Efficient desalination can utilize alternative energy, like these Danish windmills, thus relying on the ocean twice. / Photo: andjohan on Flickr

The most common question I field when I mention desalination is, “Doesn’t that take a lot of energy?”

The truth is, yes, it does. That’s why you’ll not hear me advocate for desalination without strongly insisting on complementary conservation.

We must redouble our conservation efforts by upgrading infrastructure intelligently and in no way excuse wasteful water practices by pointing to the plentiful, historical ingredients of desalination: oceans of water and oceans of coal.

Each barrel of freshwater extracted from the ocean has costs, so we should use the water as efficiently as possible, recycling it and then remediating it into the water cycle.

Yet, conservation alone isn’t going to meet our water needs. The world’s population is expected to increase by 2.5 billion over the next 30 – 40 years, while the current, natural water cycle is not expected to increase its output.

Just as we must increase conservation, we must prepare for the impending water plateau by increasing our capacity to produce fresh water.

Hence my excitement in June when I heard about Desalitech’s successful pilot.

The test purified Mediterranean saltwater, using Desalitech’s proprietary Closed-Circuit Desalination saltwater reverse osmosis method (SWRO-CCD).

Using common components, without energy recovery, running a high-pressure pump at 81% mean efficiency and circulation pump at 37.5% mean efficiency, the pilot achieved 48% recovery at 2.05 – 2.40 kWh per cubic meter of fresh water. For comparison, Perth’s desalination plant using Energy Recovery from ERI achieves 43% recovery at 2.32 kWh/m3.

Desalitech aims to increase the mean efficiency of the off-the-shelf, high-pressure pump to 88%, to provide recovery at 1.75 – 1.95 kWh/m3 on Mediterranean saltwater. The same pumps used on ocean water could produce equal recovery at 1.5 – 1.7 kWh/m3.

Desalitech’s implementation reduces the cost of powering desalination processes. It also decreases capital expenditures. Nadav Efraty, CEO of Desalitech, told me, “This technology is reducing energy consumption by up to 50% when we utilize about twice the membranes, reduces energy by about 10-15% when we use only 40% of the membranes compared to a conventional plant, or reduces energy about 30% when we utilizes the same amount of membranes, but in this mode, since we don’t utilize any form of energy recovery, we still see a reduction in capital expenditures.”

Even with less than half the membranes, the technology still sees 10-15% energy reduction. That’s a 60% savings on capital expenditures for membranes.

As an added element of efficiency, plants utilizing Desalitech’s technology can turn plants up and down depending on demand: Nadav explained, “The very same unit can operate at very high production rates part of the day (when power rates are low for example) and in extremely low energy consumption the rest of the day.”

Desalitech does this by independently controlling component flow rates, recovery, pressures and cross flow irrespective of the other variables.

Following their successful pilot, Desalitech is addressing brackish water. Desalitech’s three BWRO installations are fully operational facilities, capable of producing 10,000 m3 fresh water per day.

Aerial top-dusting is a leading cause of water contamination / Photo: tjmartins on flickr

Researchers in Delaware are worried by high levels of nitrates recently discovered in groundwater and drinking water. A recent study found 76% of domestic wells contained nitrates. 18% of the wells exceed federal standards for drinking water.

Even some deep wells are affected, leading Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources to conclude that surface contaminants are penetrating natural barriers, meaning “ground-water quality in a significant fraction of confined aquifer wells is susceptible to human activities.”

Nitrates reach surface waters and groundwaters via septic systems, stormwater runoff and fertilizers used at farms, homes and businesses including golf courses. Nitrates threaten pregnant mothers, children and, in sufficient concentrations, nitrogen-rich waters precipitate eutrophication, contributing to dead-zones like in the Gulf of Mexico.

Nitrates that don’t directly enter surface waters and groundwaters are typically removed from the wastestream at wastewater treatment plants, either via efficient processes like Ostara’s Nutrient Removal Technology (which removes nitrogen in the from of NH3, aka ammonia) or via energy intensive processes utilizing aerobic bacteria.

