Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Energy Conversion and Management

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enconman

The potential of (waste)water as energy carrier

Jos Frijns ⇑, Jan Hofman, Maarten Nederlof
KWR Watercycle Research Institute, P.O. Box 1072, 3430 BB Nieuwegein, The Netherlands

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Next to energy efficiency improvements in the water sector, there is a need for new concepts in which
Received 10 January 2011 water is viewed as a carrier of energy. Municipal wastewater is a potential source of chemical energy,
Received in revised form 30 August 2012 i.e. organic carbon that can be recovered as biogas in sludge digestion. The recovery of chemical energy
Accepted 30 August 2012
can be maximised by up-concentration of organic carbon and maximised sludge digestion or by source
Available online 17 October 2012
separation and anaerobic treatment. Even more so, domestic wastewater is a source of thermal energy.
Through warm water conservation and heat recovery, for example with shower heat exchangers, sub-
Keywords:
stantial amounts of energy can be saved and recovered from the water cycle. Water can also be an impor-
Energy generation and recovery
Organic carbon
tant renewable energy source, i.e. as underground thermal energy storage. These systems are developing
Biogas rapidly in the Netherlands and their energy potential is large.
Heat Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Underground thermal energy
(Waste)Water

1. Introduction Directive has resulted in additional nitrogen and phosphorus re-

Climate change has challenged the water sector to optimise the
energy use and limit greenhouse gas emissions of its operations.
The number of examples of energy measures in water production
and treatment is growing rapidly. The Global Water Research
Coalition prepared a compendium of best practices of energy-effi-
ciency in the water industry. In the Netherlands, drinking water
companies benchmark their energy consumption and have imple-
mented energy-efficient production techniques and optimised
distribution systems. The wastewater sector decided in 2008 to
take part in a long-term agreement on energy efficiency with the
Dutch government, with the aim to achieve a 30% energy efficiency
improvement in the coming 12 years. Measures that reduce the
energy use such as bubble aeration and aeration control systems,
are becoming common practice in (new) wastewater treatment
plants.
The focus on energy efficiency measures is very much needed to
reduce the carbon footprint of the water sector. However, more
substantial improvements will be necessary as it is expected that
more advanced and energy intensive treatment will be required
to adhere to future demands and quality standards and to adapt
to climate change.
In the water sector, present environmental policy poses a para-
dox between the need to improve effluent quality while at the
same time reducing energy consumption during treatment opera-
tions [1]. Legislation such as the Urban Waste Water Treatment
moval practices at wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) in the
EU. Also targeted action against sewer overflows has resulted in
more wastewater reaching WWTPs, further increasing energy con-
sumption. The Water Framework Directive aims to achieve ‘good’
ecological status for all waters and to eliminate pollution by dan-
gerous substances. Elimination of hormones and medicine residues
could require the provision of highly advanced energy intensive
treatment processes both at drinking water production and WWTP
in the near future. Hoibye et al. [2] estimate an increase of 0.12 kg
CO2e/m3 emissions from additional treatment steps to adhere to
the Water Framework Directive (an increase of about 10%).
Also climate change itself will result in higher energy consump-
tion for drinking water production. Droughts, rainstorms, seawater
intrusion groundwater salinisation, for example, will have a de-
cline in the availability and quality of water resources [3]. The
likely use of alternative sources (brackish groundwater, wastewa-
ter) will require energy-intensive treatment processes.
Clearly, energy optimisation is not enough. Future demands re-
quire a new integrated approach in the full water cycle. New con-
cepts will be needed in which water is viewed as a carrier of carbon
energy and heat, and as a source for renewable energy. This paper
presents a quantitative overview of the possible climate mitigation
options in the domestic water cycle for energy recovery and energy
generation.
2. Energy use and the carbon footprint of the water sector

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +31 30 6069583; fax: +31 30 6061165. The production and distribution of drinking water for house-
E-mail address: jos.frijns@kwrwater.nl (J. Frijns). holds, the transport of sewerage, and the treatment of wastewater

