energy recovery from wastewater: turbine in sewage treatment plants in Switzerland

[Obamot]

An atomic plant is 5 billion, 4GW is four plants and we are only at the embryo to make an inventory of all the sites eligible for STEPs.

It is for example (after purification of water) possible to make WWTPs from wastewater. A study of the very serious EPFL has calculated that there is a potential of 35GW, the equivalent of 35 nuclear power plants (for a very small country like Switzerland).

Among the eligible sites there would be 106 including 19 "profitable" (but of course we should not fancy a lot of profitability as long as the cost of raw materials is skewed, but still reason with the feet on the ground, if not we will still blame him ...)

Pragmatically, we could be assured of having a PROFITABLE deposit of more than> 6,5GW here and without major development since it is on the basis of already existing pumping or retaining basins.

And this is where the conclusion of EPFL can interest any country, especially France, which has a lot of mountainous areas:

Finally, future technological developments are to be monitored: new small-capacity hydraulic turbines could make hitherto unpublished sites profitable, and make the recovery of wastewater hydraulic energy more common. In the context of the energy transition, the production of hydroelectricity on the basis of wastewater thus offers an interesting potential, not only economic, but also in terms of communication with the population by setting up a local production, practically without impact on the environment

Source: Federal Polytechnic School of Lausanne >>>

But let's go back to the profitable profitable sites, since that is what makes it possible to invalidate the relatively dishonest forecasts of Jancovici

► View Text

(and other corrupt bastards and I am not saying that it is ... up to him to see with his conscience. Sites profitable eligibility means that not only do they produce electricity, but that they bring in sufficient money after depreciation of installations and in competition with nuclear power, yes, yes, you read that correctly)

my conclusion is therefore that these 6,5GW would already make it possible to smooth the production of 65GW (therefore 65 equivalent nuclear reactors less: that is to say the 10% "which is sufficient" according to the data from Jabab). So to those who tell us that with renewable energies we will not be able to achieve this, they put their finger in the eye to the scapula. With the company at 2W this would represent the equivalent of 000GW today. And this bodes well when we know that C-PV will give us 195% of yield (37% gross with current techno) even in the north of Germany, and this with technologies that we already masters today ...

Sleep peacefully (well not too much anyway, we still have to kick the train of the "indécrottables" and there it is a big job)

[Christophe]

It is for example (after purification of water) possible to make WWTPs from wastewater. A study of the very serious EPFL has calculated that there is a potential of 35GW, the equivalent of 35 nuclear power plants (for a very small country like Switzerland).

Uh it seems to me a lot anyway !! We know that the Swiss are big craps ... But still! (I laugh, of course ...)

But 35GW in what? Hydraulic potential or thermal energy?

In the 2ieme case it is more credible! (bin yes the water that arrives at 13 ° will heat up even if it does not go through the sanitary heating ... so some ° C will be lost in the sewers ... of course it's very difficult to recover)

In France water comes in many places from water towers? So you have to pump it upstream ...

If you can find the study, I'm interested!

[Obamot]

I rectify indeed, it is not 35GW but a potential 31,3GW (if you want to be ultra-accurate and in the current state of counting). I put a little more, 35GW because the inventory does not take into account that when we have adapted / optimized sites for this purpose, it will be a good margin more ... the EPFL that says it, just read the .pdf which I put the link.

The important point is that the "profitable" 6,5GW would already make it possible to inject without risk into the networks (without risk due to the load factor): 65GW of juice from renewable energies (without the risk of even collapsing the network during peaks). And this point is crucial since we know that to compete, renewable energies must adapt to the canons of nuclear power, ie be able to produce 50x more than needs / demand. And this for all kinds of reasons, but the main one is that the peaks occur under the most unfavorable production circumstances ... winter with little to no sunshine). Thus, with the only PROFITABLE potential offered, we could afford these 65GW which surpass the current 59GW of the French nuclear of 6GW. It is not for nothing that the Germans and the Swiss have chosen to exit nuclear power, they had to be super sure of their own. It was "calculated" ... And there we still have thirty to forty years of nuclear power ahead of us to adapt all the STEP infrastructures and develop relative renewables: it is perfectly playable.

