facility
finished water distribution pumps for scenario S-1 (energy consumption of water treatment
including distribution pumps) and S-2 (energy consumption of water treatment facility excluding facility
including distribution
distribution pumps). pumps) and S-2 (energy consumption of water treatment facility excluding
distribution pumps).
Water distribution pumps were the largest consumers of electricity, utilizing about 95% of the
total operational energy consumption (158.2 Wh m−3 ), while the remaining 5% was utilized for the
operation of the DWTP (S-1). Overall, for scenario S-2, it was shown that coagulation and flocculation
processes were the largest consumers of energy, consuming about 664 kWh day−1 (1.95 Wh m−3 )
and 659 kWh day−1 (1.93 Wh m−3 ), respectively (Figure 3, Table 5). Pumping operations within the
DWTP and the mixing operations (during coagulation, flocculation, and soda ash slurry mixing)
Water 2020, 12, 1772 16 of 27

Figure 2. Results for energy consumption by percentage for water intake, water treatment units, and
utilized about 54% and 40% of the total operational energy consumption of the DWTP, respectively
finished water distribution pumps for scenario S-1 (energy consumption of water treatment facility
(S-2). Backwashing jet pumps for screens were the smallest consumers of energy within the DWTP,
including distribution pumps) and S-2 (energy consumption of water treatment facility excluding
consuming about 0.004 Wh m−3 (Figure 3).
distribution pumps).

Figure3.3.Results
Figure Resultsgenerated
generatedfor
forthe
theenergy
energyintensity
intensityofofvarious
variousunit
unitprocesses
processesofofthe
thedrinking
drinkingwater
water
treatment plant.
treatment plant.

Further, unit process-based quantitative assessment of energy intensities as computed in this study
may help to compare and improve the performance of treatment plants. Plants of similar capacities may
not be utilizing similar paths of treatment. Hence, the energy consumption may be recomputed based
on the unit processes being utilized by the plants, resulting in a fairer energy performance comparison
(Figure 3). The unit process-based quantitative assessment of energy intensities may help compare the
performance of different plants more accurately and may identify opportunities for improvement.
Sensitivity analysis was performed for the energy consumption estimates related to the pumping
operation for the treatment plant. Wire-to-electric efficiencies of the pumps were increased by 5% and
10%, which resulted in a 2.6% (2.59 MWh day−1 ) and 4.9% (2.53 MWh day−1 ) decrease in the total
operational energy consumption (2.66 MWh day−1 ) of the water treatment units, respectively, whereas
decreasing wire-to-water efficiencies by 5% (2.74 MWh day−1 ) and 10% (2.82 MWh day−1 ) resulted in
increased total operational energy consumption by 2.8% and 6%.
Various studies have been conducted to evaluate the energy consumption of treatment
plants. Ref. [62] determined energy consumption for a large-scale water treatment plant in the
Netherlands and reported a total energy consumption of 172 Wh m−3 for the treatment plant, including
intake pumps and water distribution pumps. Ref. [105] reported that in the U.S. the average electricity
use for water supply systems, including water pumping, treatment, and distribution, amounted to
about 369.8 Wh m−3 , whereas that of New York State was about 186.2 Wh m−3 .
The methodology developed in this work is applicable to estimating energy consumption for
plants treating either surface or groundwater sources. Because the energy computations are based on
unit operations, one can simply lay out the units in any desirable configuration. For example, for a
groundwater source, typically only filtration and disinfection units would be needed. In this study,
the computation does not involve advanced treatment units such as ozonation, membrane filtration,
or UV disinfection. This is because these units were not part of the example DWTP, which uses
conventional treatment and does not employ/require these advanced techniques for the treatment
Water 2020, 12, 1772 17 of 27

of their raw water. However, energy considerations of advanced treatment units have been recently
published in other studies [106].
Usually, water treatment plants do not have energy consumption instrumentation installed in
individual unit processes; rather, they have totalizers for large sessions of the plant. The reason is
the high cost associated with instrumentation. Indeed, for this reason most water or wastewater
treatment plants do not have this information and cannot benchmark their energy consumption when
contemplating switching to renewable sources of energy. In sustainability studies, and in consideration
of energy savings, many plants have struggled with lack of data. Even in southwestern U.S., where the
plants are relatively new and modern, such data do not exist. The methodology proposed in this study,
to overcome the lack of energy consumption data in treatment plants, considers every individual
unit of operation present in a treatment plant, and thus equipment-level energy consumption was
computed. In addition, the method developed uses motors (considering their respective efficiencies)
as the major energy-consuming unit. The design equations proposed, based on typical engineering
design parameters and equipment manufacturer data, can be used by any plant to estimate their energy
consumption, independent of the existence of electricity consumption meters installed in their unit
operations. The need to establish acceptable approaches to compute energy consumption in treatment
plants was also recently evidenced by [107].
The plant uses a conventional treatment train (utilizing the processes of coagulation, flocculation,
sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection) for water treatment. Other typical treatment trains employed
for drinking water treatment are direct filtration (utilizing the processes of coagulation, flocculation,
filtration, and disinfection) and inline filtration (utilizing the processes of coagulation, filtration, and
disinfection). Thus, the current work covers all the basic treatment processes used by a typical DWTP
for water treatment. The design criteria followed by this study are based on industry-accepted design
criteria and can be applied with some modifications for any treatment plant. This work is unique
because it provides information about the detailed design and the energy consumption evaluation,
along with references for replication of this work. Further, the provided information is valuable and
meaningful and can help design engineers and researchers alike for application of this work to their
treatment plant. The energy consumption evaluation and the potential for solar energy application
on plants of various sizes and complexity using the same methodology have been determined by
other studies [6,7]. Ref. [6] determined the energy consumption of a plant, which treats 0.425 m3 of
groundwater per second by utilizing the processes of coagulation, filtration, and disinfection (inline
filtration). Ref. [7] determined the energy consumption of a treatment plant that treats 1 Mm3 of raw
river water per day by using direct filtration process. Thus, the methodology developed in this work
can be applied for design and energy consumption evaluation of other treatment plants.

