In the future, an additional potential of control reserve as well as storage capacities will be required to compensate fluctuating renewable energy availability. The operation of energy systems will change and flexibility in energy generation and consumption will rise to a valuable asset. Wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) are capable of providing the flexibility needed, not only with their energy generators but also in terms of their energy consuming aggregates on the plant. To meet challenges of the future in regard to energy purchase and to participate in and contribute to such a volatile energy market, WWTPs have to reveal their energetic potential as a flexible service provider. Based on the evaluated literature and a detailed analysis of aggregates on a pilot WWTP an aggregate management has been developed to shift loads and provide a procedure to identify usable aggregates, characteristic values and control parameters to ensure effluent quality. The results show that WWTPs have a significant potential to provide energetic flexibility. Even for vulnerable components such as aeration systems, load-shifting is possible with appropriate control parameters and reasonable time slots without endangering system functionality.

INTRODUCTION

Water and energy systems are strongly linked but are mostly managed independently. Energy is needed to pump, purify, distribute and use water – so is water to produce and use energy. The future will differ from the past in terms of technology, efficiency and political decision making, which present important challenges to both sectors (DOE 2014). One of these new challenges will arise due to a high share of fluctuating renewable energy generation leading to an additional need for control reserve as well as storage capacities. This demand is caused by the abandonment of nuclear power and the reduction of fossil-based energy production, which in the past covered a large part of the basic load. In Germany, the demand is more urgent due to the commitment to raise the part of renewable energy to 80% by 2050 (BMWi 2010). In the traditional way, energy is delivered from big base-load power plants to the consumers. In the future a multi-directional flow from small decentralised power plants to consumers who are able to operate as a producer as well is possible. Under these circumstances, the operation of energy grids driven by solar and wind-based energy production won't be sustainable, and the arising energy surpluses and deficits have to be balanced by flexible energy generators and consumers in terms of ancillary and system services. This will face providers with new challenges for system operation (Sterner & Stadler 2014). The flexibility needed is defined as a modification to the energetic consumption pattern in the forms of time and quantity (York & Kushler 2005) and is divided into two effective directions:

  • positive flexibility: energy production is increased and energy consumption is reduced;

  • negative flexibility: energy production is reduced and energy consumption is increased.

Small decentralised units are able to provide that flexibility (Huneke et al. 2016). The integration of widely available wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) with anaerobic sludge digestion could be a suitable part of the solution with their electrical consumers, energy production via combined heat and power (CHP) units, as well as gas storage units to provide the needed (energetic) flexibility (Schäfer et al. 2016). So far, the main focus of attention is on big emergency power generators or CHP units that can meet the needed technical requirements for participation in energy markets by pooling them in a virtual power plant (VPP) by a so called ‘pooler’ (ASUE 2010). In recent years WWTPs have received more and more focus for pooling their energy production units, leading even to own WWTP-pools with a special focus on their own framework (WVE 2015). Furthermore, innovative approaches with controlled gas production to increase energetic flexibility are shown in Hien & Hansen (2016) and Lensch et al. (2016). However, not only CHP units and emergency power systems are able to provide flexibility. Several other aggregates on WWTPs are capable of providing flexibility as well. Especially aeration systems, which represent more than 65% of the overall energy consumption of WWTPs (Kolisch & Mergelmeyer 2014) are promising for further consideration. Several studies examined aggregates (mostly aerators) for different purposes which are typically demand response in smart grids (Thompson et al. 2008, 2010; Aghajanzadeh et al. 2015) or general potential analysis for load-shifting (Müller et al. 2013; de Bruyn et al. 2014; Nowak et al. 2015). In these studies, aggregates are chosen from practical experience (plant operators) and rough assumptions for a single plant. A ‘guideline’ for choosing potential aggregates or even including control parameters and the conditions of their usage are not stated or published. Apart from this, technical restrictions and specifications which have to be met to participate in potential flexibility markets are not considered. The focus of this research will be on evaluation of present knowledge and own studies in terms of load-shifting to build a data basis to examine electrical flexibility and verify the procedure at a pilot WWTP to derive assessments for providing flexibility. It should not be considered as a marketing concept to participate in energy markets in general, but to make a contribution for WWTPs to define the position regarding the potential of energetic flexibility, independent from the specific use (e.g. balancing the transmission grid, distribution grids or internal load-shifting). There is a gap of knowledge for a consistent approach to identify aggregates and which requirements they have to meet regarding start-up time, regeneration time, and the borders of existing switch-off times for specific aggregates and their control parameters to guarantee effluent quality.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Basic data