But now a couple of rocket scientists and a waste expert from Stanford have devised a way to safely and efficiently dispose of nitrates while powering wastewater treatment plants without an external energy source.

Greenhouse Gases as Resources

Rocket Engines Burning Nitrous Oxide produce pure Nitrogen and Oxygen / Photo: Brian Cantwell at Stanford

As we’ve discussed previously, wastewater treatment processes utilizing aerobic bacteria require energy intensive aeration in order to operate (up to half of operating costs). Anaerobic bacteria require much less energy, but convert nitrates into nitrous oxide – a greenhouse gas 300 times more potent than C02 – and Natural Gas in the form of a methane biogas.

The scientists, Craig Criddle, Brian Cantwell, and Yaniv Scherson, have decided excess gases aren’t such a bad thing. In fact, they want to utilize produced Natural Gas to power wastewater treatment plants off-the-grid, enabling plants to be placed in areas without a reliable energy supply. The plants could recycle fresh water for water–stressed regions.

What happens to the nitrous oxide is equally remarkable.

The nitrous oxide is burned off in a small rocket engine. Says Cantwell, “When it decomposes, nitrous oxide breaks down into pure nitrogen and oxygen gas. At the same time, it releases enough energy to heat an engine to almost 3,000 degrees Fahrenheit, making it red hot, and it shoots out of the engine at almost 5,000 feet per second, producing enough thrust to propel a rocket.”

To propel a rocket, or, put to better use, to generate electricity.

The scientists’ plan harvests resources commonly occurring in wastewater. “For too long we’ve thought of treatment plants as places where we remove organic matter and waste nitrogen,” Criddle said. “We need to view these wastes as resources, not simply something to dispose of.”

Saving Money while Saving the World

In the developed world, the technology could produce wastewater treatment plants with low emissions (some natural gas will be emitted when combusted).

That’s important because wastewater treatment plants accounted for 4.9 TgCO2 equivalents of nitrous oxide in the US in 2008 (equivalent to 4.9 million metric tons of C02).

When you utilize instead of emitting the methane produced by wastewater treatment, which reached 24.3 TgCO2 in 2008, and eliminate expenditures and emissions from energy used to power aerators, you begin to see the scale of potential energy, emissions and cost savings.

It’s a remarkable advance: a self-sufficient, low-emission wastewater treatment plant that produces nitrate-free fresh water, thereby protecting water’s end-users: aquatic and human life.

Via PhysOrg / Stanford

Editor’s note: The energy exploration industry is the first to demand advanced water technology for economic reasons: water efficiency during hydraulic fracturing means cost savings. Advances in on-site water treatment for energy exploration will drive down costs for the technology to a point where it can be implemented in break-even or non-profitable situations, like personal housing and small to medium-size businesses, where demand will grow as current water infrastructure decays. Vikram Rao and peers will present on topics surrounding water use in energy exploration at an upcoming Artemis Project webinar.

MIT’s most recent report on energy is on the Future of Natural Gas, following similar reports on coal and nuclear energy.  It is co-edited by Ernest Moniz and Tony Meggs.  The latter recently left BP as CTO.  As reported in Forbes recently, the report emphasizes the role of shale gas in enabling natural gas substitution of coal.  The authors see this as a transitional strategy for a low carbon future.  We agree with that and have expressed similar ideas in the Directors Blog.

However, the report is surprisingly shy about discussing the environmental issues seen as facing shale gas exploitation.  While we believe these are indeed tractable, they merit much more discussion than they were given.  Accordingly we repair some of that omission here.

The most significant issues center on three matters:  fresh water withdrawals, flow back water and collateral issues, and produced water handling and disposal.