5.2. System Advisor Model

Results achieved using SAM for the PV design and economic analysis are summarized as
follows. The techno-economic evaluation was only conducted for scenario S-2, i.e., to offset the energy
consumption of the DWTP excluding distribution pumps. A 500 kW PV system was sized, with large
storage capacity incurring a net capital cost of $14.5M (Table 7). Monthly performance of the PV
system is shown in Figure 4. There is a yearly electricity bill of $6444 (Table 7); since the system is
grid-connected, these are the fixed yearly costs for grid connection.
 Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 21 of 30

Water 2020, 12, 1772 18 of 27

Table 7. Results for technical and financial analysis of solar PV system using the system advisor
model for scenario S-2 (analysis for energy consumption of water treatment plant excluding
distribution pumps)
Table 7. Results for locations
for technical of Nevada
and financial and New
analysis York.
of solar PV system using the system advisor model
for scenario S-2 (analysis for energy consumption of water treatment plant excluding distribution
Nevada New
Parameter
pumps) for locations of Nevada and New York. Unit
Location Location
York
Module Nameplate Capacity kW Nevada 500New York850
Parameter Unit
Number of Modules - Location 1630 Location2780
Module Modules
Nameplateper Capacity
String kW - 500 10 850 10
Strings
Numberin Parallel
of Modules - - 1630 163 2780 278
Modules
Total Module per Area
String - ×103 m2 10 3.18 10 5.43
Strings
String Vocin Parallel - Volt 163 451 278 451
Total Module Area ×103 m2 3.18 5.43
String Vmp
String Voc Volt
Volt 451 366.5 451 366.5
Inverter Total Capacity
String Vmp Volt kWac 366.5 410 366.5 709.6
Inverter
Number of Inverters
Total Capacity kWac
- 410
41 709.6 71
Maximum DC Voltage
Number of Inverters - Volt 41 600 71 600
Minimum
Maximum MPPT Voltage
DC Voltage Volt Volt 600 300 600 300
MinimumMPPT
Maximum MPPTVoltage
Voltage Volt Volt 300 500 300 500
DCMaximum
to AC Ratio MPPT Voltage Volt
- 500
1.2 500
1.2
DC to AC Ratio - 1.2 1.2
Total Land Area
Total Land Area ×103 m2
×10 m 10.5
3 2 10.5 18.2 18.2
Battery Nominal Bank Capacity MWh 75.1 82.2
Battery Nominal Bank Capacity MWh 75.1 82.2
Nominal
Nominal Bank
BankVoltage
Voltage Volt Volt 350 350 350 350
Cell in in
Cell Series
Series - - 175 175 175 175
Strings ininParallel
Strings Parallel - - 167 167 183 183
Battery Efficiency
Battery Efficiency % % 92.7 92.7 92.7 92.7
Financial
Financial Net Present
Net PresentValue
Value $ million $ million0.24 0.24 −0.68 −0.68
Levelized cost of Electricity (nominal) −1 2.65
Metrics
Metrics Levelized cost of Electricity (nominal) Cents kWh Cents kWh −1 2.65 9.68 9.68
Levelized
Levelized cost
costofofElectricity (real)
Electricity (real) −1
Cents kWh Cents kWh −1
2.15 2.15 7.84 7.84
NetNet CapitalCost
Capital Cost $ million $ million14.5 14.5 16.5 16.5
Electricity Bill without System (year 1) $ million 0.08
Electricity Bill without System (year 1) $ million 0.08 0.07 0.07
Electricity Bill with System (year 1) $ 6444 0
Electricity Bill with System (year 1) $ 6444 0

100,000,000
kilo-watt hour (kWh)

10,000,000 Energy to Grid from PV

Energy to Load from Battery
1,000,000 Energy to Load from PV
Solar Irradiation
100,000 S-2 Electric Load
S-2 PV 500 kW
10,000

Figure4.4. Inputs
Figure Inputs ofof electric
electric load
load and
and solar
solarirradiation
irradiation and
andoutputs
outputsfor
forphotovoltaic
photovoltaic(PV)
(PV)energy
energy
generation for the drinking water treatment facility for scenario S-2 (energy consumption
generation for the drinking water treatment facility for scenario S-2 (energy consumption of water of water
treatmentfacility
treatment facilityexcluding
excludingdistribution
distributionpumps).
pumps).

5.2.1.
5.2.1.Effect
EffectofofBattery
BatteryStorage
Storage
The
TheDWTP
DWTPoperates
operates24
24hhaaday,
day,hence,
hence,totomeet
meetthe
thenighttime
nighttimeenergy
energyrequirements,
requirements,as aswell
welltoto
ensure
ensurea abalanced
balanced supply of of
supply energy, battery
energy, storage
battery waswas
storage provided. The battery
provided. type chosen
The battery was lead
type chosen was
acid flooded. Results showed that the battery storage comprised over 80% of the capital costs
lead acid flooded. Results showed that the battery storage comprised over 80% of the capital costs of the PV
system (Table 7). Even though the NPV was positive, the value is small compared to the
of the PV system (Table 7). Even though the NPV was positive, the value is small compared to the net capital
costs incurred.
net capital A incurred.
costs higher NPV is better
A higher NPVthanis abetter
lowerthan
NPV. A scenario
a lower NPV.was simulated
A scenario was bysimulated
decreasing by
Water 2020, 12, 1772 19 of 27

the battery prices from $157.7 kWh−1 to $15.77 kWh−1 . This resulted in net capital costs of $3M and
a positive NPV for the PV system. The results show that for solar energy to become an attractive
prospect for investors, and a reliable source of electricity throughout the 24 h, prices for battery storage
must decrease substantially. The DWTP was also analyzed without incorporating battery storage
(assuming all other parameters remain the same), for comparison purposes and to reflect the effect of
battery storage on cost and performance of the PV system. In this case, the PV system would rely on
grid connection to meet the nighttime energy requirements for the plant. It was determined that a
PV system without storage has the potential to offset 2.2% (500 kW system, net capital costs $1.7 M,
NPV $0.16 M) of the electric load, respectively.
It can be seen that the cost incurred when battery storage was not incorporated was much lower,
compared to when storage was provided. The cost associated with battery storage, comprised over
80% of the PV system costs. Successful cost recovery of the PV system with battery storage during
the lifetime of the PV would require application of novel approaches for the production of low-cost
battery storage systems [108], which would greatly promote the role of solar PV systems as a viable
and competitive source of electricity generation for the 24-h duration of the day.
Various studies have explored the use of renewables for water treatment. Ref. [61] compared the
performance of a conventional DWTP and a wind-solar-powered nano-filtration pilot plant located in
Spain. The study concluded that the application of a nano-filtration process resulted in higher quality
water, and usage of renewables not only assisted in making an energy-intensive process sustainable
but also helped in making the water treatment process more efficient. Ref. [62] explored the potential
of using wind and solar energy for a water treatment plant located in the Netherlands. The study
found that about 70–96% of energy independence can be achieved by using 8 MW wind turbines and
5.6 MW solar panels, but due to high costs for large battery storage, 100% energy independence could
not be achieved. Solar energy was used in conjunction with wind energy because the site possessed
large but erratic wind potential while solar energy using photovoltaics provided a more balanced
supply. Ref. [109] determined solar PV to be viable for meeting the electricity needs of two villages
located in Bangladesh.