0196-8904/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2012.08.023
358 J. Frijns et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363
Table 1
Yearly energy consumption of the Dutch communal water sector (2008).
Capacity (Mm3/y) Electrical (MWh/y)
Drinking water 789 395
Sewerage 1928 212
Wastewater treatment 1928 (24.4 M p.e.) 583
Warm tap water 2000b
a
Primary energy: 1 kW h = 9.0 MJ, 1 Nm3 natural gas = 31.65 MJ, 1 Nm3 biogas = 25 MJ (TJ = 106 MJ).
b
Estimate based on percentage of domestic electricity consumption used for heating tap water.
drinking
water
26%
sewerage
waste 7%
water
67%
Fig. 1. Carbon footprint distribution of the Dutch water cycle (excluding residential warm water use).
requires energy for pumping, aeration, etc. In Table 1, energy con-
sumption data from the Dutch communal water sector are pre-
sented (data sources from Frijns et al. [4]). The average energy
use for the production and distribution of drinking water is
0.5 kWh/m3 and for wastewater treatment 26.6 kWh/population
equivalent (p.e.) removed.
Thus, the total primary energy consumption of the Dutch water
industry sector is 13,600 TJ/y. The energy generation of biogas
from sludge digestion in wastewater treatment systems is ac-
counted for. Not included is the energy demand from sludge end
treatment (incineration and drying). Also not included is the indi-
rect energy demand from chemicals used.
The energy demand for warm tap water in houses is almost
eight times more than for the whole water production and treat-
ment: about 105,700 TJ/y for the Netherlands. This resembles
about 7.5 million tons CO2-equivalents per year.
The global warming potential of the total energy consumption
in the water industry sector is 934,800 tons CO2e per year. Energy
use accounts for 56% of the carbon footprint of the water sector
(see fig. 1). The other contributions to the carbon footprint are from
process emissions (methane and nitrous oxide) and indirect emis-
sions (energy used for chemicals and the organisation). In total, the
carbon footprint of the Dutch public water sector is estimated to be
1.67 million tons CO2e per year, or 1.5 kg CO2e per m3 domestic
water [4]. When compared to the overall footprint of the Nether-
lands (212 million tons CO2e per year) and compared to other sec-
tors, e.g. industry or transportation, the carbon footprint of the
water sector is small. The substantial contribution from process
emissions of CH4 and N2O underlines the importance to consider
measures to reduce these emissions (see Frijns et al. [4]). In this pa-
per, however, emphasis is on the energy use and possibilities to
gain energy from water.
3. Water as energy carrier
Water and wastewater, or better called ‘resource water’, resem-
ble a value as it contains water, nutrients and energy. Table 2 pre-
sents an overview of examples of water as a carrier of energy. In
this paper we discuss the following cases in point, having a high
potential of energy generation, recovery and storage from water:
Natural gas (M Nm3/y) Biogas produced (M Nm3/y) TJ/ya MJ/unit
3550 4.5 MJ/m3
1910 1 MJ/m3
30.2 77.4 8150 4.2 MJ/m3 (334 MJ/p.e.)
2770 105,700 14,580 MJ/house
indirect
emissions
8%
process
emissions energy use
36% 56%
 Organic carbon (recovery of chemical (bio)energy through gen-
eration of biogas)
 Heat (recovery of thermal energy from wastewater)
 Underground thermal energy (groundwater as a sustainable
energy source)
In the following sections we present the chemical and thermal
energy potential of (waste)water. Both the theoretical maximum
potential and the actual potential in practice are discussed.
4. Chemical energy recovery
Wastewater is a rich source of organic matter and thus a carrier
of carbon energy. In current practices this energy potential is only
partly recovered. At the same time, the commonly applied acti-
vated sludge treatment plants consume substantial amounts of en-
ergy for aeration. During oxidation, the chemical energy present in
COD is lost as metabolic heat. Part of the energy is recovered by
digestion of the sludge. Sludge digestion is already common prac-
tice at many wastewater treatment facilities in the Netherlands,
producing 95 million Nm3 biogas in 2006 (or a potential value of
2,215 TJ). This biogas is converted in a combined heat and power
system to electricity (143 MW h) and heat (used for heating the
digestion reactor). WWTP with pre-settling and sludge digestion
on average consume 40% less net energy compared to WWTP with-
out sludge digestion.
More energy can be recovered with systems using anaerobic
treatment. The main problem for direct anaerobic treatment is that
the sewage is too diluted to have optimal digestion and at moder-
ate temperatures a significant part of the produced methane (up to
40% [7]) is dissolved in the effluent. This dissolved methane ulti-
mately contributes to climate change. Indeed, uncontrolled anaer-
obic treatment systems, such as septic tanks, sewers, lagoons or
untreated wastewater, release substantial amounts of CH4 emis-
sions [8]. Properly controlled anaerobic treatment and sludge
digestion, provided a minimisation of methane leakage and opti-
mal use of biogas, significantly reduce the greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Biogas use not only reduces the emitted CH4 but also take
into account the CO2e reduction associated with the fossil energy
that would be otherwise needed.
 J. Frijns et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363 359

Table 2
Examples of water as carrier of energy.