Fresh Water Withdrawals and Flow Back Water

Typical wells use between 3 and 5 million gallons per well.  Industry practice has been to use fresh water as the base for fracturing fluid.  The water that returns to the surface after the fracturing step is known as flow back water.  Shale operations are unique in that only about a quarter to a third of the water returns, the rest staying in the formation.  Also, the flow back water is usually more saline than the injected water.  So, in principle it cannot be re-used.

Handling salinity is the first step to water conservation.  The key is ability of the fracture water to tolerate some level of chlorides.  Recent research has shown that not only is this possible, but that it can be beneficial.  The chlorides actually stabilize the clay constituents of the shale and improve production, although companion chemicals such as friction reducers need to be modified.  This has two possible implications to water withdrawals.  One is that after some measure of treatment, the flow back water should be usable.  But because all of it does not return, withdrawals for make-up water will be necessary.  This is where the second implication comes in.  Moderately saline water from another source could be used since salinity is tolerable.  The most important implication of the foregoing is that flow back water could over time be completely re-used and this then ceases to be an issue with respect to discharge.

So, now let us discuss numbers.  In current practice the tolerance for chlorides is likely about 40,000 ppm.  Flow back water with higher salinity will need to be desalinated to some degree, or diluted by fresh water.  In some parts of the country this may be viable.  Another option could well be to use sea water, if that were to be the water of convenience.  Sea water tends to contain around 30,000 ppm chlorides.  That is already in the range of acceptability with the possible removal of some minor constituents.  Finally saline aquifers are a potential source.  These are in great abundance, with variable salinities.  Saline water wells drilled as companion to the gas wells are very likely in areas where fresh water withdrawals compete with agriculture or other endeavors.  In general, if the shale gas industry can utilize water unsuited to agriculture and human consumption, then it will be seen in a completely different light.

Produced Water

Water associated with the gas is produced at some stage of the recovery, usually towards the end of hydrocarbon production.  In some cases early production occurs due to infiltration of the fractures into the underlying saline water body often present.  Whether from connate water or the water layers below, produced water will be very saline, in part because of the age of the rock.  Disposal of this water is a major issue, especially in New York and Pennsylvania and can cost upwards of $10 per barrel, when even possible.  Concern regarding illegal discharge is high among the residents.

The treatment of produced water represents a significant business opportunity.  Several outfits are developing forward and reverse osmosis schemes for desalination.  Others are working on bacteria eradication, heavy metal removal and the like, using methods such as membrane filtration and ion exchange.  Some of these are already in service on a limited basis.

Produced water offers the promise of being usable for make-up water after some modest treatment.  The salinity may be directly tolerable but the bacteria would need to be removed prior to re-use.  This is because many of these cause the production of hydrogen sulfide downhole, which makes the gas less valuable and causes corrosion in the equipment.

Contamination of Drinking Water

There have been anecdotal reports of well water contamination by gas, most recently sensationalized by a documentary.  The popular literature ascribes two hypotheses to this phenomenon.  One is the migration of fracturing operation cracks from the reservoir up to the water body.  The other is gas leakage from the well.

Hydraulic fracture cracks will not propagate the significant distances to the aquifers.  Were they inclined to do so, they would heal due to the earth closure stresses.  In terms of distance, the closest fresh water aquifers are about 5000 ft. and 3000 ft. away, respectively, for the Barnett and the Marcellus.  So this really is not likely.

Gas leakage from the well is preventable if the well is drilled and completed correctly.  A fundamental feature of regulation has always been to design for isolation of fresh water in all petroleum exploitation, not just in the shale.  Between the produced fluids and the aquifer lie two layers of steel encased in cement.  The cementing operation is designed for preventing fluid migration.  Tests are run to ensure competence of the cement job and remedies are available for shortcomings.  At these shallow depths the operation is extremely straightforward and amenable to regulatory oversight.

Originally posted at Research Triangle Energy Consortium on the Director’s blog.

There’s an increasing concensus that natural gas will be America’s half-way house as we kick our fossil fuel habit. The difficulties lie in managing water use while extracting the transitional fuel.