5.2.2. Effect of Governmental Incentives

Financial analysis heavily relies on governmental incentives. Two incentives were applied, federal
investment tax incentive and the state property tax exemption incentive for this study for the Nevada
site, resulting in a nominal LOCE of 2.65 cents kWh−1 . If either of these incentives were removed
from the analysis, the development of solar PV would no longer be profitable as it would result in a
negative NPV and increased LCOE. Ref. [82] reported LCOE values for commercial PV systems in the
U.S. in the range of 9–12 cents kWh−1 when not incorporating federal ITC and in the range of 6-8 cents
kWh−1 when incorporating it. For the current study, when the 30% ITC was not incorporated, the NPV
became negative while the nominal LCOE value was estimated as $0.39 kWh−1 .
Based on the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) for the state, 25% of electricity generation by
the year 2025 must be achieved using renewables [49]. Portfolio energy credits earned due to the
deployment of solar PVs at treatment plants can assist in meeting RPS goals. Incorporating renewables
into the existing water infrastructure assists in reducing the dependency of water facilities on the
traditional energy sources, thus generating reduced emissions. This helps in making water facilities
energy independent, which may lead to cost savings in the long run. Policy makers for water and
energy need to participate in collaborative planning and implement policies that provide incentives to
existing and future DWTPs for using renewables to offset their energy requirements.

5.2.3. Effect of Location Change

A hypothetical scenario was examined by changing the location of the treatment plant from
southwest Nevada (6.3 kWh m−2 day−1 ) to the U.S. east coast. The location selected was New York
(3.5 kWh m−2 day−1 ). The financial parameters used are shown in Table 4. The electric rate input,
Water 2020, 12, 1772 20 of 27

downloaded from the SAM database for electric rates, was based upon the rates of the New York
Power Authority for large general service. The results showed that the PV system (500 kW PV, 75
MWh battery) in the Nevada location (Table 7) when located in New York was able to offset 85% of
the total load (2661 MWh day−1 ) analyzed. Forty-seven percent of the load offset was achieved using
battery storage. It was further determined that a 850 kW PV system using a battery storage capacity
of 82 MWh was able to offset 100% of the 2661 MWh day−1 electric load, for the New York location,
however, the NPV was negative (Table 7). Fifty-eight percent of the load offset was achieved using
battery storage.

5.2.4. Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis for the financial parameters that were changed when analyzing for the Nevada
and New York locations showed that property tax rates had the largest effect. For the New York
location, the NPV changed from negative to positive, when the property tax rate was changed from 2%
to 1.2%, respectively. The property tax rate may vary depending upon the location of the property.
A property tax exemption or partial property rate incentives have the potential of greatly promoting
the development of solar facilities in the state.
Sensitivity analysis was also performed for various financial parameters for the solar system sited
in Nevada and showed that a discount rate of 7% or less resulted in a negative NPV. For the current
study, a debt percentage of 100% was used. A debt percentage of 96% or less rendered a negative
NPV and higher LCOE. Reducing the loan term decreases the NPV and increases the LCOE. Using a
loan term of 23 years or less, or loan interest rates of 4% or higher, resulted in a negative NPV. For the
current study, an inflation rate of 2.5% was used. Using an inflation rate of 1.9% or less resulted in a
negative NPV. It can be seen that for this particular study, the viability of the project is sensitive to the
changes in discount rate, inflation rate, debt percentage, loan interest rates, and loan term. For the
same PV system, if battery storage is not provided, a debt % of 85% or less, loan term of 18 years or
less, discount rate of 4% or less, interest rate of 6% or higher, and inflation rate of zero or less rendered
a negative NPV and higher LCOE values.
Ref. [46] determined the economic feasibility of using solar PVs to fulfill the electricity needs of a
rural community consisting of 300 homes, located in Gusau, Nigeria. The study found that solar PVs
was highly sensitive to changes in electricity rates and inflation rates but slightly sensitive to changes
in loan term and loan interest rate. Changes in year-round insolation levels due to change in location
may also significantly alter the energy output of PV systems and thus the results of financial analysis as
well [46,110]. Ref. [110] conducted a techno-economic assessment of using solar and wind energy with
storage systems for locations in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA), Canada, and Australia. The study
determined the cost of electricity to be lowest for the Yanbu area in KSA (0.609 $ kWh−1 ). Further,
the study determined the renewable potential of the KSA to be better than the selected locations in
Canada and Australia due to higher year-round levels of solar irradiance.

5.3. Land Area Requirements

The land coverage of the PV system for the DWTP (S-2) was 0.01 km2 (Table 7). The empty
real estate acreage of the DWTP was about 0.4 km2 , estimated using ArcGIS. Hence, it can be seen
that ample land area was available for development of solar PV, and additional costs need not be
incurred for the purpose of purchasing land for solar development. Moreover, ample empty land area
is available near the DWTP that can be acquired for the installation of PV.
Various studies have analyzed the land area demands of solar installations. Ref. [111] determined
that about 15% of the total land area of Iran provided excellent conditions for solar installations.
Ref. [112] determined optimal sites in Afghanistan for the development of wind and solar energy
systems, resulting in potential generations of 0.34 million GWh per year and 0.15 million GWh per
year, respectively.
Water 2020, 12, 1772 21 of 27