Energy type Description Application

Organic carbon The sludge produced in WWTPs can be digested, i.e. biogas is
produced, or incinerated
Heat Heated water in houses is spent to the drain and can be recovered as
thermal energy
Underground The stored underground thermal energy is used for the delivery of
thermal energy cooling and low temperature heating combined with heat pumps.
There are open (aquifer ATES) and closed (borehole BTES) thermal
energy storage systems
Geo-thermic energy The heat of deep underground layers is used for heating
Hydropower Hydroelectricity is generated by hydropower through use of the
gravitational force of falling water
Tidal Tidal energy is a form of hydropower that converts the energy of tides
into electricity
Kinetic In large-scale water management systems, small-scale hydro or micro-
turbines systems could recover kinetic energy from the water flow
Algae Wastewater can be applied for biomass production of algae.
Bio-electricity Microbial fuel cells use bacteria as the catalysis to oxidise organic and
inorganic matter and generate electric current, thus
Osmotic Blue energy. There is significant potential to obtain energy from
mixing water streams with different salt concentrations. This salinity-
gradient energy is available, where fresh water streams flow into the
sea. From this, electricity can be generated by reverse electrodialysis
Hydrogen To produce hydrogen from water, energy is required for electrolysis. H2
is only an energy carrier, preferably produced with renewable
technologies, such as wind turbines. With dark fermentation H2 can be
produced from wastewater sludge
Sludge digestion is common practice. Maximisation possible by up-
concentrating organic carbon, efficient biogas conversion, co-digestion.
Further discussed in this article
Heat recovery at houses is applied mainly in new residential areas.
Heat recovery at WWTP is only just emerging. Further discussed in this
article
Rapidly growing. Most ATES projects are realised in large buildings.
Further discussed in this article
Technique is growing, but in initial stage still
Large hydro-electricity systems in operation worldwide
Only one major tidal generating station in Europe (France)
Few examples only, applied at water reservoirs and sewage outfalls
Algae production in water ponds or photobioreactors is being
investigated as a source for the production of biofuel
Research only on the production of bio-electricity from wastewater
The worldwide physical-chemical potential of all river water flowing
to the sea is estimated to be 2.5 TW. Experiments show a potential
energy yield of >1.2 MJ per m3 of river water [5]. A pilot scale blue
energy plant is envisaged at the Afsluitdijk (Netherlands)
Experiments showed 200 ml H2/g COD production from domestic
sewage [6]. Although larger demonstration projects are available,
breakthrough is not expected in the near future. Storage and safety is
still problematic