Because of the near surety of a long-term natural gas industry, technologies devoted to treating produced water form one of the few sectors where regulation and commercial interests are combining to create significant and immediate market demand for advanced water technologies, especially on-site water management systems, which will be critical to sustained hydraulic fracturing operations during shale gas extraction.

However, as of yet, there isn’t a comprehensive description of the critical, functional elements of an on-site system capable of reliably, safely treating water produced by shale gas exploration.

We do understand some of the requirements, including rugged design, reliable remote telemetry, and the capability to identify and remove salts and minerals, but we also recognize the necessity of gathering leading minds to further develop specifications that will meet the challenges inherent in shale gas drilling.

For that purpose the Artemis Project is hosting a webinar that will gather an appropriately diverse group of experts to explore the challenges, solutions and investment opportunities surrounding efficient water management in energy exploration.

Register now

The webinar will occur on July 16 from 11:00am EST to 12:30pm. The webinar will be divided into two sessions.

Session 1: Trends and issues surrounding shale gas drilling.

• Bob Puls, Director of Research for the EPA’s Ground Water and Ecosystems Restoration Division, will brief the audience on current research into the impact of shale gas drilling on drinking water.
• Dr. Vikram Rao, the Director of the Research Triangle Energy Consortium and the former CTO of Halliburton, will discuss expected trends in shale gas exploration.
• Kathleen McGinty, Operating Partner at Element Partners and the former head of Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection and the White House Council on Environmental Quality, will speak on how regulation and commercial forces are driving use of new approaches in shale gas drilling.
• Kate Sinding, Senior Attorney at the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC) will speak on concerns that have emerged as shale gas drilling has begun in the United States.

Session 2: Relevant advanced water technologies addressing drilling issues.

• Precision design tools for rugged, reliable on-site water reclaim.
• Sensors to provide accurate remote oversight in rugged environments.
• Advanced water treatment approaches — from forward osmosis to electrolysis to remove contaminants from produced water.

Register now

TaKaDu, who we’ve written about previously here and here, recently announced they’ve partnered with Schneider Electric, a global energy management giant.

The partnership exposes TaKaDu to Schneider Electric’s customers in more than 100 countries, where TaKaDu will be deployed to identify inefficiencies in water management in an effort to reduce energy usage.

As Pascal Bonnefoi, water segment director at Schneider Electric, stated in a recent interview, “The Energy Bill represents on average one-third of the operating cost of the water utility. We need to do more with less –  and water is not an exception.”

Bonnefoi explains, “Schneider, as the leader in Energy Management, wants to focus on the key consumption points and for drinking water it is clearly the water distribution network. So we have to group under Schneider’s Energy Management services some process efficiency services, such as TaKaDu’s water network monitoring.”

So TaKaDu empowers Schneider Electric to improve efficiency by equipping them with an effective tool, while Schneider Electric offers TaKaDu global exposure and a giant two thumbs up by partnering with them.

As Amir Peleg, founder and CEO at TaKaDu, explained recently, “By smart management of water infrastructure, we let water utilities and their consumers do more with the same amount of water. Schneider is a great match for us because of its global presence and energy background  – water production takes energy, and reducing water loss also means reducing the energy spent to produce and distribute it.”

The partnership also serves to validate the visions of a smart-water grid we and Guy Horowitz from TaKaDu have described earlier, in which demand and supply are equalized and energy usage is as precise as possible.

Azzizia Desalination Plant in Saudi Arabia / Photo: Waleed Alzuhair on Flickr

Here’s some good news for advanced desalination technology companies.

Worldwide desalting capacity is projected to increase by 50 million cubic meters per day over the next six years, according to a recent study by Pike Research.

Meanwhile, annual spending on desalination will double by 2016, from $8.3b to $16.6 billion. Spending will total $87.8 billion during that time period.

The study projects the top five desalination markets will be Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, the United States, China and Israel.