5.4. Carbon Emissions

Net reduction in carbon emissions was found to be 450 metric tons CO2 -eq year−1 (equivalent
to one year emissions for: 95 passenger cars driven, electricity consumption of 67 homes, or carbon
sequestration due to 530 acres of U.S. forests). Without battery storage, the net reduction in carbon
emissions was found to be 240 metric tons CO2 -eq year−1 (equivalent to one year emissions for:
50 passenger cars driven, electricity consumption of 35 homes, or carbon sequestration due to 280 acres
of U.S. forests). The equivalencies were calculated using the USEPA GHG Equivalencies Calculator [113].
Ref. [114] calculated the reduction in carbon emissions due to residential installations of solar PV
in Australia and determined it to be 3.7 million ton CO2 -eq in the year 2013 and 8 million ton CO2 -eq
in the year 2020. Ref. [115] estimated a GHG reduction of 1.7 ton year−1 for a zero energy solar home
in São Paulo, Brazil. Ref. [116] developed a simulation model incorporating estimated future costs for
renewables of wind and solar and determined an 80% reduction in carbon emissions by the year 2030
relative to the levels of the year 1990, without any rise in LCOE.
In general, this study evaluated the energy consumption and integration of renewable energy
sources into existing water treatment plants for energy sufficiency purposes. Further, the gains
achieved in public health and environmental impacts due to reduction in carbon emissions makes the
development of solar PVs a good investment [117].

6. Conclusions
The objective of this study was to utilize solar PVs to meet the energy demands of an existing
DWTP treating 3.94 m3 of river water per second by (a) designing and determining the energy
consumption of each unit operation of the treatment plant, (b) sizing the DWTP for solar PVs based
on available land holdings and economic analysis, and (c) determining the net reduction in carbon
emissions due to the development of solar PVs. The analysis was successfully conducted for scenario
S-1 (100% of electric load) and scenario S-2 (5% of electric load, i.e., excluding water distribution
pumps), with battery storage and without storage.
For scenario S-1, total operational energy consumption was 56.3 MWh day−1 (165.3 Wh m−3 ) for
the DWTP including water distribution pumps, whereas energy consumption for S-2, i.e., for the DWTP
excluding water distribution pumps, was 2661 kWh day−1 (7.8 Wh m−3 ). For S-1, water distribution
pumps utilized 95% of the total operational energy consumption, whereas the water treatment only
operations (S-2) utilized the remaining 5% of the total operational energy consumption of the DWTP.
Energy intensity values were determined for the processes of coagulation (1.95 Wh m−3 ), flocculation
(1.93 Wh m−3 ), sedimentation (1.2 Wh m−3 ), filtration (1.3 Wh m−3 ), chlorination (0.15 Wh m−3 ),
residual management (1.1 Wh m−3 ), and a soda ash system (0.17 Wh m−3 ).
Based on the results of the quantitative analysis of energy consumption, a techno-economic
assessment was conducted for solar PVs, to offset the energy consumption of the plant for scenario S-2
only. The development of a 500 kW PV system with battery storage of 75 MWh was found to have
a positive net present value of $0.24M, only after the federal and state incentives were incorporated
in the analysis. Further, the study showed that reduction in battery prices can tremendously help
solar PVs to become a viable source of electricity generation for the entire 24-h duration of the day.
Economic feasibility was dependent upon the selection of financial parameters, based on the review
of existing literature published between the years 2016 and 2017. Changes in the values of these
parameters can greatly affect the results of cost analysis. The economics of solar PVs was found to
be sensitive to changes in debt %, inflation rate, loan term, loan interest rates, and discount rates.
The real estate acreage of the DWTP was found to be sufficient for the development of solar PVs,
which was found to utilize a land area of 0.01 km2 . The net reduction in carbon emissions because
of a solar-based design, with and without the provision of battery storage, was found to be 450 and
240 metric tons CO2 -eq year−1 , respectively. It was also determined that changing the plant’s location
from the southwest (higher insolation levels) to the east coast (lower insolation levels) would require a
larger PV system size and battery storage capacity and thus increased costs. These results were found
Water 2020, 12, 1772 22 of 27

to be most sensitive to property tax rate, among the parameters changed between the two locations
(sales tax, state income tax, property tax, electric rates). Property tax exemption or partial property tax
rate incentives were shown to have promising implications for solar development.
In this study, determination of energy consumption was limited to drinking water treatment
operation. Future work may include evaluation of energy consumption related to drinking water
distribution within the community.
The design approach utilized for the plant, and equations used, highlighted important design
factors that may be adjusted to reduce the energy needs of the plants. Energy intensity values generated
rigorously for various processes for the plant may allow a more accurate comparison of a plant’s
performance against that of other plants. This method can be used for other plants by making suitable
alterations. Studies like these can provide the right motivation for increasing the efforts towards a
low-carbon water sector or carbon-neutral water infrastructure. Further, the detailed aspects of the
design of actual plants are generally not shared publically, and thus this work provides valuable insight
for engineering professionals and decision makers. This methodology can be applied to other DWTPs
with some alterations for attainment of sustainability goals. The deployment of solar PVs will help
achieve the effects of increased public and environmental health and climate benefits.