4.1. Potential energy value from organic carbon in wastewater 4.2. Maximising the carbon energy recovery

The methane production is determined by the amount of
degradable organic fraction in wastewater (BOD or COD). Factors
that influence CH4 production include temperature, pH, retention
time, competition between methanogens and sulfate reducing bac-
teria, toxicants (e.g. O2), and the type and degree of wastewater
treatment [8].
The maximum production of CH4 from COD removal in anaero-
bic systems is fixed by stochiometry for methanogenesis: 0.25 kg
CH4/kg COD. The methane production of anaerobic treatment is
0.35 Nm3 CH4/kg COD removed. It is assumed that the entire or-
ganic fraction is converted to CH4. The caloric value of CH4 is
35.9 MJ/Nm3 (biogas consists of 65% CH4, having a caloric value
of 21–25 MJ/Nm3). Thus, the maximum potential energy from
1 kg COD removed is 0.35 Nm3 CH4  35.9 MJ/m3 = 12.6 MJ.
However, under favourable conditions, only about 80% of the
COD (volatile fatty acids, e.g. acetate) can be converted to methane.
On the basis of 80% organic matter recovery as biogas with
0.35 Nm3 CH4/kg COD removed, the potential methane recovery
from municipal sewage is estimated to be 0.14 Nm3 CH4 per m3
sewage [7].
The theoretical maximum potential annual energy value from
organic carbon in municipal wastewater in the Netherlands
(1928 million m3 with a COD load of about 946,000 tons) is
11,900 TJ. This assumes that all COD in the wastewater is recovered
as biogas. As only 80% of the COD can be converted to methane, the
actual maximum potential energy would be 9400 TJ; a 4 times
higher energy recovery than the current potential value from
sludge digestion (2215 TJ/y). Obviously to gain this potential
would require maximum conversion of COD to sludge for diges-
tion, maximum methane production from sludge digestion and
maximum energy conversion and utilisation of the biogas. We will
now turn to these treatment designs aimed at a maximum recov-
ery of organic carbon energy.
Greenfield and Batstone [9] have analysed the energy require-
ments of different wastewater treatment scenario’s. They conclude
that anaerobic digestion is critical to energy minimisation. Further-
more, to minimise energy usage, wastewater plant operations
should aim at minimising internal heating (for sludge disgestion),
maximising solid digestion and solid separation and maximising
activated sludge production (generally by decreasing sludge age).
The recovery of carbon energy in wastewater can be maximised
by organic carbon concentration for anaerobic conversion to bio-
gas. This can be achieved by:
 Up-concentration and maximised sludge digestion.
 Source separation and anaerobic treatment.
If further carbon sources are supplemented, such as kitchen
waste added in the decentralised system through kitchen grinders,
or solid communal organic waste added in the centralised system
with sludge digestion, a net energy producing water cycle is feasi-
ble and in fact has been demonstrated. Both approaches are dis-
cussed below.
4.3. Up-concentration and maximised sludge digestion
This concept consists of a first stage in which a maximal sludge
production is achieved. Dissolved COD is converted to suspended
solids and removed as sludge; aeration requirements will be min-
imised. The COD in the sludge can be digested to yield methane for
energy generation (or dried and incinerated).
There are several methods available for organic carbon concen-
tration: examples are settling, sieving, bio-flocculation, A/B-pro-
cess. A disadvantage of these concentrating techniques is that
they still consume a large amount of energy. Further improvement
can be found in technologies that require less energy to collect
360 J. Frijns et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363
sludge. A promising development may be forward osmosis [10]
and dynamic filtration [11].
Verstraete et al. [7] discuss several up-concentration processes
such as dynamic sand filtration, dissolved air flotation, membrane
filtration and biological sorption. They propose a waste-to-energy
strategy based on up-concentration of wastewater followed by
anaerobic digestion and maximal reuse of the mineral nutrients.
After up-concentration, freshwater can be recovered with UF/RO,
energy can be recovered by anaerobic digestion, and nutrients
can be recovered by a filter press. Verstraete et al. [7] estimate that
the total cost of this new conceptual design is comparable to that
of conventional aerobic treatment which has little or no reuse.
Obviously, these efforts to maximise the COD conversion in
digestion should be harmonised with a more sustainable N-re-
moval. Not only is energy needed for oxidation of ammonium, also
COD is needed for the removal of nitrogen during nitrification.
Moreover, the amount of N-rich reject water will increase from
maximised sludge digestion and its conventional treatment is
highly energy consuming. Sharon/Anammox systems, however, ca-
ter for an energy-efficient technology to remove the high nitrogen
content of reject water from digesters. Depending on the condi-
tions, partial nitrification followed by anaerobic ammonium oxida-
tion requires about 60–85% less energy for aeration compared to
traditional systems [12].
In 2009, four Dutch water boards have initiated a project for the
WWTP as energy factory (www.energiefabriek.com). The idea is
that, using available technologies, a WWTP could become energy
neutral by maximising the recovery of chemical energy from
wastewater in sludge disgestion. This would require improved pre-
settlement, a higher energy-efficiency of the gas motor, and sepa-
rate treatment of reject sludge water for N-removal (Sharon-
Anammox). An energy producing WWTP could become feasible
with the application of fuel cells and sludge pretreatment (CAMBI).
In future, the project foresees that additional energy production
from sludge can be achieved with supercritical gasification.
4.4. Source separation and anaerobic treatment
A promising development is the introduction of new sanitation
concepts based on the separate collection of urine and/or black
water. In fact, this concept is a decentralised approach for up-con-
centration of organic matter. These systems show a positive energy
balance [13] as less water is used for flushing and transport, less