Desalination’s rise can be attributed to decreasing accessible freshwater reserves as well as improvements in desalting technology, such as advanced membrane technologies, energy recovery and closed circuit hydrostatic desalination.

Forward osmosis operates with low water pressure, vastly reducing energy costs. Hydration Technology Innovations (HTI) has introduced a forward osmosis membrane to market.

Oasys Water is developing implementations of forward osmosis membranes based on technology developed at Yale. The technology promises to reduce costs for fresh water from desalination by 90%. The process uses artificially salted waters to draw fresh water through membranes and then uses waste heat to boil off the artificial salts, leaving only the fresh water.

Energy Recovery, Inc uses pressure exchangers to recover energy, saving one desalination plant in Perth 15.6 megawatts.

Desalitech does away with energy recovery, opting for closed circuit hydrostatic schemes instead, which equalizes flow rates for the pressurized feed and the permeate, reducing energy usage by 50% and achieving 50% recovery.

One Artemis Top 50 company, Rotech, has developed advances in desalinating brackish water, meaning the 30% of the world’s population living over 80km from the sea can extract fresh water from formerly unusable brackish groundwater.

The efficiencies are such that renewable energy can be affordably harnessed to power desalination plants, resulting in vastly reduced carbon footprints, a vital step to ensuring affordable sustainability as governments begin to levy carbon taxes.

A fishing boat is dwarfed by smoke from burning oil / Photo: Deepwater Horizon Response on Flickr

Seven weeks after the explosion on the Deepwater Horizon oil platform, oil slicks have inundated the shores of mainland United States. Traditional oil recovery methods have proved inept.

BP has collected only 25 million gallons of oil and water from the surface of the Gulf and burned 238,000 barrels into the atmosphere — leaving plenty of oil to suffocate marshes, turn beaches black and poison marine life. A normally optimistic friend of mine recently joked that BP had discovered an organic, biodegradable material to absorb oil: pelicans.

That cynicism is poisonous, but it is not without justification. With over 100,000 solutions proposed via a highly publicized suggestion line, BP, the US Government and sub-contractors have plenty of available, established technologies to choose from. And yet, from many accounts, the technology sits idle along the gulf, waiting for permission to deploy.

For example, as we reported last week, Ecosphere Technologies signed a letter of intent with Mid-Gulf Recovery Services two weeks ago. Prompted by your (and our) curiosity about the lack of news reporting a deployment, we spoke with Charles Vinick, Chairman at Ecosphere.

He told us Ecosphere has two processing units waiting in New Orleans ready to deploy and has received permission from a client, Southwestern Energy, to move more units to the gulf as soon as they’re ordered to deploy. In addition, Ecosphere is preparing to produce more units, in the case the deployment develops into a long-term contract. At this point, they’re just waiting for the word, “Go.” But there’s no way to know how long they’ll be waiting.

Similarly, AbTech Industries, who we’ve reported on twice, told us via their public relations firm that they and we would have to wait two to three more weeks for word on their technology’s implementation in the gulf. Kevin Costner’s Ocean Therapy Solutions didn’t deploy their technology for over a month after announcing their agreement with BP.

It’s not an unusual situation. Many companies with viable solutions are voicing their frustration at delays. Some have received no more than a form letter expressing interest. BP has outlined a four-stage gauntlet that a suggestion must run in order to be implemented on the gulf.

The process involves initial filtering by 70 BP employees who forward the best ideas to a second stage for vetting by 43 engineers from BP, the Coast Guard and other agencies. A third stage involves feasibility tests by smaller teams of engineers. If a suggestion makes it through stage three, operations staff within BP advise if the suggestion should receive real-world testing. The process takes weeks: even when a suggestion is accepted, BP or their sub-contractors must then negotiate with the technologies’ owners.

Unacceptable nonchalance

While it is common sense to vet and test new technologies, the urgency of this crisis is not matched by the vetting process. During peace there is ample time for perfection, but during crisis, leaders must prioritize prolificacy.