Description of the pilot plant

The pilot WWTP is designed as an activated sludge plant with anaerobic sludge digestion and an influent load of about 58,000 population equivalents (PE) in 2014 (related to 120 g COD/PE).

The first stage of treatment consists of a screen, an aerated grit chamber and a primary sedimentation tank with solids retention time of 60 min. The second stage consists of two activated sludge aeration tanks with a total volume of 19,536 m3 (13,536 m3 + 6,000 m3). The first basin is a two stage cascade with pre-denitrification. The ratio of denitrification volume to overall volume of the aeration tank (VD/VBB) can be adjusted via variable usable chambers. The second four-line aeration tank is operated through intermittent aeration without agitators. The aeration is controlled by means of an on-line ammonia (NH4) and nitrate (NO3) analyser located at the effluent from the first and second aeration basin to ensure full nitrification. Phosphorus removal is assured by simultaneous precipitation in the first aeration tank. In three secondary sedimentation tanks, the effluent is clarified. Surplus sludge is mechanically thickened and, together with thickened primary sludge, is fed into two digestion tanks with 1,440 m3 each. The digested sludge is thickened and drained by two chamber filter presses. A flow chart of the plant is given in Figure 1.
Figure 1

Flow chart of the pilot WWTP, regarding wastewater and sludge treatment paths.

Figure 1

Flow chart of the pilot WWTP, regarding wastewater and sludge treatment paths.

In the anaerobic sludge digestor around 17.33 l/(PE · d) raw biogas with a methane (CH4) content of 58% is generated, producing 12.54 kWh/(PE · a) of electric power with two CHP units (2 · 80 kWel). As a result the WWTP covers 42.3% of its total energy demand of 29.6 kWh/(PE · a) with its own digester gas. 13.8 kWh/ (PE · a) are used for aeration and 15.8 kWh/(PE · a) by the other treatment steps and devices.

Data basis of energy consumption and production

For the pilot, WWTP electric data have been available in high quality for the main aggregates (15-minute increments for the year 2014). Power consumption was directly measured or could be calculated by analysing additionally operating hours and the mode of operation. Using the nominal power of the aggregates as a basis is not conducive because energy consumption is fluctuating on a daily level. The actual consumption differs from the nominal power and would overestimate the available flexibility significantly. On the basis of these data, a representative day (in 15-minute increments) in regard to actual energy consumption is generated for each aggregate and summarised in a time course. Seasonal variations in terms of influent water amount, influent load and heat demand etc. are neglected, but implicitly included by mean values (data covered over the whole year 2014) of the time series. Furthermore, fluctuations and variability of the results of the simulation model are better taken into account. Most aggregates are controlled anyway on a daily routine rather than controlled by input parameters. So it is anticipated as a sufficient database for further evaluation.

Evaluation of literature and own studies regarding flexibility

Table 1 shows that there are only few published data referring to load-shifting on WWTPs. As stated before, the selection of criteria of the aggregates is not described in detail, instead it refers to assessments of the operating personnel. Furthermore, the focus of attention is on load-shedding, while powering up aggregates is not considered as feasible. Technical restrictions of the aggregates are unconsidered or generally considered as usable. Several methods in terms of characterisation of the aggregates in fixed time slots for switch-off times (5/15/30/60+ minutes) and/or just textual descriptions of possible obstacles are described, e.g. Müller et al. (2013), de Bruyn et al. (2014) and Nowak et al. (2015). Verifications for the chosen assumptions are just given in Nowak et al. (2015) for the aerators (ASM1-Model) and in field trials for the aerators in Thompson et al. (2010). However, there is no unification or standardisation for requirements, procedure of selection or establishing of control parameters for the individual utilisation. Therefore, switch-off times were determined based on the operational experiences of three different WWTPs.

