The dissolved methane recovery from treated sewage in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors: The energy demand, carbon footprint and financial cost

The goal of this research was to quantify the energy demand and carbon footprint over the life cycle, along with the financial cost, of sewage treatment with the recovery of dissolved methane (d-CH4). The sewage treatment is composed of pre-treatment, followed by treatment in upflow anaerobic sludge blanket (UASB) reactors, trickling filter and secondary decanter, post-treatment with disinfection, and biogas recovery in the three-phase separator of the UASB reactor. The methods used in this study were attributional life cycle assessment and techno-economic analysis – LCA and TEA, respectively. The energy demand, carbon footprint and financial cost for 1 m3 sewage treatment in the evaluated scenario without d-CH4 recovery (S1) were 3.4 MJ, 1.7 kg CO2eq and 0.17 USD respectively, while those with d-CH4 recovery (S2) varied by 12%, −16% and 2.3% compared to S1. The produced biogas for lower heating value in S2 (2.6 MJ) was 27% higher than that in S1 (2.0 MJ) and this varied from 1.3 MJ to 4.6 MJ in the scenarios for different influent chemical oxygen demand (COD) in the sewage treatment plant (STP) and COD removal efficiency in the UASB reactor. The highest eco-efficiency for 1 MJ heat production from the STP biogas was achieved in the scenario with d-CH4 recovery, higher influent COD, higher COD removal efficiency in the UASB reactor, d-CH4 saturation, photovoltaic electricity supply, and a higher energy efficiency in d-CH4 recovery combined (S2,COD+,R+,S,PV,EE+), which reduced the energy demand by 55%, carbon footprint by 66% and financial cost by 63% compared to S1. Furthermore, the STP functionality change from a single-product (biogas) to a multi-product (biogas, water for reuse and biosolid fertilizer) approach (S1,WR, BF and S2,WR,BF) made the biogas a competitive product compared to those from fossil sources. Therefore, resource recovery from the sewage treatment in higher influent COD, higher COD removal efficiency, the use of a more efficient, clean and economical electricity source and higher energy efficiency in d-CH4 recovery in a multi-product STP contribute to achieving the energy self-sufficiency over the life cycle while reducing the carbon footprint and financial cost of its products. [Display omitted] •The lower influent COD reduced the indicator values, while the higher increased.•Higher COD removal and d-CH4 recovery are key to reduce the indicator values.•STP electricity supplier and energy efficiency in d-CH4 recovery are key aspects.•A