organics and nutrients need to be oxidised at wastewater treat-
ment plants, and black water is being digested. Combined with
the reduced water use, black water systems can gain 38 kg CO2e
per household per year [4]. Co-digestion with kitchen waste will
further increase the energy gain. Moreover, nutrients can be
recovered.
Separate collection of black water via a vacuum toilet requires a
very small volume of water since only a minimal flush is required.
This black water is digested and purified in a UASB-septic tank.
Anaerobic treatment in a UASB-septic tank is the central technol-
ogy of these so-called DESAR (Decentralised Sanitation and Reuse)
concepts. Experiments with digestion of black water and kitchen
waste of 2300 inhabitants by an UASB reactor working at 25 °C, re-
vealed a net energy production of 65,700 kWh(therm)/y (equiva-
lent to 8200 Nm3 natural gas, 80% CH4) plus 60,450 kWh(electr)/
y [14]. The system is capable of converting about 40% of the COD
load to biogas. Sufficient biogas is produced even under sub-opti-
mal conditions to cover the energy requirements of the reactor
(heating) and the vacuum toilet installation, and leaving surplus
energy. Addition of kitchen waste is at least doubling the biogas
production. In comparison to conventional sanitation, the total
energy saving of this new sanitation concept amounts to 200 MJ
per person per year [15].
Application on a pilot scale with separate collection of black and
grey wastewater at 32 rental accommodations in a neighbourhood
in Sneek (Netherlands) show that a net energy production by treat-
ment of concentrated black water is indeed possible (about 13 l/d
CH4 per p.e. produced, or 2.4 Nm3 CH4 per m3 black water). Obvi-
ously, the introduction of these new sanitation concepts require
significant retrofit at the individual residential level, and the re-
sults are dependent on large scale acceptance and implementation.
Currently the pilot in Sneek is being extended to 232 new houses.
4.5. Co-digestion
Next to co-digestion of kitchen waste in on-site systems, also co-
digestion at WWTPs can result in an energy self-sufficient operation
and even a surplus energy production. Digestion of organic waste is
rather similar to the anaerobic sludge stabilisation and the treat-
ment of the two waste fractions in existing facilities on WWTPs
can be attractive. For example, co-digestion of sludge from grease
skimming tanks at the wastewater treatment plant Grevesmühlen
in Germany achieved a 4-times increased gas yield, resulting in
on-site energy generation in gas engines of 113% of the electricity
consumed for plant operation [16]. Also in the Netherlands quite
a lot of experience has been gained with co-digestion (e.g. Water
Board Stichtse Rijnlanden co-digests the vegetation clippings of
their water ditches). Preferably easily convertible organic matter,
such as vegetable oil residue from restaurants, is co-digested, limit-
ing the amount of sludge remains. Although attractive, we have to
be aware that less biomass is available for other processes (com-
posting, direct biogas production) relying on organic waste.
4.6. Efficient biogas conversion and optimised biogas use
To accelerate the digestion and enhance the production of bio-
gas, various pre-treatments can be used. Pre-treatment is aimed at
a disintegration of sludge cells, thus solubilising organic material
into biodegradable volatile solids. Using for example thermal
hydrolysis as a pre-treatment (CAMBI), an increase of biogas pro-
duction by 150% is reported [17]. Thermal pre-treatment requires
the input of heat at the expense of using some of the biogas.
The current average electrical efficiency of biogas engines is
35%. Only part of the heat generated in a combined heat power
(CHP) system is used at the WWTP and excess heat is not used
and often even energy-intensively cooled and released. The poten-
tial energy in biogas can be better utilised by installing new CHP
with an electric efficiency of >40%, and by utilising the excess heat
for central heating of nearby offices and houses. If demand and
supply of heat are well tuned total efficiencies (electricity and
heat) of 80–90% can be achieved. Excess heat of the sludge digester
at WWTP Apeldoorn is nowadays used for central heating of a res-
idential neighbourhood (2500 houses).
Alternatively, biogas can be transported in a green gas net to
industries that can convert the biogas and utilise the electricity
and heat at a higher efficiency than at a WWTP. Instead of biogas
conversion in a CHP to electricity and heat, the biogas can also
be converted to green gas and supplied to the natural gas net.
For example, green gas from the sludge digestion of WWTP Bever-
wijk (yearly production of 650.000 Nm3) is supplied to 350 house-
holds for heating and cooking. This enrichment and enhanced
potential of biogas use can only be achieved after removing the
CO2, water vapour and contaminants (see for an overview of
enrichment methods Appels et al. [17]).
4.7. Sludge incineration
Sludge incineration (using dried sludge for power generation) is
likewise an energy generation method. The yearly amount of
 J. Frijns et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363
dewatered sludge for the Netherlands is 1.6 million tons (22% ds).
About half of the sludge is incinerated, one third is thermally dried
(followed by co-incineration in power plants or cement furnace)
and the rest biologically dried. Part of the thermal drying process
is done with excess heat from neighbouring industries. The energy
efficiency of these processes strongly depends upon the dewater-
ing and drying step.
In principle, when direct incineration is applied, the full 100% of
the carbon energy is available. The potential energy from organic
carbon in wastewater can be derived from the combustion enthal-
py from the organics in the water:
C6 H12 O6 þ 6O2 ! 6CO2 þ 6H2 O DHc ¼ 2; 808 kJ=mol
From the organic matter in sludge from WWTPs in the Nether-
lands (about 210,000 tons) theoretically 4100 TJ/y can be obtained.
The energy required to evaporate the water content of the sludge is
about 2900 TJ/y. Thus the actual maximum potential of sludge
incineration is 1200 TJ/y [18]. This assumes combustion of all
sludge with 100% efficiency. In practice, sludge incinerators in