Table 1

Switch-off times for WWTP components used for load-shifting

Aggregates Switch-off time
 
Müller et al. (2013) 
 
De Bruyn et al. (2014)  Nowak et al. (2015)  Berger et al. (2013)  Own studya 
(min) (min) (min) (min) (min) 
Night Day  
Inlet pumps 30–60 15–30 30 usable (spiral pumps) – 
Grit chamber 30 30 5–15 (scraper) usable – 60 
Aeration (aeration tank) 60–120 30 15 60–120 15 60b 
Recirculation pumps – – 15 usable – 60 
Agitator (aeration tank) 30 15 5–15 10–15 – 30 
Return sludge pumps 120 60 5–15 60–120 – 120b 
Digestion tank >120c <120c – 120–240d – >240e 
Dewatering/thickening not usable >120 (decanter) 240 (centrifuge) usablef – 120 
Aggregates Switch-off time
 
Müller et al. (2013) 
 
De Bruyn et al. (2014)  Nowak et al. (2015)  Berger et al. (2013)  Own studya 
(min) (min) (min) (min) (min) 
Night Day  
Inlet pumps 30–60 15–30 30 usable (spiral pumps) – 
Grit chamber 30 30 5–15 (scraper) usable – 60 
Aeration (aeration tank) 60–120 30 15 60–120 15 60b 
Recirculation pumps – – 15 usable – 60 
Agitator (aeration tank) 30 15 5–15 10–15 – 30 
Return sludge pumps 120 60 5–15 60–120 – 120b 
Digestion tank >120c <120c – 120–240d – >240e 
Dewatering/thickening not usable >120 (decanter) 240 (centrifuge) usablef – 120 

The utilisation of inlet pumps, wastewater pumps and centrifuges are confirmed as well in Thompson et al. (2010) and Aghajanzadeh et al. (2015).

aBased on the operational experiences of three different WWTPs.

bLoad-shedding tested on three different WWTPs.

cIncluding pumps, agitator and heat exchanger.

dIncluding agitator and pumps.

eIncluding pumps and heat exchanger.

fIncluding centrifuge, chamber filter press, screw press and surplus sludge thickening.

Characteristic values

To shift (electric) loads in a WWTP it is essential to know the technical restrictions of the usable devices (Figure 2) as well as their effects during the purification process. The main parameters originating from the energy sector are power output and how fast the full power-output is available (subsequently called start-up time and shut-down time). The consumption/feed-in gradient is determined by dividing the power output by its corresponding start-up/shutdown time. Furthermore, there are other parameters needed, taking into account limitations of the wastewater treatment. These parameters are regeneration time (required time between two sequences of switching a device on/off) and the duration an aggregate can be switched on or off with regard to the actual operation mode. For the analysis of the needed parameters for further utilisation in terms of flexibility of the aggregates, it is presumed that they still serve the purpose in the plant, e.g. an agitator should at least be active for 15 minutes to stir the tank and should not be activated or deactivated just by technical feasibility. Under these circumstances, the defined values for switching-on/off aggregates are estimated conservatively and could be technically below the stated values.
Figure 2

Schematic representation of characteristic values for positive and negative flexibility of aggregates/consumers.

Figure 2

Schematic representation of characteristic values for positive and negative flexibility of aggregates/consumers.

Procedure for identifying usable aggregates

Identifying possible aggregates is one of the critical steps in the course of developing aggregate management for WWTPs. For the pilot WWTP, basis data have been given in a first step in the form of a full aggregate list, energy consumption data and operating data. These data are usually gathered during energy optimisation studies of WWTPs and is easily available. In a second step, aggregates were chosen by intersecting these data with known literature data in terms of load-shifting studies and technical requirements as well as recommendations and verification of the operating personnel of the plant. This evaluation of primary data of the whole WWTP led to an examination in the form of detailed consideration of the preselected aggregates including their possible integration, emerging restrictions, total power output and the individual characteristic values. A simplified schematic description is given in Figure 3.
Figure 3

Simplified schematic procedure to identify and verify aggregates for providing flexibility.

