Pitfalls in international benchmarking of energy intensity across wastewater treatment utilities.

The collection, treatment and disposal of wastewater is estimated to consume more than 2% of the world's electrical energy, whilst some wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) can account for over 20% of electrical consumption within municipalities. To investigate areas to improve wastewater treatment, international benchmarking on energy (electrical) intensity was conducted with the indicator kWh/m and a quality control of secondary treatment or better for ≥95% of treated volume. The core sample included 321 companies from 31 countries, however, to analyse regional differences, 11 countries from an external sample made up of various studies of WWTPs was also used in places. The sample displayed a weak-negative size effect with energy intensity, although Kruskal-Wallace analyses showed there was a significant difference between the size of groups (p-value of 0.015), suggesting that as companies get larger; they consume less electricity per cubic metre of wastewater treated. This relationship was not completely linear, as mid to large companies (10,001-100,000 customers) had the largest average consumption of 0.99 kWh/m. In the regional analysis, EU states had the largest average kWh/m with 1.18, which appeared a result of the higher wastewater effluent standards of the region. This was supported by Denmark being the second largest average consuming country (1.35 kWh/m), since it has some of strictest effluent standards in the world. Along with energy intensity, the associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions were calculated enabling the targeting of regions for improvement in response to climate change. Poland had the highest carbon footprint (0.91 kgCOe/m) arising from an energy intensity of 0.89 kWh/m; conversely, a clean electricity grid can affectively mitigate wastewater treatment inefficiencies, exemplified by Norway who emit just 0.013 kgCOe per cubic meter treated, despite consuming 0.60 kWh/m. Finally, limitations to available data and the analysis were highlighted from which, it is advised that influent vs. effluent and net energy, as opposed to gross, data be used in future analyses. The large international sample size, energy data with a quality control, GHG analysis, and specific benchmarking recommendations give this study a novelty which could be of use to water industry operators, benchmarking organisations, and regulators.