While we increasingly turn to desalination as a secure water supply, it is still perceived as an expensive and environmentally damaging solution, affordable only for affluent societies. In this contribution, we recast desalination from one of a last resort to a far-reaching, climate change mitigating, water security solution. First, we argue that the benefits of desalination go beyond the single-use value of the water produced. If coupled with water reuse for irrigation, desalination reduces groundwater abstraction and augments the water cycle. As such, it may support both adaptation to, and mitigation of climate change impacts by deploying plentiful water for human use, with all the benefits that entails, while helping preserve and restore ecosystems. Second, we counter two arguments commonly raised against desalination, namely its environmental impact and high cost. The environmental impact can be fully controlled so as not to pose long-term threats, if driven by renewable energy. Desalination may then have a zero carbon footprint. Moreover, appropriately designed outfalls make the disposal of brine at sea compatible with marine ecosystems.. Recovery of energy, minerals and more water from brine reject (particularly in the form of vapour for cooling to enable more crops and vegetation to grow), while possible, is often hardly economically justified. However, resource recovery may become more attractive in the future, and help reduce the brine volumes to dispose of. When fresh water becomes scarce, its cost tends to go up, making desalination increasingly economic. Moreover, desalination can have virtually no environmental costs. Considering the environmental costs of over-abstraction of freshwater, desalination tilts the balance in its favour.

Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience You may also be interested in: Projections for headwater catchments of the Tarim River reveal glacier retreat and decreasing surface water availability but uncertainties are large Doris Duethmann, Christoph Menz, Tong Jiang et al. The days of plenty might soon be over in glacierized Central Asian catchments Annina Sorg, Matthias Huss, Mario Rohrer et al. Monte Carlo modelling projects the loss of most land-terminating glaciers on Svalbard in the 21st century under RCP 8.5 forcing

In this contribution, we analyse scenarios of advanced wastewater treatment for the removal of micropollutants. By this we refer to current mainstream, broad spectrum processes including ozonation and sorption onto activated carbon. We argue that advanced treatment requires properly implemented tertiary (nutrient removal) treatment in order to be effective. We review the critical aspects of the main advanced treatment options, their advantages and disadvantages. We propose a quantification of the costs of implementing advanced treatment, as well as upgrading plants from secondary to tertiary treatment when needed, and we illustrate what drives the costs of advanced treatment for a set of standard configurations. We propose a cost function to represent the total costs (investment, operation and maintenance) of advanced treatment. We quantify the implications of advanced treatment in terms of greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the indicators of total toxic discharge, toxicity at the discharge points and toxicity across the stream network discussed in Pistocchi et al. (2022), we compare costs and effectiveness of different scenarios of advanced treatment. In principle the total toxic load and toxicity at the points of discharge could be reduced by about 75 % if advanced treatment processes were implemented virtually at all wastewater treatment plants, but this would entail costs of about 4 billion euro/year for the European Union as a whole. We consider a "compromise" scenario where advanced treatment is required at plants of 100 thousand population equivalents (PE) or larger, or at plants between 10 and 100 thousand PE if the dilution ratio at the discharge point is 10 or less. Under this scenario, the length of the stream network exposed to high toxicity would not increase significantly compared to the previous scenario, and the other indicators would not deteriorate significantly, while the costs would remain at about 1.5 billion Euro/year. Arguably, costs could be further reduced, without a worsening of water quality, if we replace a local risk assessment to generic criteria of plant capacity and dilution in order to determine if a WWTP requires advanced treatment.

We present an assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from urban wastewater treatment plants in Europe. We propose a quantification in terms of emission factors (kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalents (CO₂e) per population equivalent (PE) and year) taking into account all phases of wastewater treatment, from the construction of the infrastructure to the discharge of treated effluents. The assessment includes (1) life-cycle emissions of infrastructure; (2) emissions of dissolved methane in the sewer networks; (3) direct emissions of nitrous oxide and methane from the treatment processes; (4) emissions due to COD and nitrogen in the effluents; (5) indirect emissions due to the generation of electricity and the production of reagents; and (6) emission credits due to energy recovery or biomethane export associated with the anaerobic digestion of sludge. Our estimated emissions range between approximately 50 and 125 kg CO₂e/PE/y depending on the type of treatment plant, of which about 20 to 40 are embedded in the infrastructure. We estimate that direct nitrous oxide emissions and indirect electricity emissions are the main contributors in the operation phase, followed by direct methane emissions. By extrapolating these emissions to the ensemble of the European Union's wastewater treatment plants, we estimate a cumulative emission of about 35 million tonnes CO₂e/year, of which ca. 14 are due to the infrastructure. We analyse various scenarios to reduce emissions, showing that the efficient use of electricity at the plant and the decarbonisation of electricity would significantly help to improve the CO₂e footprint of the WWTPs. In particular, the recovery of methane from biogas and the decarbonisation of electricity may reduce emissions below 27 million tonnes CO₂e/year. Extending N removal to the whole territory for all plants above 10,000 PE may contribute to decrease direct nitrous oxide emissions.

We have quantified inputs and fate of nutrients in European fresh and marine waters from 1990 to 2018. We have used the conceptual model GREEN to assess the impact of efforts on curbing nutrient pollution in European regions. In the first two decades, i.e. in the 1990s and through the start of the new millennium, nutrient inputs to waters decreased significantly. Nutrient pollution in freshwaters and to the sea largely reduced in all regions, although at different pace. However, around 2008-2010 trends in nutrient inputs changed, marking an increase in the last decade, particularly from agricultural diffuse sources. In some regions, current nutrient inputs to waters are close to those estimated at the beginning of the 1990s. At the end of the study period, nutrient concentrations in freshwaters remain above thresholds congruent with good ecological status of water bodies in most downstream reaches. European policies tackling point sources are close to reach their maximum impact. In the face of this approaching ceiling, sustainable nutrient management on agricultural land becomes pivotal for effective nutrient control in river basins. The regional approach highlighted differences across Europe that may provide tailored opportunities to plan effective strategies for achieving environmental targets.

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) may represent a significant source of pollution, but they are difficult to quantify at a large scale (e.g. regional or national), due to a lack of accessible data. In the present study, we use a large scale, 6-parameter, lumped hydrological model to perform a screening level assessment of different CSO management scenarios for the European Union and United Kingdom, considering prevention and treatment strategies. For each scenario we quantify the potential reduction of CSO volumes and duration, and estimate costs and benefits. A comparison of scenarios shows that treating CSOs before discharge in the receiving water body (e.g. by constructed wetlands) is more cost-effective than preventing CSOs. Among prevention strategies, urban greening has a benefit/cost ratio one order of magnitude higher than grey solutions, due to the several additional benefits it entails. We also estimate that real time control may bring on average a CSO volume reduction of just above 20%. In general, the design of appropriate CSO management strategies requires consideration of context-specific conditions, and is best made in the context of an integrated urban water management plan taking into account factors such as other ongoing initiatives in urban greening, the possibility to disconnect impervious surfaces from combined drainage systems, and the availability of space for grey or nature-based solutions.