Figure 3

Simplified schematic procedure to identify and verify aggregates for providing flexibility.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Identified aggregates

For the pilot WWTP, 18 aggregates have been identified for load-shifting and to provide flexibility (Table 2). The provided values are the result of the identifying processes shown in Figure 3 and performed field tests as well as simulation results for the different aggregates on the plant. As stated before, continuous processes during the purification processes are more difficult to integrate than discontinuous processes, e.g. sludge treatment. Especially for devices with direct influence on the performance of the plant, control parameters are inevitable and have to be set with safety factors. Field testing and/or the application of a simulation model is highly recommended. Furthermore, it is shown that even for sensitive aggregates load-shifting is possible and WWTPs have sufficient buffer capacities to compensate and shift processes even for vulnerable sectors in wastewater treatment. Tests on additional WWTPs in addition to the pilot plant have shown that small WWTPs often have a greater flexibility potential due to oversized devices than larger (mostly highly optimised) plants. It has also become evident that the connection to the internal control technology is an important factor, e.g. for a full automated sludge thickening device the full potential of flexibility can be provided without further conditions, but manually operated devices need operating staff, which leads to restriction in time availability, additional effort/costs for personnel and further planning to use the aggregate. Besides that, a fixed limitation for choosing aggregates by their power output is not applicable because smaller aggregates could be internally connected to larger units and would be ignored. For example, the surplus sludge module consists of 8 aggregates below 4 kWel but sum up to 12.7 kWel controlled as a single unit.

Table 2

Characteristic values of the pilot WWTP for identified aggregates to provide flexibility (min/max)

Aggregate Effective powera Switch-off time [min./max.] Switch-on time [min./max.] Regeneration time Start-up time Shut-down time 
(kW) (min) (min) (min) (s) (s) 
Grit chamber (aeration, intermittent) 2.1/2.1 5–60 5–60 30 60 60 
Aeration tank 1 + 2 (aeration, intermittent) 0.0/61.6–98.9 5–120 – 15 10 
Aeration tank 1 (agitator, intermittent) 7.2/3.6–10.8 15–30 15–40 30 60 60 
Return sludge pumps 0.0/16.1–23.6 5–120 – 60 60 
Recirculation pumps 0.0/4.2 5–1,440 – 30 60 60 
Digestion tanks 1 + 2 (heat sludge pumps) 6.0/6.0 15–1,440 15–1,440 60 10 
Digestion tanks 1 + 2 (raw sludge pumps) 0.0/2.0 15–360 – 60 120 60 
Surplus sludge thickening 9,6/0.0 – 120–1,440 15 60 900 
Chamber filter presses 1 + 2 15.0/0.0 – 120 60 120 120 
CHP unit 1 + 2 80.0/80.0 5–1,440 5–1,440 5/30a 180 300 
Emergency generator 0.0/480.0 – 15–240 2.5 60 30 
Aggregate Effective powera Switch-off time [min./max.] Switch-on time [min./max.] Regeneration time Start-up time Shut-down time 
(kW) (min) (min) (min) (s) (s) 
Grit chamber (aeration, intermittent) 2.1/2.1 5–60 5–60 30 60 60 
Aeration tank 1 + 2 (aeration, intermittent) 0.0/61.6–98.9 5–120 – 15 10 
Aeration tank 1 (agitator, intermittent) 7.2/3.6–10.8 15–30 15–40 30 60 60 
Return sludge pumps 0.0/16.1–23.6 5–120 – 60 60 
Recirculation pumps 0.0/4.2 5–1,440 – 30 60 60 
Digestion tanks 1 + 2 (heat sludge pumps) 6.0/6.0 15–1,440 15–1,440 60 10 
Digestion tanks 1 + 2 (raw sludge pumps) 0.0/2.0 15–360 – 60 120 60 
Surplus sludge thickening 9,6/0.0 – 120–1,440 15 60 900 
Chamber filter presses 1 + 2 15.0/0.0 – 120 60 120 120 
CHP unit 1 + 2 80.0/80.0 5–1,440 5–1,440 5/30a 180 300 
Emergency generator 0.0/480.0 – 15–240 2.5 60 30 

aNegative flexibility/positive flexibility.