Author Contributions: Formal analysis, S.B.; funding acquisition, J.B. and S.A.; investigation, S.B.; methodology,
S.B.; project administration, J.B.; supervision, S.A.; validation, S.A.; writing (original draft), S.B.; writing (review
and editing), J.B. and S.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Science Foundation under grant no. IIA-1301726.
Acknowledgments: We would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to the DWTP manager for the time and support
provided for the treatment plant visit and for the data collection.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Dow, C.; Ahmad, S.; Stave, K.; Gerrity, D. Evaluating the Sustainability of IPR and DPR: A Southern Nevada
Case Study. AWWA Water Sci. 2019, 1, e1153. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2019. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/sustainable-
water-infrastructure/energy-efficiency-water-utilities (accessed on 25 December 2019).
3. Shrestha, E.; Ahmad, S.; Johnson, W.; Batista, J.R. The carbon footprint of water management policy options.
Energy Policy 2012, 42, 201–212. [CrossRef]
4. Shrestha, E.; Ahmad, S.; Johnson, W.; Shrestha, P.; Batista, J.R. Carbon footprint of water conveyance versus
desalination as alternatives to expand water supply. Desalination 2011, 280, 33–43. [CrossRef]
5. Goldstein, R.; Smith, W. Water & Sustainability (Volume 4): US Electricity Consumption for Water Supply &
Treatment-the Next Half Century; Electric Power Research Institute: Palo Alto, CA, USA, 2002.
6. Bukhary, S.; Batista, J.; Ahmad, S. An Analysis of Energy Consumption and the Use of Renewables for a
Small Drinking Water Treatment Plant. Water 2020, 12, 28. [CrossRef]
7. Bukhary, S.; Batista, J.; Ahmad, S. Water-Energy-Carbon Nexus Approach for Sustainable Large-Scale
Drinking Water Treatment Operation. J. Hydrol. 2020, 587, 124953. [CrossRef]
8. Bukhary, S.; Weidhaas, J.; Ansari, K.; Mahar, R.B.; Pomeroy, C.; Van Derslice, J.A.; Burian, S.; Ahmad, S. Using
Distributed Solar for Treatment of Drinking Water in Developing Countries. In Proceedings of the World
Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2017, Sacramento, CA, USA, 21–25 May 2017; Volume 2017,
pp. 264–276. [CrossRef]
9. Plappally, A.K.; Lienhard, V.J.H. Energy requirements for water production, treatment, end use, reclamation,
and disposal. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 4818–4848. [CrossRef]
10. Sala-Garrido, R.; Molinos-Senante, M. Benchmarking energy efficiency of water treatment plants: Effects of
data variability. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 701, 134960. [CrossRef]
11. Vadasarukkai, Y.S.; Gagnon, G.A. Influence of the Mixing Energy Consumption Affecting Coagulation and
Floc Aggregation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2017, 51, 3480–3489. [CrossRef]
12. Wakeel, M.; Chen, B.; Hayat, T.; Alsaedi, A.; Ahmad, B. Energy consumption for water use cycles in different
countries: A review. Appl. Energy 2016, 178, 868–885. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1772 23 of 27

13. Awad, H.; Alalm, M.G.; El-Etriby, H.K. Environmental and cost life cycle assessment of different alternatives
for improvement of wastewater treatment plants in developing countries. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 660, 57–68.
[CrossRef]
14. Chang, J.; Lee, W.; Yoon, S. Energy consumptions and associated greenhouse gas emissions in operation
phases of urban water reuse systems in Korea. J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 141, 728–736. [CrossRef]
15. Gude, V.G. Energy and water autarky of wastewater treatment and power generation systems. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2015, 45, 52–68. [CrossRef]
16. He, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Chen, J.; Huang, M.; Wang, P.; Wang, G.; Zou, W.; Zhou, G. Assessment of energy consumption
of municipal wastewater treatment plants in China. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 228, 399–404. [CrossRef]
17. Mannina, G.; Rebouças, T.F.; Cosenza, A.; Chandran, K. A plant-wide wastewater treatment plant model for
carbon and energy footprint: Model application and scenario analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 217, 244–256.
[CrossRef]
18. Dawadi, S.; Ahmad, S. Changing climatic conditions in the Colorado River Basin: Implications for water
resources management. J. Hydrol. 2012, 430, 127–141. [CrossRef]
19. Dawadi, S.; Ahmad, S. Evaluating the impact of demand-side management on water resources under
changing climatic conditions and increasing population. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 114, 261–275. [CrossRef]
20. Ahmad, S.; Prashar, D. Evaluating Municipal Water Conservation Policies Using a Dynamic Simulation
Model. Water Resour. Manag. 2010, 24, 3371–3395. [CrossRef]
21. Qaiser, K.; Ahmad, S.; Johnson, W.; Batista, J. Evaluating the impact of water conservation on fate of outdoor
water use: A study in an arid region. J. Environ. Manag. 2011, 92, 2061–2068. [CrossRef]
22. Qaiser, K.; Ahmad, S.; Johnson, W.; Batista, J.R. Evaluating water conservation and reuse policies using a
dynamic water balance model. Environ. Manag. 2013, 51, 449–458. [CrossRef]
23. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Available online: https://www3.epa.gov/region9/
waterinfrastructure/ (accessed on 15 September 2016).
24. Xue, X.; Hawkins, T.R.; Schoen, M.E.; Garland, J.; Ashbolt, N.J. Comparing the life cycle energy consumption,
global warming and eutrophication potentials of several water and waste service options. Water 2016, 8, 154.
[CrossRef]
25. Bukhary, S.; Chen, C.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Improving Streamflow Reconstructions Using
Oceanic-Atmospheric Climate Variability. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources
Congress 2014, Portland, Oregon, 1–5 June 2014; pp. 846–855. [CrossRef]
26. Bukhary, S.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Insights into reconstructing sacramento river flow using tree rings and
Pacific Ocean climate variability. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress,
Austin, TX, USA, 17–21 May 2015; pp. 1040–1049. [CrossRef]
27. Choubin, B.; Khalighi-Sigaroodi, S.; Malekian, A.; Ahmad, S.; Attarod, P. Drought forecasting in a semi-arid
watershed using climate signals: A neuro-fuzzy modeling approach. J. Mt. Sci. 2014, 11, 1593–1605.
[CrossRef]
28. Nussbaum, E.M.; Owens, M.C.; Sinatra, G.M.; Rehmat, A.P.; Cordova, J.R.; Ahmad, S.; Dascalu, S.M. Losing
the Lake: Simulations to Promote Gains in Student Knowledge and Interest about Climate Change. Int. J.
Environ. Sci. Educ. 2015, 10, 789–811.
29. Chen, C.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Hydrologic responses to climate change using downscaled GCM data on a
watershed scale. J. Water Clim. Chang. 2019, 10, 63–77. [CrossRef]
30. Tamaddun, K.A.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Spatiotemporal Variation in the Continental US Streamflow in
Association with Large-Scale Climate Signals Across Multiple Spectral Bands. Water Resour. Manag. 2019, 33,
1947–1968. [CrossRef]
31. Tamaddun, K.; Kalra, A.; Kumar, S.; Ahmad, S. CMIP5 Models’ Ability to Capture Observed Trends under the
Influence of Shifts and Persistence: An In-depth Study on the Colorado River Basin. J. Appl. Meteorol. Climatol.
2019, 58, 1677–1688. [CrossRef]
32. Nazari-Sharabian, M.; Ahmad, S.; Karakouzian, M. Climate Change and Eutrophication: A Short Review.
Eng. Technol. Appl. Sci. Res. 2018, 8, 3668–3672.
33. Nazari-Sharabian, M.; Taheriyoun, M.; Ahmad, S.; Karakouzian, M.; Ahmadi, A. Water Quality Modeling of
Mahabad Dam Watershed–Reservoir System under Climate Change Conditions, Using SWAT and System
Dynamics. Water 2019, 11, 394. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1772 24 of 27