the Netherlands could be energy self sufficient but at this moment
they generate only 11–12% of the required electricity themselves.
Whether sludge digestion or incineration with energy recovery
is to be preferred from an energy point of view depends on specific
and local conditions (treatment system and available methods for
sludge drying and co-incineration). Digested sludge has about 30–
40% lower heating value. The most energy favourable method is
indirect thermal drying of sludge using excess heat followed by
co-incineration in a cement furnace or power plant [19]. In combi-
nation with WWTP with presettling and without sludge digestion a
net energy of 9 MJ/p.e. can be achieved [19], or 240 TJ/y in total for
the Netherlands.
5. Thermal energy recovery and storage
For bathing, laundry cleaning, cooking, etc. purposes in house-
holds, substantial amounts of energy is added to water through
heating. About 23% of the gas demand of households in the Neth-
erlands is used for heating water. The relative contribution of en-
ergy needed for warm water heating is likely to increase. As we
move to more high performance buildings, the hot water heat de-
mand becomes a major fraction of the energy demand. Nowadays
already houses are being built with only 750 m3 natural gas used
per year, hence warm water becoming responsible for about 50%
of domestic gas use. Considering the Dutch policy to further lower
the Energy Performance Coefficient of new houses the building
sector is already moving towards the implementation of warm
water conservation [20].
In the Netherlands, on average 385 Nm3/y natural gas is used by
households for heating water. This resembles a global warming po-
tential of 695 kg CO2e/y per household, which is four times bigger
than the global warming potential of the total domestic water cycle.
Warm water conservation is thus an important measure to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions from households. From the energy con-
sumption data in Table 1, it can be seen that a 13% reduction in
warm water use could compensate for the total energy use of the
water industry sector. For example, the use of water saving devices
for showers not only reduces the water use with 10 m3 per year, but
also saves 45 Nm3 natural gas. Together, this saves 95 kg CO2e per
year per household [4]. The development of low-temperature wash-
ing powders will further reduce the amount of warm water used.
5.1. Heat recovery from wastewater
Hot water is still discharged into the sewer system making the
domestic wastewater a carrier of heat. Dutch households heat
361
approximately 60% of their drinking water to a set temperature.
For example, water for showering is heated to 38 °C and the water
for washing clothes is heated to 40–60 °C [21]. The temperature of
wastewater leaving the house varies over the day and is on average
27 °C [22]. Thus, the theoretical maximum potential heat in waste-
water from Dutch households is 21.3 MJ/home day, and having
7.2 million households in the Netherlands, the total theoretical
heat potential of domestic wastewater is 56,000 TJ/y. Recovering
25% of this heat would be equivalent to the total energy use of
the water industry sector.
There are several options to recover this heat embedded in
water. The heat content of water from households can be recovered
within houses, from the sewer, or at wastewater treatment plants.
Most of the heat can be recovered decentral, within homes.
Meggers and Leibundgut [23] developed a novel concept for
immediate recovery of heat from warm water within houses. The
system consists of a heat recovery tank that accepts outgoing hot
wastewater from e.g. shower/bath and clothes washer. A heat ex-
changer supplies the heat to the heat pump which lifts the temper-
ature of the recovered heat to a sufficient level to generate new hot
water. Thus this leads to the possibility of directly regenerating the
hot water supply through wastewater heat recovery. The concept
is a result of research into low exergy building systems.
Heat recovery from showers is currently being applied in few
new housing developments in the Netherlands. Shower heat
exchangers save about 30–40% of gas used for showering, i.e. about
50 Nm3 gas per household per year. In principle, a similar amount
of heat can be recovered from the warm tapwater from the sink,
but such heat exchange systems are not yet applied in the Nether-
lands. The actual maximum potential of heat recovery from warm
water in households is estimated to be 140 Nm3 gas per household
per year [22] or 32,000 TJ/y for the Netherlands.
Compared to heat recovery measures within buildings, central
collection of heat at sewer lines or WWTPs is easier to arrange. In
the sewer, heat exchangers can be installed to recover the thermal
energy and be used for heating of nearby neighbourhoods or office
buildings. In Zurich and Hamburg this has been put into practice at
housing estate level. The heat recovery from the sewer system and
the resulting lower wastewater temperatures could, however, ad-
versely affect the efficiency of wastewater treatment processes, in
particular for nitrification processes [24]. As at lower temperatures
less energy is required to dissolve oxygen, the likely temperature
effect might be limited. Further research on heat recovery and the
resulting temperature effect on WWTPs is needed.
5.2. Heat recovery from surface water and drinking water
Due to climate change the temperature of surface water is ris-
ing. The warmth can be recovered by using shallow surface water
as a sun collector. Likewise of interest is the potential to utilise the
cold from surface water, especially deep lakes. In a heat exchanger
cold from the water from the lake is transferred to the water in the
cooling network of buildings. In Amsterdam already offices are
cooled with water from a lake, resulting in a reduction of 20 kton
CO2-eq/year as compared with separate cooling machines in every
office building [25].
Also some of the heat in drinking water distribution system can
be recovered. In relatively warm years (e.g. 2003 in the Nether-
lands), the temperature of the intake surface water reached values
up to 25 °C and even higher. Plans are being developed in the Neth-
erlands to use this temperature from drinking water [21].
5.3. Underground thermal energy storage