In some industries, business methodologies have shifted from, “Plan for six months to make sure we get it right the first time,” to, “Given short deadlines, release a product in two weeks. Then release an improved version of that product two weeks later.” This “Agile Methodology” has transformed the process of designing software and websites, delivering working products to market in weeks instead of years and thereby accelerating innovation (remember how long Google’s GMail was in beta?).

FDR addresses US following Pearl Harbor, beginning the largest mobilization in the US' history.

While Agile Methodology was developed for software, its principles can be applied to flexible product development. In the case of BP’s oil spill, agility would prescribe an all-hands-on-deck approach to oil spill response, deploying any and every plausible, safe solution immediately, regardless of absolute efficiency and proven effectiveness. Then, adapt the deployment as necessity dictates, gradually favoring the technologies that prove themselves most effective and efficient.

The greatest objection to a massive, immediate deployment will be from those worried about damaging the environment by deploying potentially harmful, undertested technologies. However, the rule of law still applies, and irresponsible companies and individuals will be prosecuted, just as profiteers are punished during wartime.

A second answer to the objection is to set simple principles to govern permitted products, such as “no non-solid or leaching unnatural or synthetic substances” (whoops, there went dispersants) and “water returned to the ocean must be cleaner than it was before”.

BP Oil Spill Covers Gulf / Image: NASA and the MODIS Rapid Response Team

And while potentially harmful technologies are a valid concern, we have to remind the objectors: the majority of the northern Gulf of Mexico is now covered with a toxic substance and the primary response thus far has been to utilize another potentially toxic substance and to dispose of said toxic substances in toxic ways. Really: air bubbles, SmartSponges and clay can’t be as bad as dispersants and burning oil.

Further, while negotiations are a normal part of business operations, BP is not in a position to make demands. Any progress cleaning up the oil spill will be in the interests of both the contracted company and BP itself; therefore, delays at the negotiation stage are counterproductive.

Still further, shareholders should not concern themselves with how much cleaning up the oil spill will cost. They should be concerned about how much NOT cleaning up the oil spill will cost over the next decades, especially as current cleanup costs escalate. BP has spent $100 million a day for the past three days, up from $6 million a day at the beginning of the crisis.

Initial deployment of a flotilla of advanced water technologies might increase those costs initially, but as effective, efficient technologies can be identified by real-world testing, the cost of the flotilla could rapidly decrease, eventually reducing overall recovery costs and certainly mitigating long-term reparations.

BP Oil Spill Covers Gulf / Image: NASA and the MODIS Rapid Response Team

Another Artemis Top 50 Company is deploying their technology to the Gulf to aid clean up of the still growing BP oil spill.

Ecosphere Technologies signed a letter-of-intent with Mid-Gulf Recovery Services, LLC to deploy Ecosphere’s Ozonix technology to clean up the “Gulf’s marshes and inland waterways,” according to Glen Smith, CEO of Mid-Gulf Recovery Services.

The Ozonix Deep Water Recovery Process, recently patent-pending, is “a non-chemical water treatment system specifically built for removing oil and chemicals from water.” It works by generating millions of “micro bubbles”, creating a “buoyancy blanket” that lifts oil rapidly to the surface of the gulf.

Ozonix increases the concentration of oil on the surface of the Gulf, simplifying oil recovery (Click to view larger)

By forcing oil to surface quickly, the oil has less time to spread as it rises. The increased concentration on the surface simplifies the process of extracting the oil from the water.

View a visual presentation of the process (pdf).

Ecosphere’s technology won the endorsement of Jean-Michel Cousteau, the famed ocean explorer and President of Ocean Futures Society: “Ecosphere has been providing its patented Ozonix technology to help major energy companies recycle their frac waters by eliminating chemical biocides. We must now use this same technology to help restore our seas and shores while protecting the habitats of the marine and wildlife of the Gulf Coast. Now is the time for action, action, action and this is technology that needs to be put to work immediately.”