In terms of using the devices of the digester tanks, such as heating pumps, switch-off/-on times below 60 minutes are not critical due to the slow response time of the system. Calculations have shown that over a time period of 24 hours the temperature drop is below 1 °C (depending on thermal insulation). The temperature of the digester tank can be controlled very well and it could be probably even used as a ‘power-to-heat’-device where energy can be stored in the form of heat during energy surplus, and the energy needed for heating can be shifted. Using aggregates from the digester tank is mostly restricted by local boundary conditions like sludge composition and procedural obstacles rather than technical restrictions. Providing flexibility on energy markets with CHP units and emergency generators is state of the art (ASUE 2010). Many new cogeneration units even include the communication technology for the connection to the VPP or pool operator to bear the incurred costs, resulting in no investment costs for plant operators. Maximum switch-off and switch-on times heavily depend on the size of the gas storage and an optimised timetable for using that flexibility without losses in gas utilisation. Aggregates with nominal power of 2–5 kWel are considered economically unfeasible if it is required to undertake additional investments or if they are difficult to implement in a management system. Furthermore, pool operators will not include devices below 50 kWel. On the basis of that fact a ‘pre-pooling’ with existing control technology at the plant of most aggregates is recommended and necessary to use the aggregates in connection with energy grids.

Control parameters

An important aspect of shifting loads is to restrict flexibility-calls by establishing control parameters to protect treatment processes if it becomes necessary. As general control parameters for all aggregates, switch on/off times as well as the regeneration time stated in Table 2 are recommended. Furthermore, additional and more individual control parameters for each single aggregate are necessary (Table 3). Especially, wet-weather conditions are pushing the related systems to their limits and narrow buffer capacities for flexibility options of the continuous processes like the grit chamber or return-sludge pumps significantly. Other restrictions are related to their individual operation mode, like non-interruptible sludge dewatering processes. CHP units and emergency generators are mainly limited by their gas/fuel storage and warranty issues (e.g. max. switching cycles, reduced service life). Additional control parameters may be necessary on the basis of individual procedural aspects on the plant.

Table 3

Suggested additional control parameters for different aggregates in the WWTP

Aggregate Control parameter
 
Inlet pumps Retention capacity (upstream sewer system, retention basin) – 
Grit chamber (aeration) Wastewater inflowa – 
Aeration tank (aeration) NH4(aeration tank and effluent secondary sedimentation) NH4-load (inflow) 
Aeration tank (agitator) Time restriction due operation mode – 
Return sludge pumps Wastewater inflowa Sludge level 
Recirculation pumps NO3(aeration tank) – 
Digestion tank (heat sludge pumps) Temperature (min/max) – 
Digestion tank (raw sludge pumps) Fill-level raw sludge thickener (min/max) – 
Digestion tank (agitator) Foam formation – 
Surplus sludge thickening Dry matter contentb(aeration tank) Operation mode/staff working timec 
Sludge dewateringd(Chamber filter presses/centrifuges/ spiral pumps) Fill-level thickener (min/max) Operation mode/staff working timec 
CHP units Fill-level gas storage (min/max) Max. switching cycles 
Emergency generator Fill-level fuel storage (min/max) Max. operating hourse 
Aggregate Control parameter
 
