MBRs Are More Cost-effective Than Ever Before
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MBRs Are More Cost-effective Than Ever BeforeAbstractA cost model was developed to compare the capital and 20-year lifecycle cost of MBR vs. CAS treatment technology for a greenfield WRRF. Concept designs and cost estimates were developed for six treatment performance scenarios at two design flow capacities: 20 ML/d and 200 ML/d. Compared with a prior version of this model developed in 2012, MBR has become more cost effective compared to CAS in general, most notably for less stringent treatment requirements, while the cost savings of MBR for more stringent treatment requirements has improved, but more modestly. A primary driver of this is the advancements in membrane design, primarily the reduction in air scour energy for membrane cleaning due to new diffuser technology, greater membrane packing density reducing membrane equipment costs and further reducing air scour requirements, decreased membrane cleaning requirements and longer membrane life, and increased use of gravity permeation from membranes under average day operation.A cost model was developed to compare the capital and 20-year lifecycle cost of MBR vs. CAS treatment technology for a greenfield WRRF. Concept designs and cost estimates were developed for six treatment performance scenarios at two design flow capacities: 20 ML/d and 200 ML/d. The results of the cost model was compared with a prior version of this model developed in 2012 to show how changes in technology and market impacts have made MBRs more cost effective compared to CAS than before.SpeakerYoung, ThorPresentation time16:30:0016:50:00Session time15:30:0017:00:00SessionAlternative Approaches to Intensify Secondary TreatmentSession locationRoom S404a - Level 4TopicIntermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design, NutrientsTopicIntermediate Level, Municipal Wastewater Treatment Design, NutrientsAuthor(s)Young, ThorAuthor(s)T. Young 1; J. Kraemer 2 ; D. Rizzuti 3; S. Malatches 4; J. Lim 5; C. Thiemig 5; T. Young 1;Author affiliation(s)GHD Inc 1; GHD Inc, Waterloo, ON 2 ; GHD Inc, Waterloo, ON 3; GHD Inc, Toronto, ON 4; Veolia Water Technologies & Solutions, Oakville, ON 5; Veolia Water Technologies & Solutions, Oakville, ON 5; GHD Inc, Bowie, MD 1;SourceProceedings of the Water Environment FederationDocument typeConference PaperPublisherWater Environment FederationPrint publication date Oct 2023DOI10.2175/193864718825159019Volume / Issue Content sourceWEFTECCopyright2023Word count8
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".