34. Thakur, B.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S.; Lamb, K.; Lakshmi, V. Bringing Statistical Learning Machines together for
Hydro-climatological Predictions—Case Study for Sacramento San Joaquin River Basin, California. J. Hydrol.
Reg. Stud. 2020, 27, 100651. [CrossRef]
35. Nyaupane, N.; Thakur, B.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Evaluating Future Flood Scenarios Using CMIP5 Climate
Projections. Water 2018, 10, 1866. [CrossRef]
36. Saifullah, M.; Liu, S.; Tahir, A.A.; Zaman, M.; Ahmad, S.; Adnan, M.; Chen, D.; Ashraf, M.; Mehmood, A.
Development of Threshold Levels and a Climate-Sensitivity Model of the Hydrological Regime of the
High-Altitude Catchment of the Western Himalayas, Pakistan. Water 2019, 11, 1454. [CrossRef]
37. Rahaman, M.M.; Thakur, B.; Kalra, A.; Ahmad, S. Modeling of GRACE-Derived Groundwater Information
in the Colorado River Basin. Hydrology 2019, 6, 19. [CrossRef]
38. Yang, T.; Li, Q.; Ahmad, S.; Zhou, H.; Li, L. Changes in Snow Phenology from 1979 to 2016 over the Tianshan
Mountains, Central Asia. Remote Sens. 2019, 11, 499. [CrossRef]
39. Tamaddun, K.A.; Kalra, A.; Bernardez, M.; Ahmad, S. Effects of ENSO on Temperature, Precipitation, and
Potential Evapotranspiration of North India’s Monsoon: An Analysis of Trend and Entropy. Water 2019, 11,
189. [CrossRef]
40. Amoueyan, E.; Ahmad, S.; Eisenberg, J.; Gerrity, D. A Dynamic Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment for
Norovirus in Potable Reuse Systems. Microb. Risk Anal. 2020, 14, 100088. [CrossRef]
41. Amoueyan, E.; Ahmad, S.; Eisenberg, J.N.S.; Gerrity, D. Equivalency of Indirect and Direct Potable Reuse
Paradigms based on a Quantitative Microbial Risk Assessment Framework. Microb. Risk Anal. 2019, 12,
60–75. [CrossRef]
42. Amoueyan, E.; Ahmad, S.; Eisenberg, J.N.S.; Pecson, B.; Gerrity, D. Quantifying pathogen risks associated
with potable reuse: A risk assessment case study for Cryptosporidium. Water Res. 2017, 119, 255–266.
[CrossRef]
43. Crittenden, J.C.; Trussell, R.R.; Hand, D.W.; Howe, K.J.; Tchobanoglous, G. MWH’s Water Treatment: Principles
and Design; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012.
44. Bukhary, S.; Batista, J.; Ahmad, S. Evaluating the Feasibility of Photovoltaic-Based Plant for Potable Water
Treatment. In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Sacramento, CA,
USA, 21–25 May 2017; pp. 256–263. [CrossRef]
45. Bukhary, S.; Ahmad, S.; Batista, J. Analyzing land and water requirements for solar deployment in the
Southwestern United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 3288–3305. [CrossRef]
46. Okoye, C.O.; Oranekwu-Okoye, B.C. Economic feasibility of solar PV system for rural electrification in
Sub-Sahara Africa. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2018, 82, 2537–2547. [CrossRef]
47. Ferreira, A.; Kunh, S.S.; Fagnani, K.C.; De Souza, T.A.; Tonezer, C.; Dos Santos, G.R.; Coimbra-Araújo, C.H.
Economic overview of the use and production of photovoltaic solar energy in brazil. Renew. Sustain.
Energy Rev. 2018, 81, 181–191. [CrossRef]
48. Linssen, J.; Stenzel, P.; Fleer, J. Techno-economic analysis of photovoltaic battery systems and the influence of
different consumer load profiles. Appl. Energy 2017, 185, 2019–2025. [CrossRef]
49. DSIRE. Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). 2017. Available online: http:
//www.dsireusa.org/ (accessed on 16 August 2017).
50. Brown, K.E.; Henze, D.K.; Milford, J.B. How accounting for climate and health impacts of emissions could
change the US energy system. Energy Policy 2017, 102, 396–405. [CrossRef]
51. Prehoda, E.W.; Pearce, J.M. Potential lives saved by replacing coal with solar photovoltaic electricity
production in the US. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 80, 710–715. [CrossRef]
52. Nonhebel, S. Renewable energy and food supply: Will there be enough land? Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2005, 9, 191–201. [CrossRef]
53. Bukhary, S.; Batista, J.; Ahmad, S. Using Solar and Wind Energy for Water Treatment in the Southwest.
In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 19–23
May 2019; Volume 2019, pp. 410–416. [CrossRef]
54. Bukhary, S.; Batista, J.; Ahmad, S. Sustainable Desalination of Brackish Groundwater for the Las Vegas Valley.
In Proceedings of the World Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2018, Minneapolis, MN, USA,
3–7 June 2018. [CrossRef]
55. Gilman, P.; Blair, N.; Mehos, M.; Christensen, C.; Janzou, S.; Cameron, C. Solar Advisor Model User Guide for
Version 2.0; National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO, USA, 2008.
Water 2020, 12, 1772 25 of 27