Water can also be an important renewable energy source, i.e. as
underground thermal energy storage (UTES). The stored under-
362 J. Frijns et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363
ground thermal energy is used for the delivery of cooling and low
temperature heating of buildings combined with heat pumps.
There are open (aquifer ATES) and closed (borehole BTES) thermal
energy storage systems. In the Netherlands, an exponential growth
of UTES can be seen.
An interesting development is the combination of ATES systems
with heat from surface water, drinking water or sewer systems. De
Graaf et al. [26] demonstrated that ATES supplemented with sur-
face water heat collection in summer, yields sufficient heat to com-
pensate total heat demand of a new residential district.
Currently, the usage of underground thermal energy storage is
growing by more than 10% per year. ATES systems have been
implemented in more than 1000 locations in the Netherlands
and BTES in more than 25,000 locations. In 2007, the capacity of
ATES was 804 MW and of BTES 36 MW, resulting in 723 TJ fossil
energy saving, i.e. 49 kton CO2e reduction. In a high economic
growth scenario with building of many new houses, the actual
maximum potential of UTES in the Netherlands is estimated to
be 15,000–30,000 TJ/y [27].
There are strong indications that the current capacity of the sys-
tems is not realised in practice, for several reasons such as interfer-
ing systems, leakage of energy in the groundwater body and
difficulties in retaining the cold/heat balance. However, UTES is
viewed as an interesting option to reach the climate goals and to
beneficially store and use overproduction of heat or energy by
other options for sustainable energy such as sun.
Also several water companies are looking into the opportunities
for underground energy. The development of underground energy
resources requires a sound understanding of groundwater abstrac-
tion for drinking water purposes and possible hydrological and
contamination risks. Considering the potential risks and conflicts
of UTES with drinking water production from groundwater [28]
water companies argue that they are in a good position to further
develop underground thermal energy.
6. Conclusion
In this paper a quantitative overview of options for energy
recovery and generation from the water cycle is presented. The
main findings are summarised in Fig. 2. The figure shows that on
the one hand the production of drinking water, sewerage and treat-
ment consumes energy, and that on the other hand the potential
amount of chemical and thermal energy recovery (mainly from
the heat and COD introduced by the water users) is large.
The energy potential of the Dutch water sector consists of:
 Sludge digestion: currently 95 million Nm3/y biogas is produced
by sludge digestion. The organic carbon in municipal wastewa-
ter resembles a theoretical maximum energy potential of
11,900 TJ/y. The actual maximum potential is 9400 TJ/y as only
105 PJ/y heat
946 kton/y COD
3.6 PJ/y
Ground & Drinking Households
surface water water
15-30 PJ/y 56 PJ/y
UTES heat recovery
Fig. 2. Energy input and potential output of the Dutch communal water cycle.
80% of the COD can be converted to methane. The recovery of
carbon energy can be maximised by up-concentration of
organic carbon and maximised sludge digestion or by source
separation and anaerobic treatment. Next to a maximum con-
version of COD to sludge for digestion, maximum methane pro-
duction from sludge digestion and maximum energy conversion
and utilisation of the biogas would be required to gain the full
potential of carbon energy in wastewater.
 Sludge incineration: from direct incineration of the organic
matter in sludge theoretically 4100 TJ/y can be obtained. The
actual maximum potential of sludge incineration is 1200 TJ/y
as a lot of energy is required to evaporate the water content
of the sludge. In practice, sludge incinerators could but still
are not self sufficient in energy.
 Heat recovery: domestic wastewater has an average tempera-
ture of 27 °C, resembling a theoretical maximum potential of
56,000 TJ/y. Through warm water conservation and heat recov-
ery substantial amounts of energy can be saved and recovered
from the water cycle. Already shower heat exchangers can save
30–40% of the gas used for showering. The actual maximum
potential of heat recovery systems in houses is estimated to
be 32,000 TJ/y. Additionally, heat and cold can be recovered
from surface and drinking water.
 Underground thermal energy storage: a promising develop-
ment is energy generation by UTES, and its application is grow-
ing rapidly. The actual maximum potential is estimated to be
15,000–30,000 TJ/y in the Netherlands.
Obviously, the described maximum energy recovery and gener-
ation are theoretical potentials only, assuming for example com-
plete recovery and conversion of the energy. However, the
potentials presented are large and in fact exceed the total energy
consumption of drinking water production and wastewater treat-
ment. In this paper examples have been presented that show that
already a partial recovery of the energy potential is being achieved
and possibilities for further optimisation are realistic. In our view
an energy neutral water cycle is feasible by exploiting the energy
recovery potential of chemical and thermal energy with existing
technologies, combined with current efforts for energy efficiency
improvements. Adding energy generation through underground
thermal energy storage could make the water sector an energy pro-
ducing sector. A specific advantage of water is that it is a stable
source of energy, constantly available in comparison to for exam-
ple wind and solar energy.
Climate mitigation requires new concepts in which water is
viewed as a carrier of energy. An integrated energy recovery ap-
proach is required. In fact, an integrated approach in the full water
cycle is needed, balancing sustainability issues with ultimately
water quality, but also reliability, risks, and costs. Especially with
new investments in urban infrastructure, the water, waste, nutri-
ents and energy cycles should be viewed interrelated.
1.9 PJ/y 8.1 PJ/y
Sewerage Wastewater
treatment
9.4 PJ/y 1.2 PJ/y
biogas sludge
production incineration
 J. Frijns et al. / Energy Conversion and Management 65 (2013) 357–363 363