Inlet pumps Retention capacity (upstream sewer system, retention basin) – 
Grit chamber (aeration) Wastewater inflowa – 
Aeration tank (aeration) NH4(aeration tank and effluent secondary sedimentation) NH4-load (inflow) 
Aeration tank (agitator) Time restriction due operation mode – 
Return sludge pumps Wastewater inflowa Sludge level 
Recirculation pumps NO3(aeration tank) – 
Digestion tank (heat sludge pumps) Temperature (min/max) – 
Digestion tank (raw sludge pumps) Fill-level raw sludge thickener (min/max) – 
Digestion tank (agitator) Foam formation – 
Surplus sludge thickening Dry matter contentb(aeration tank) Operation mode/staff working timec 
Sludge dewateringd(Chamber filter presses/centrifuges/ spiral pumps) Fill-level thickener (min/max) Operation mode/staff working timec 
CHP units Fill-level gas storage (min/max) Max. switching cycles 
Emergency generator Fill-level fuel storage (min/max) Max. operating hourse 

aPreventing plant overload (stormwater).

bPreventing over-extraction of surplus sludge.

cDepending on degree of automation.

dSludge dewatering is mostly not interruptible.

eRegulated in German law (180 h/a).

Review of control parameters

The suitability of the aggregates and their suggested control parameters are verified by a mathematical model (Activated Sludge Model 1) of the pilot WWTP using simba 6.4. Each critical aggregate is individually simulated either for load-shedding or power up energy demand to confirm the usability, to verify the control parameters, detect negative side effects, and ensure effluent quality. A whole year was simulated to consider the variability of the influent load to the WWTPs. Furthermore, some of the identified aggregates (aerators in the aeration tanks, return sludge pumps and recirculation pumps) are tested in real shutdown field trials at three different WWTPs to verify the model and the actual feasibility of the device. The tests are performed for 30, 60 and 120 minutes of shutdown (in dry weather conditions). Figure 4 shows the results of the field trials and the simulation of shutting down the aeration systems of the plant for 60 minutes. It is demonstrated for the pilot WWTP that shutting down the aeration systems is possible without significant loss in effluent quality by releasing 150 kWel electrical energy.
Figure 4

Impacts of load-shedding of the aerators on NH4-effluent and power consumption.

Figure 4

Impacts of load-shedding of the aerators on NH4-effluent and power consumption.

The control parameter on this occasion is the NH4 effluent of the aeration tank, which should not exceed 3 mg NH4/l. The NH4-effluent of the secondary treatment shows that there is no notable impact and the characteristic values and restrictions, presumed in a first approach, are confirmed (Figure 4). For other WWTPs, the chosen values can be used as reference points and if necessary, adapted iteratively.

Calculated flexibility and utilisation

The results show that the overall energy consumption of the plant can be decreased with the considered aggregates by 24.4% of the overall energy consumption if no restriction is violated. With regards to powering up the CHP units, no external consumption would be necessary. For positive flexibility, an increase in energy consumption is possible up to 19.9%. By using the gained knowledge in their control system, the pilot WWTP was able to cut peak loads in their energy demand and could optimise their schedules with more flexible operation modes to save money and resources with small effort. Further integration of the aggregate management is planned.

Outlook

Further research is planned to improve the data basis for characteristic values and control parameters for additional aggregates. Based on the results of this study, the behaviour of the WWTP will be tested for calls of the energy market by means of data from the German control energy market in 2014 as well as for predicted market values in 2030. This will show the performance of WWTPs in providing ancillary services and how effluent quality will be affected by participation under present conditions. This information will be important to prove that the shown flexibility is not only important for internal energy management but WWTPs are able to act as both consumer and a producer and flexible player in future energy markets.

CONCLUSIONS

The results presented show that WWTPs have a significant potential to provide energetic flexibility. Even for vulnerable components, load-shifting is, with appropriate control parameters and reasonable time slots, possible without endangering system functionality. Of course, this has to be considered individually taking the local framework of the WWTP into account. Technical restrictions in terms of limiting start-up and shut-down times of the aggregates are not to be expected, but restrictions in terms of maximum switching cycles per day or reduced service life may occur. As a first step, the CHP units offer good opportunities to gain first experiences with energy markets. On the basis of existing experiences in reducing external energy demand and energy self-sufficiency efforts, know-how in adapting CHP schedules is widely spread, which will ease integration. Potentials for providing negative flexibility and ancillary services with CHP units in WWTPs are described in Schäfer et al. (2015). However, to identify and establish an aggregate management, it is essential to include the operating staff of the plant from the beginning. A working aggregate management is only feasible with individual and detailed knowledge of the particular WWTP and their cooperative personnel. In terms of approval by the plant operators, there is a lack of knowledge for innovative energy management.