Using air is obviously a more environmentally friendly solution than using potentially hazardous chemical dispersants. It’s refreshing to see modern technology finally deployed to the Gulf, however late it is in coming.

Electrogenic Bacteria with Nanowires

The Cost of Waste

Treating wastewater is expensive. Yet, 70% of the cost to run a wastewater treatment plant is in two elements: electricity to power the aeration blowers and residual sludge treatment. An emerging technology promises to eliminate those costs.

The treatment method, Microbial Fuel Cells (MFCs), developed by a number of companies including Emefcy, an Artemis Top 50 Company, reduces energy consumption to zero, produces green electricity to be fed into the grid and reduces excess sludge by 80%.

The Old Way

Conventional wastewater treatment relies on aerobic bacteria to munch organic contamination, resulting in a 50% reduction in dry weight. The remaining 50%, sludge, settles to the bottom of sedimentation  basins  and following a series of treatment processes is removed to landfills or disposed of as fertilizer.

Aerobic bacteria require oxygen, so compressors blow air into the aeration basins. As the bacteria break the organic waste into smaller and smaller molecular chains, electrons are discharged. The dissolved oxygen molecules in the water capture the electrons, creating oxidization.

In the mean time, the oxygen energizes the bacteria, which undergo mitosis, multiplying like microscopic rabbits. All of which end up as sludge on the bottom of the treatment basin, destined for landfills. Half of every dry tonne of incoming organic waste becomes sludge. But sludge is not dry: it’s 20% solids and 80% water, meaning every dry tonne of incoming organic waste turns into 2.5 tonnes of sludge that must be thickened, dewatered, digested and dried through an expensive process and then exported.

A New Way

Microbial Fuel Cells rely on a different sort of bacteria: electrogenic. As their name denotes, electrogenic bacteria generate electricity. Kept in an anaerobic chamber and fed raw wastewater, the bacteria attempt to ferry electrons through a conductive cable to the oxygen rich chamber on the other side.  The flow of electrons through this cable, from the wastewater section to the air section generates electric current.

Emefcy's MegaWatter Modules

Shuttled up the wire, the green electric current is fed into the energy grid where it’s used to run microwaves and the latest episode of Glee.

In the mean time, the bacteria remain in the anaerobic chamber. They don’t need compressors (saving electricity), because they don’t need the oxygen. And since most of their energy is stolen by the cable, the rate of mitosis is limited. Only 10% of each dry tonne of incoming waste ends up as sludge. It’s an 80% reduction in sludge production.

For each kilogram of incoming organic contamination, microbial fuel cells net 1 kilowatt-hour of electricity. 2/3 of that is savings from efficiency (MFCs don’t require air compressors) and 1/3 is energy produced during the treatment process.

Application Example – Intraindustry Collaboration

The effluent from MFCs isn’t bad, but it isn’t great either. Enter Membrane Bio Reactors (MBRs). MBRs have lauded themselves as the next big thing in wastewater treatment, namely because they produce pristine effluent. Yet, they consume energy like a flock of Hummers. On their own they’re even less efficient than traditional wastewater treatment.

However, coupled with MFCs, they become efficient. First, MFCs send MBRs 90% less waste to filter from the water, reducing the energy intensive workload. Second, MFCs produce enough electricity to compensate for the MBRs’ demands. Combined, MFCs and MBRs are far more efficient than traditional treatment methods, and the effluent they create together is purer than drinking water.

By adding intelligence to water management, utilities and corporations can increase efficiency / Photo: hotreactor on flickr

Though Smart Water offers equal or potentially greater benefits than Smart Energy, Smart Water isn’t getting equal coverage.

It’s been a great year for the Smart Grid. Entrepreneurs, venture capitalists, analysts, journalists, and regulators can’t stop talking about it. Experts are competing to project greater market potential. Zpryme puts the Smart Appliance market alone at $15.2bn by 2015, Lux Research talks about $15.8bn, Cisco estimates the overall  opportunity at $100bn and Pike research uses a whopping $200bn figure.