References [15] Zeeman G, Kujawa K, de Mes T, Hernandez L, de Graaff M, Abu-Ghunmi L.

Anaerobic treatment as a core technology for energy, nutrients and water
recovery from source-separated, domestic waste (water). Water Sci Technol
[1] Zakkour PD, Gaterell MR, Griffin P, Gochin RJ, Lester JN. Developing a
2008;57(8):1207–12.
sustainable energy strategy for a water utility. Part I: A review of the UK
[16] Schwarzenbeck N, Bomball E, Pfeiffer W. Can a wastewater treatment plant be
legislative framework. J Environ Manage 2002;66(2):105–14.
a powerplant? A case study. Water Sci Technol 2008;57(10):1555–61.
[2] Hoibye L, Clauson-Kaas J, Wenzel H, Larsen H, Jacobsen B, Dalgaard O.
[17] Appels J, Baeyens J, Degrève J, Dewil R. Principles and potential of the
Sustainability assessment of advanced wastewater treatment technologies.
anaerobic digestion of waste-activated sludge. Prog Energy Combust Sci
Water Sci Technol 2008;58(5):963–8.
2008;34(6):755–81.
[3] Zwolsman GJJ, van den Berg GA, Frijns J. Adaptive strategies for drinking water
[18] Korving L. Slib = Energie? (Sludge = Energy?). In: Conference proceedings De
production in The Netherlands. In: van den Hoven Th, Kazner C, editors.
Afvalwaterzuivering als Energiefabriek, Waternetwerk, Lelystad; 13 February
TECHNEAU: safe drinking water from source to tap, state-of-art and
2009.
perspectives. London: IWA Publishing; 2009. p. 405–18.
[19] STOWA, Slibketenstudie – Onderzoek naar de Energie – en Kostenaspecten in
[4] Frijns J, Mulder M, Roorda J. Climate footprint and mitigation measures in the
de Water – en Slibketen (sludge cycle study – research on the energy and cost
Dutch water sector. In: Smith J, Howe C, Henderson J, editors. Climate change
aspects of the water- and sludge cycle). Report STOWA/2005-26, STOWA,
and water, international perspectives on mitigation and adaptation. London
Utrecht; 2005.
and AWWA, Denver: IWA Publishing; 2009. p. 73–80.
[20] Nederlof MM, Frijns J. Zero impact water use in the built environment. In:
[5] Post JW, Hamelers HVM, Buisman CJN. Energy recovery from controlled mixing
Kimman J, Ravesloot C, Rovers R, editors. Towards 0-impact buildings and built
salt and freshwater with a reverse electrodialysis system. Environ Sci Technol
environments. Amsterdam: Techne Press; 2010. p. 199–208.
2008;42(15):5785–90.
[21] Blokker EJM, van Osch AM, Hogeveen R, Mudde C. Thermal energy from
[6] Fernandes BS, Peixoto G, R Albrecht F, Saavedra del Aguila NK, Zaiat M.
drinking water and cost benefit analysis for an entire city. In: Proceedings
Potential to produce biohydrogen from various wastewaters. Energy Sustain
international water week, Amsterdam; 31 October–4 November 2011.
Dev 2010;14(2):143–8.
[22] SenterNovem, Watergebruik in Woningen en Warmteterugwinning uit
[7] Verstraete W, Van de Caveye P, Diamantis V. Maximum use of resources
Huishoudelijk Afvalwater (water use in houses and heat recovery from
present in domestic ‘‘used water’’. Bioresour Technol 2009;100(23):5537–45.
domestic wastewater). Report of TU Delft and Cauberg Huygen, SenterNovem,
[8] El-Fadel M, Massoud M. Methane emissions from wastewater management.
Utrecht; 2006.
Environ Pollut 2001;114(2):177–85.
[23] Meggers F, Leibundgut H. The potential of wastewater heat and exergy:
[9] Greenfield PF, Batstone DJ. Anaerobic digestion: impact of future greenhouse
decentralized high-temperature recovery with a heat pump. Energy Build
gases mitigation policies on methane generation and usage. Water Sci Technol
2011;43(4):879–86.
2005;52(1–2):39–47.
[24] Wanner O, Panagiotidis V, Clavadetscher P, Siegrist H. Effect of heat recovery
[10] Cornelissen ER, Harmsen D, de Korte KF, Ruiken CJ, Qin JJ, Oo H, et al.
from raw wastewater on nitrification and nitrogen removal in activated sludge
Membrane fouling and process performance of forward osmosis membranes
plants. Water Res 2005;39(19):4725–34.
on activated sludge. J Membr Sci 2008;319(1–2):158–68.
[25] Hoek van der JP. Energy from the water cycle: a promising combination to
[11] Liu H, Yang C, Pu W, Zhang J. Formation mechanism and structure of dynamic
operate climate neutral. Water Practice Technol 2011;6(2).
membrane in the dynamic membrane bioreactor. Chem Eng J 2009;148(2–
[26] Graaf de R, van de Ven F, Miltenburg I, van Ee B, van de Winkel L, van Wijk G.
3):290–5.
Exploring the technical and economic feasibility of using the urban water
[12] Wett B. Solved upscaling problems for implementing deammonification of
system as a sustainable energy source. Thermal Sci 2008;12(4):35–50.
rejection water. Water Sci Technol 2006;53(12):121–8.
[27] Bonte M, van den Berg G, Boukes H, Dammers P, Jennekens O, van de Moot N.
[13] Roorda JH, Koetse E, Kunst J, Buunen-van Bergen A, Mels A, Bisschops I, et al.
Hoe Combineren we Drinkwater met Bodemenergiesystemen? (How do we
Modern sanitation for the developed world: an example for new areas. In:
combine drinking water with underground thermal energy storage?). Report
Proceedings IWA sanitation challenge conference, IWA, Wageningen; 19–20
BTO 2009.030, KWR Watercycle Research Institute, Nieuwegein; 2009.
May 2008.
[28] Bonte M, Stuyfzand PJ, Hulsmann A, van Beelen P. Underground thermal
[14] Meulman B, Zeeman G, Buisman CNJ. Treatment of concentrated black water
energy storage: environmental risks and policy developments in the
on pilot scale: options and challenges. In: Proceedings IWA sanitation
Netherlands and European Union. Ecol Soc 2011;16(1):22–36.
challenge conference, IWA, Wageningen; 19–20 May 2008.