56. Good, J.; Johnson, J.X. Impact of inverter loading ratio on solar photovoltaic system performance. Appl. Energy
2016, 177, 475–486. [CrossRef]
57. Phillips, C.; Elmore, R.; Melius, J.; Gagnon, P.; Margolis, R. A data mining approach to estimating rooftop
photovoltaic potential in the US. J. Appl. Stat. 2019, 46, 385–394. [CrossRef]
58. Sweeney, J.F.; Pate, M.B.; Choi, W. Life cycle production and costs of a residential solar hot water and
grid-connected photovoltaic system in humid subtropical Texas. J. Renew. Sustain. Energy 2016, 8, 053702.
[CrossRef]
59. Song, J.; Choi, Y. Design of photovoltaic systems to power aerators for natural purification of acid mine
drainage. Renew. Energy 2015, 83, 759–766. [CrossRef]
60. Bukhary, S. Water-Energy Nexus Approaches for Solar Development and Water Treatment in the Southwestern
United States. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Nevada Las Vegas (UNLV), Las Vegas, NV, USA, 2018.
61. García-Vaquero, N.; Lee, E.; Castañeda, R.J.; Cho, J.; López-Ramírez, J.A. Comparison of drinking water
pollutant removal using a nanofiltration pilot plant powered by renewable energy and a conventional
treatment facility. Desalination 2014, 347, 94–102. [CrossRef]
62. Soshinskaya, M.; Crijns-Graus, W.H.; van der Meer, J.; Guerrero, J.M. Application of a microgrid with
renewables for a water treatment plant. Appl. Energy 2014, 134, 20–34. [CrossRef]
63. Astolfi, M.; Mazzola, S.; Silva, P.; Macchi, E. A synergic integration of desalination and solar energy systems
in stand-alone microgrids. Desalination 2017, 419, 169–180. [CrossRef]
64. Gikas, P.; Tsoutsos, T. Near zero energy wastewater treatment plants for the Greek islands. Desalin. Water Treat.
2015, 53, 3328–3334. [CrossRef]
65. Ganiyu, S.O.; Brito, L.R.; de Araújo Costa, E.C.; dos Santos, E.V.; Martínez-Huitle, C.A. Solar
photovoltaic-battery system as a green energy for driven electrochemical wastewater treatment technologies:
Application to elimination of Brilliant Blue FCF dye solution. J. Environ. Chem. Eng. 2019, 7, 102924.
[CrossRef]
66. Nawarkar, C.J.; Salkar, V.D. Solar powered electrocoagulation system for municipal wastewater treatment.
Fuel 2019, 237, 222–226. [CrossRef]
67. Li, S.; Cai, Y.H.; Schäfer, A.I.; Richards, B.S. Renewable energy powered membrane technology: A review
of the reliability of photovoltaic-powered membrane system components for brackish water desalination.
Appl. Energy 2019, 253, 113524. [CrossRef]
68. Mostafaeipour, A.; Qolipour, M.; Rezaei, M.; Babaee-Tirkolaee, E. Investigation of off-grid photovoltaic
systems for a reverse osmosis desalination system: A case study. Desalination 2019, 454, 91–103. [CrossRef]
69. Shalaby, S.M. Reverse osmosis desalination powered by photovoltaic and solar Rankine cycle power systems:
A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 73, 789–797. [CrossRef]
70. Shawky, H.A.; Abdel Fatah, A.A.; Abo ElFadl, M.M.; El-Aassar, A.H.M. Design of a small mobile PV-driven
RO water desalination plant to be deployed at the northwest coast of Egypt. Desalin. Water Treat. 2015, 55,
3755–3766. [CrossRef]
71. Zhang, Y.; Sivakumar, M.; Yang, S.; Enever, K.; Ramezanianpour, M. Application of solar energy in water
treatment processes: A review. Desalination 2018, 428, 116–145. [CrossRef]
72. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2016. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/
dwstandardsregulations (accessed on 12 October 2016).
73. WEF (Water Environment Federation). Energy Conservation in Water and Wastewater Facilities; Manual of
practice No. 32; WEF Press: Cologny, Switzerland, 2009.
74. Reynolds, T.D.; Richards, P.A. Unit Operations and Processes in Environmental Engineering; PWS Publishing
Company: Boston, MA, USA, 1996.
75. Hendricks, D.W. Water Treatment Unit Processes: Physical and Chemical; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2016.
76. Moomaw, W.; Burgherr, P.; Heath, G.; Lenzen, M.; Nyboer, J.; Verbruggen, A. Annex II: Methodology. In IPCC
Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation; Edenhofer, O., Pichs-Madruga, R.,
Sokona, Y., Seyboth, K., Matschoss, P., Kadner, S., Zwickel, T., Eickemeier, P., Hansen, G., Schlomer, S., et al.,
Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2011.
77. U.S. Energy Information Administration (USEIA). 2016. Available online: http://www.eia.gov/state/seds/
(accessed on 29 July 2016).
78. Freecleansolar. 2017. Available online: https://www.freecleansolar.com/Solar-Panel-305-Watt-Helios-7T2-
305-p/7t2-305.htm (accessed on 28 August 2017).
Water 2020, 12, 1772 26 of 27