Giants like Cisco and IBM have set aside billions to fund Smart Grid activities. The US government has kept up, allocating hefty tax credits and incentives for Smart Grid development, with $3.4bn from the stimulus bill granted to 100 smart-grid initiatives last October. VCs are investing heavily, as these three lists show. But while we anticipate the first Smart Grid IPO (market-permitting) from Silver Spring Networks, we’ve got to wonder out loud: Why isn’t water being served at this party?

Urban water distribution systems are not exactly ‘grids’.  A lot of energy (and money) is invested in water production, treatment, distribution and reuse, but current water systems don’t comprehensively measure usage in real-time. Without measurement, there is no data to base grid management upon. The electric Smart Grid leverages the proliferation of measurement points collecting large amounts of (largely untapped) data, but this is not the case in water networks.

Nevertheless, even sparse data can take a utility a long way, without consumer-side measurement. Analysis is the real enabler of the Smart Grid, and if you are able to collect the data, clean it and then crunch it in a meaningful way, you can manage your network more effectively, the way it’s done in IT or Telecom networks. The result may be higher efficiency in water use, optimized energy expenditure and obviously consumer-side savings.

What exactly does a Smart Water Grid do? Take a look at the definition of the Smart Grid, and now consider the following moderate adaptation to the water space:

A Smart Water Grid delivers water from suppliers to consumers using two-way digital technology to control consumption at consumers’ homes to save water, reduce cost and increase reliability and transparency. It overlays the water distribution system with an information and net metering system.
A Smart Water Grid includes an intelligent monitoring system that keeps track of all water flowing in the system. It also incorporates the use of monitored water mains for less water loss, as well as the capability of integrating renewable water. When water is least expensive the user can allow to the Smart Water Grid to turn on selected water-consuming appliances such as sprinklers or water boilers that can run at arbitrary hours.

While parts of this vision are still a few good years away, the data revolution in the water space has already begun. In fact, analyzing available flow and pressure data to determine anomalies in real-time or scheduling pumps and valves according to energy consumption peaks and lows is already part of the Smart Water definition today. There’s no shortage of data in distribution networks, even if we’ve yet to see universal adoption of Automated Meter Reading and online transmitting meters. At TaKaDu, for example, we have been working with water utilities to introduce network intelligence into their distribution systems by applying advanced algorithms to pre-existing data — which is a huge leap en route to gaining full control over the system. Other companies, like i2o, AUG signals and more, are deploying smart sensors into the network. These are all building blocks of the Smart Water Grid.

Industry giants such as Siemens, IBM and Oracle have also been talking about a smarter way to manage water networks, and have even used the explicit ‘grid’ terminology in their recent announcements about plunging into Smart Water. But the billions being poured into the smart electrical grid market through government initiatives, venture capital investments and corporate allocations have missed, at least thus far, the Smart Water Grid. Yes, VCs are investing in water technologies, but the lion’s share is going into capital-intensive processes for desalination, treatment, reuse etc.  To catalyze a new wave of investment, many VCs would like to find more “capital efficient” ventures (one of the buzzwords du jour in that community).

However, we’re seeing signs of a change. Experts and analysts are talking about the intersection of Water and IT.  Some VCs, our own investors included, have singled out Smart Water as an area of focus. Innovative water utilities are also starting to talk about the Smart Water network, and water technology companies are developing solutions to meet their needs.

Sure, it will be a while before each tap and sprinkler is smart and connected. To make the water complex a true ‘grid’ would require massive deployment of remotely accessible and always-on consumer metering, which will take quite a few years. The Smart Water revolution is starting with smarter distribution, improved water infrastructure monitoring, and intelligent asset management. But just like water, innovation and capital are flowing along the distribution network, and will eventually make their way to a faucet near you.

Guy Horowitz is VP of Marketing at TaKaDu, a Water Infrastructure Monitoring vendor and Artemis 50 Company.