Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Fig. 3.2 Ultraviolet (UV) Linear Versus Nonlinear Estimation of Cost Data
Table 3.4 Estimated average cost functions for High Rate Clari
cation & Filtration (HRC), UV,
MF-UF and Ozonation in 2008 CDN dollars
Disinfection technology
Average cost function
Predicted cost per cubic meter based
on plant with daily capacity
100 m
3
200 m
3
500 m
3
y = 0.3226x
−
0.2503
HRC
0.10
0.09
0.07
y = 0.2653x
−
0.6003
UV
0.07
0.06
0.06
y = 0.4171x
−
0.3048
MF-UF
0.10
0.08
0.06
y = 2.2107x
−
0.381
Ozonation
0.38
0.29
0.21
cost per cubic meter, de
ned as capital plus O&M, Xi
i
is the
flow rate in cubic
meters and
es the standard Gaussian assumptions.
Details of the NLLS regressions and model
e
i
is the error term, which satis
fit statistics are given in Appendix
A
.
The estimations provided in Table
3.4
above are based on disinfection for the
particular technology only and do not take into account the additional cost of
residual chlorine for the distribution system, which is required in the US and
Canada. We assume that this additional cost would be the same for all the tech-
nologies listed above in Table
3.4
, and it was, therefore, left out. In any case for any
actual plant, there will be many plant-speci
c costs that the consulting engineers
will need to take into account. Therefore, the costs given by the cost models should
be viewed as the
first approximation to costs; costs of speci
c water treatment
plants are likely to vary.
From Table
3.4
we can observe that both the MF-UF and High Rate Clari
cation
and Filtration (HRC) drinking water treatment can cost on average 10 cents per
cubic meter for a 100 m
3
size plant. For surface waters, UV seems to be cheaper
than HRC, but direct comparison could be misleading, as a lot of location-speci
c
factors need to be taken into account. (Examples of location-speci
c factors would
be the quality of source water, the presence of color or turbidity, etc.) For UV, some
Search WWH ::
Custom Search