79. Wholesalesolar. 2017. Available online: https://www.wholesalesolar.com/2935110/fronius/inverters/fronius-

symo-lite-10.0-3-10kw-3-phase-480-inverter (accessed on 28 August 2017).
80. Wholesalesolar. 2017. Available online: https://www.wholesalesolar.com/9901382/surrette-rolls/batteries/
surrette-rolls-s-1660-flooded-battery (accessed on 28 August 2017).
81. Fu, R.; Chung, D.; Lowder, T.; Feldman, D.; Ardani, K.; Margolis, R. US Solar Photovoltaic System Cost
Benchmark: Q1 2016; National Renewable Energy Laboratory, US Department of Energy: Golden, CO, USA,
2016; NREL/TP-6A20-66532.
82. Fu, R.; Feldman, D.J.; Margolis, R.M.; Woodhouse, M.A.; Ardani, K.B. US Solar Photovoltaic System
Cost Benchmark: Q1 2017; National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL): Golden, CO, USA, 2017;
No. NREL/TP-6A20-68925.
83. Kang, M.H.; Rohatgi, A. Quantitative analysis of the levelized cost of electricity of commercial scale
photovoltaics systems in the US. Sol. Energy Mater. Sol. Cells 2016, 154, 71–77. [CrossRef]
84. Krupa, J.; Harvey, D. Renewable electricity finance in the United States: A state-of-the-art review. Energy
2017, 135, 913–929. [CrossRef]
85. Lai, C.S.; McCulloch, M.D. Levelized cost of electricity for solar photovoltaic and electrical energy storage.
Appl. Energy 2017, 190, 191–203. [CrossRef]
86. Mundada, A.S.; Shah, K.K.; Pearce, J.M. Levelized cost of electricity for solar photovoltaic, battery and cogen
hybrid systems. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 692–703. [CrossRef]
87. Musi, R.; Grange, B.; Sgouridis, S.; Guedez, R.; Armstrong, P.; Slocum, A.; Calvet, N. Techno-economic
analysis of concentrated solar power plants in terms of levelized cost of electricity. In AIP Conference
Proceedings; AIP Publishing: Abu Dhabi, UAE, 2017; Volume 1850, p. 160018.
88. Reiter, E.; Lowder, T.; Mathur, S.; Mercer, M. Virginia Solar Pathways Project. Economic Study of
Utility-Administered Solar Programs: Soft Costs, Community Solar, and Tax Normalization Considerations; NREL
(National Renewable Energy Laboratory): Golden, CO, USA, 2016; No. NREL/TP-6A42-65758.
89. Racharla, S.; Rajan, K. Solar tracking system—A review. Int. J. Sustain. Eng. 2017, 10, 72–81.
90. NDT Nevada Department of Taxation (NDT). 2017. Available online: https://tax.nv.gov/ (accessed on 20
December 2017).
91. McCabe, J. Salvage Value of Photovoltaic Systems. In Proceedings of the World Renewable Energy Forum,
Littleton, CO, USA, 2011. Available online: https://ases.conference-services.net/resources/252/2859/pdf/
SOLAR2012_0783_full%20paper.pdf (accessed on 8 June 2017).
92. McKinney, R.E. Environmental Pollution Control Microbiology: A Fifty-Year Perspective; CRC Press: Boca Raton,
FL, USA, 2004.
93. Lee, C.C.; Lin, S.D. Handbook of Environmental Engineering Calculations; McGraw Hill: New York, NY, USA,
2007.
94. Mays, L.W. Water Resources Engineering; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006.
95. Kawamura, S. Integrated Design of Water Treatment Facilities; John Willey & Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1991.
96. Qasim, S.R. Wastewater Treatment Plants: Planning, Design, and Operation; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA,
1998.
97. Lauer, W.; Barsotti, M.G.; Hardy, D.K. Chemical Feed Field Guide for Treatment Plant Operators; American Water
Works Association: Denver, CO, USA, 2009.
98. Lawler, D.F.; Singer, P.C. Analyzing disinfection kinetics and reactor design: A conceptual approach versus
the SWTR. J. Am. Water Work. Assoc. 1993, 85, 67–76. [CrossRef]
99. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1977. Available online: https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPURL.
cgi?Dockey=9100V2XH.txt (accessed on 12 October 2016).
100. Verrelli, D.I.; Dixon, D.R.; Scales, P.J. Assessing dewatering performance of drinking water treatment sludges.
Water Res. 2010, 44, 1542–1552. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
101. Short, W.; Packey, D.J.; Holt, T. A Manual for the Economic Evaluation of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
Technologies; National Renewable Energy Lab.: Golden, CO, USA, 1995; No. NREL/TP–462-5173.
102. Doubleday, K.; Choi, B.; Maksimovic, D.; Deline, C.; Olalla, C. Recovery of inter-row shading losses using
differential power-processing submodule DC–DC converters. Sol. Energy 2016, 135, 512–517. [CrossRef]
103. Brownson, J.R. Solar Energy Conversion Systems; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013.
104. Nugent, D.; Sovacool, B.K. Assessing the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from solar PV and wind energy:
A critical meta-survey. Energy Policy 2014, 65, 229–244. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1772 27 of 27

105. Pirnie, M.; Yonkin, M. Statewide Assessment of Energy Use by the Municipal Water and Wastewater Sector; New York
State Energy Research and Development, Authority (NYSERDA): Albany, NY, USA, 2008; Report, 08-17.
106. Bailey, J.R.; Ahmad, S.; Batista, J.R. The Impact of Advanced Treatment Technologies on the Energy Use in
Satellite Water Reuse Plants. Water 2020, 12, 366. [CrossRef]
107. Longo, S.; d’Antoni, B.M.; Bongards, M.; Chaparro, A.; Cronrath, A.; Fatone, F.; Lema, J.M.; Mauricio-Iglesias, M.;
Soares, A.; Hospido, A. Monitoring and diagnosis of energy consumption in wastewater treatment plants. A
state of the art and proposals for improvement. Appl. Energy 2016, 179, 1251–1268. [CrossRef]
108. Lewis, N.S. Toward cost-effective solar energy use. Science 2007, 315, 798–801. [CrossRef]
109. Halder, P.K. Potential and economic feasibility of solar home systems implementation in Bangladesh. Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 65, 568–576. [CrossRef]
110. Al-Sharafi, A.; Sahin, A.Z.; Ayar, T.; Yilbas, B.S. Techno-economic analysis and optimization of solar and wind
energy systems for power generation and hydrogen production in Saudi Arabia. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2017, 69, 33–49. [CrossRef]
111. Noorollahi, E.; Fadai, D.; Akbarpour Shirazi, M.; Ghodsipour, S.H. Land Suitability Analysis for Solar Farms
Exploitation Using GIS and Fuzzy Analytic Hierarchy Process (FAHP)—A Case Study of Iran. Energies 2016,
9, 643. [CrossRef]
112. Anwarzai, M.A.; Nagasaka, K. Utility-scale implementable potential of wind and solar energies for Afghanistan
using GIS multi-criteria decision analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 71, 150–160. [CrossRef]
113. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2017. Available online: https://www.epa.gov/energy/
greenhouse-gas-equivalencies-calculator (accessed on 1 September 2017).
114. Burtt, D.; Dargusch, P. The cost-effectiveness of household photovoltaic systems in reducing greenhouse
gas emissions in Australia: Linking subsidies with emission reductions. Appl. Energy 2015, 148, 439–448.
[CrossRef]
115. Oliveira, C.T.; Antonio, F.; Burani, G.F.; Udaeta, M.E.M. GHG reduction and energy efficiency analyses in a
zero-energy solar house archetype. Int. J. Low Carbon Technol. 2017, 12, 225–232. [CrossRef]
116. MacDonald, A.E.; Clack, C.T.; Alexander, A.; Dunbar, A.; Wilczak, J.; Xie, Y. Future cost-competitive electricity
systems and their impact on US CO2 emissions. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 526–531. [CrossRef]
117. Shindell, D.T.; Lee, Y.; Faluvegi, G. Climate and health impacts of US emissions reductions consistent with
2 ◦ C. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2016, 6, 503–507. [CrossRef]

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).