It should also be remembered that the "unprofitable" sites become de facto (in part) as long as they allow the injection of their equivalent x10 of electricity from ENR. So the profitability should then be calculated on all the electricity produced STEP + Renewable and not the STEP for itself. And it's logical and pragmatic and it changes the game without having to cheat like nuclear power does.

I think that the purchase / redemption value of the electricity produced by WWTPs should be more expensive because it smooths the production of 10x more than RE (you see Jajab, I know also calculate mdr ...) I also note that the current 59GW French nuclear, are already 50x higher than the needs in summer ...
So the demonstration is perfectly relevant either: a potential annual 560TWh (STEP + EnR) based on only one. 6,5GW from STEP to start!

[Christophe]

35 or 31.3 GW it's kif kif it's huge ... waow!

I'm looking at the .pdf thanks!

Beware of the confusion STEP (STation of EPuation) VS STEP (Station of Turbinage and Pumping) ...

ps: I think jabab has given up ...

[Christophe]

I saw, it's very interesting, I did not know this technique!

Nevertheless I think that Switzerland is a special case favorable because of its relief!

No need for upstream pumping - capture by sources at altitude
Presence of downhill elevation

Far from being possible in "flatter" countries, but the technique is interesting and deserves our attention ... and far from being recent!

This deserves a specific topic no?

ps: this is not a potential of 31.3 GW but 31.3 GWh / year is 31.3 GWh / 8740 = 3.6 MW which is much more reasonable ... and credible

On the basis of the results, Switzerland has a potential of 31,3 GWh / a (of which only 3,5 GWh / a are currently exploited), with 106 potential sites including 19 profitable which correspond to a potential of 9,3 GWh / a.

So 31.3-3.5 = 27.8 GWh remains to exploit either 3MW to install grosso modo ...

[Obamot]

Ok I've had a meal (thank you for correcting). Anyway, between the 120 water mills and other WWTP here and there, like the Durance, we must arrive at these 000GW in all (current estimate> 6GW) therefore 4GW of EnR at the key which could be smoothed out already within our reach.

Yes but not "so special"- it's a question of flow, a little bit what amperage is for electricity (it's the same and that's fine ^^) - if we take the Aïre WWTP in Geneva, location described For example, in the EPFL document, the gradient is only 7m:

STEP from Aire.png (154.27 Kio) Accessed 4879 times

And this is a place that I know very well, relatively flat, the tributary goes through a covered canal on a plateau: the low-key track which is a cemented alley (bays covering the stream) lined with poplars :

here not far from the canal exit which becomes open:

Really flat but there is flow (this picture gives an idea, it is not huge but there is what it takes):

Development works, the banks of the canal are arranged:

How many sites like this in Europe? No doubt thousands.
How many possible and necessary arrangements to be made to minimize the effects of floods? Couldn't this work be used to create WWTPs? Which would reduce the costs of these to take part in "the territorial development envelope"(essential work in view of repeated floods). Who says flood, says areas with high flow tributaries ...

There is already all it takes no?

Source of illustrations: Google Map.

And it's not the projects that are missing:

Here again it is flat in Coppet (on the shores of Lake Geneva)
http://www.sgigroupe.ch/projets/wwt01ch09a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g354Vxu_mto

Yet it's flat, we take advantage of the facilities to make a big STEP ...
What to give ideas ...

[Christophe]

I divide Nothing to do with Jean-Marc

[Obamot]

Beware of the confusion STEP (STation of EPuation) VS STEP (Station of Turbinage and Pumping) ...

If you talk about that, she will do both, and we must also talk about the bio-gas that is recovered and it is 333GWh / year so 38MW (I'm good?)
http://www.swisspower.ch/wp-content/upl ... initiv.pdf

[Christophe]

No, I was just talking about terminology abbreviations ...

[Obamot]

Nevertheless I think that Switzerland is a special case favorable because of its relief!

Regarding the favorable terrain, we are at least assured of 1GW here:
http://www.nant-de-drance.ch/accueil/

So effective power to balance the production of 9GW from EnR (avoiding network collapse) is 10GW altogether (or 9 nuclear reactors less.)

Still in environmental issues, there are great opportunities to regulate the outflow and outflow of natural lakes (and in particular to regulate the water level of adjoining lakes, by putting hydropower plants in-between )

Here the case of lakes Schiffenen and Murten
http://www.groupe-e.ch/news/20140522/pr ... rojet-schi