Economic and Sustainability Analysis Pucará, Perú

Posted: August 27th, 2021

Student’s Name

Instructor’s Name

Course

Date

Economic and Sustainability Analysis Pucará, Perú

Economic Analysis of Project Alternatives

The management and treatment of wastewater compose of substantial benefits coupled with sidestepped costs. Mainly, interpretation regarding the cost of no action involves benefits that might be realized due to the discharge of wastewater having undergone inadequate treatment (UNEP 4). The immediate release of untreated wastewater into the environment would possibly lead to generated costs in simpler terms. Notably, there is a loss of anticipated benefits. Therefore, the grouping of potential benefits attached to enhancing wastewater management composes of either market or non-market benefits as demonstrated by the inflation and consumer prices index in table 1

Year	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012	2013	2014	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019
CPI	1.78	5.78	1.53	3.37	3.66	2.8	3.2	3.53	3.61	2.81	1.32	2.14

Table 1. Inflation and consumer prices index for Peru from 2008 to 2020 (annual %)

Operation and Maintenance Costs

As much as most environmental and health benefits have significant values, they cannot be quantified in monetary units like productivity (UNEP 4). The reason is that a lot of non-market benefits are hard to measure, as they require particular economic valuation techniques. Consequently, the failure of non-market benefits to be valued under monetary terms compels them to report these techniques into the economic analysis of table 2.

	BOD Elimination	Investment cost (US$/capita)	O&M Cost (US$/yr/capita)
Conventional Lagoons	70-90	20-40	0.2-0.4
Stabilization Ponds	75-95	30-50	0.2-0.4
Conventional Activated Sludge	80-90	100-150	4-8

Table 2. Comparison of the cost and effectiveness of different water treatment systems

Waste Stabilization Ponds: Facultative/Maturation (Saad)

Personnel

The employed natural processes include earthen embankments, which are possibly linked with synthetic fabrics.

Laboratory Analysis

The lab analysis of the Waste Stabilization Pond (WSP) relies entirely on both the maximum and minimum BOD volumetric loading. For instance, BOD removal is regarded as 60% in cases where high temperatures and hydraulic retention time are >60^oC and 2.5d, respectively. Therefore, it implies that doubling the retention time would impact a 17% increase, coupled with a removal rate of 70%. Thus, inputting BOD/m³d loadings of between 100 and 400 g with a temperature range of 27-30^oC helps impart a more effective BOD removal.

Supplies

The WSP needs to have a supply of raw wastewater that contains large quantities of bio-solids and solar radiation to impact the required temperatures.

Maintenance

The maintenance of WSP entails the removal of sludge and regulation of odor vis-à-vis the recirculation of pond effluents like sulfate compounds.  There is anaerobic pond loading every four weeks to ensure that a pH of more than seven is maintained throughout the waste stabilization process. Finally, removal of vegetation alongside the pond helps discourage the mosquitos’ breeding grounds.

Administration

The design of both facultative and maturation ponds is an essential process for ranging from algae photosynthesis, growth, and endogenous respiration, to gaseous exchange for oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ammonia. Indeed, the administration of WSPs needs ionic equilibrium coupled with pH calculation processes that would reduce the costs of running the aeration process. For this reason, the use of both solar radiation and wind velocity would help impact sustainability due to avoided costs for aeration supplies like temperature. 

Sludge removal and disposal

The sludge’s removal and disposal involve removing floating scum, macrophytes, and solids from both the maturation and facultative pond. Thus, the removal process helps encourage increased photosynthesis and surface re-aeration.

Activated Sludge with Nutrient Removal and Disinfection (Saad)

Personnel

The involved personnel is activated the sludge process and aeration tank.

Laboratory Analysis

The lab analysis comprises a food to microorganism (F/M) ratio of 0.2-0.5 and maximum organic loading of about 40 BOD per 1,000 cubic feet per day. The minimum aeration retention time is 6 hours, coupled with the solids recycling rate, varying from 15-100% (Liebhaber and Orozco-Jaramilla 33). Likewise, the lab analysis works with 1,000-3,000 mg/litter pounds of mixed liquor volatile suspended solids (MLVSS).

Supplies

The supplies include return sludge and a well-timed supply of oxygen. 

Maintenance

To ensure that the activated sludge is suspended, a well-timed supply of oxygen is continuously maintained inside the mixer. Also, there is recirculation of sludge or water, which varies between the biological reactor and secondary clarifier.

Administration

Activated sludge implies the use of sanitation technology that utilizes biological processes. It is deployed either in a semi-centralized or centralized way, where microorganisms are suspended from initiating biological reactors.

Sludge Dewatering and Disposal

The process entails reducing both the volume and weight of sludge so that the costs of disposal, including transportation, are kept at a minimal level. With filter beds, the sludge mass’s initial value reduces up to 70% (Liebhaber and Orozco-Jaramilla 51). Thus, it impacts the economic analysis of facultative and maturation ponds.

Energy Requirements to Operate Plant

For conventional activated sludge systems, aeration needsroughly 60% of all electricity intakes, while sludge treatment consumes 25% of the whole required energy. However, the secondary sedimentation (recirculation pumps) needs about 15% of energy requirements.

Production of Methane

The desirable level of methane produced is1,500 m³/d after consuming 293 kWh per day of electricity. Also, there is a production of 0.14 m³ CH4 for every 1 m³wastewater when subject to standard conditions of pressure and temperature ((Liebhaber and Orozco-Jaramilla 86)). Indeed, such a calorific value of methane equals 35.9 MJ per cubic meter of CH4, which supports 580 households (Liebhaber and Orozco-Jaramilla 86). Therefore, the produced methane has a carbon rating of about 0.6-0.8 energy, relevant for coking and coffee bean processing. 

Works Cited

Liebhaber, Menahem, and Alvaro Orozco-Jaramillo. “Sustainable Treatment and Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. “For Decision Makers and Practising Engineers (2019): pp. 1-582.

United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP). “Economic Valuation of Wastewater.” The Cost of Action and the Cost of No Action (2015): pp. 1-72.