Due to a missing monetary incentive system, participating in energy markets is not yet sufficiently attractive for plant operators. There are just a few research projects and even less published practical implementations on this topic, whilst energy self-sufficiency studies are very common. The stated results may provide assistance to create a basis for future endeavours. High reservations especially regarding effluent quality are widely spread, although an utilisation is possible under controlled conditions for certain plants. Such objections are appropriate and important because the primary task of the WWTP is purifying wastewater and is mandatory. Thus, additional long-term effects due to long shut-down times (e.g. phosphate resolution in aeration tanks or changes in the biocenosis) have to be investigated and require detailed monitoring. Nonetheless, potentials and approaches shouldn't be abandoned due to their innovative character. With a higher share of renewable energies, the demand and value of flexibility will increase and energy purchase will change to more volatile prices during the day and could lead to dynamic power purchasing agreements. Future consumers could have disadvantages due to their inflexibility in a field of flexible participants. This could trigger the needed incitements to deal with complex topics like energy management during day-to-day business. Therefore further research and practical experiences are necessary to implement aggregates of WWTP into smart control systems to provide the needed detailed data for a fast changing energy environment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The study was conducted as a part of the research project arrivee (www.erwas-arrivee.de). The authors would like to thank the German Federal Ministry for Education, Research and Technologies (BMBF) for the financial support.

REFERENCES

REFERENCES
Aghajanzadeh
A.
Wray
C.
McKane
A.
2015
Opportunities for Automated Demand Response in California Wastewater Treatment Facilities
.
August 2015
.
ASUE
2010
Virtuelle Kraftwerke (Virtual Power Plants)
.
Arbeitsgemeinschaft für sparsamen und umweltfreundlichen Energieverbrauch E.V. (ASUE)
,
Berlin
,
Germany
.
Berger
H.
Eisenhut
T.
Polak
S.
Hinterberger
R.
2013
Demand Response Potential of the Austrian Industrial and Commerce Sector
.
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie
,
Vienna
,
Austria
.
BMWi
2010
Energiekonzept für eine umweltschonende, zuverlässige und bezahlbare Energieversorgung (Energy Concept for an Environmentally Friendly, Reliable and Affordable Energy Supply)
.
Bundesministerium für Wirtschaft und Technologie (BMWi)
,
Berlin
,
Germany
(Ministry for Economy and Technology). September 2010
.
De Bruyn
K.
Kollmann
A.
Moser
S.
Schmidthaler
M.
Amann
C.
Elbe
C.
Schmautzer
E.
Kraussler
A.
Reinhofer-Gubisch
M.
Pucker
J.
Frantes
B.
2014
Projekt LoadShift: Lastverschiebung in Haushalt, Industrie, Gewerbe und kommunaler Infrastruktur Potenzialanalyse für Smart Grids (Load-shifting in Private Households, Industry and Municipal Infrastruktur. Potential Analysis for Smart Grids)
.
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie
,
Linz/Graz
,
Austria
.
DOE
2014
The Water-Energy Nexus: Challenges and Opportunities
.
US Department of Energy (DOE)
,
Full Report. June 2014
.
Hien
S.
Hansen
J.
2016
Biogasprognose zur Integration von Kläranlagen in virtuelle Kraftwerke (Biogas forecast for integration of wastewater treatment plants in virtual power plants)
. In:
Proceedings of 44. Abwassertechnisches Seminar
,
Munich, Germany
, pp.
61
73
.
Huneke
F.
Lizzi
P.
Lenck
T.
2016
Bisherige Auswirkungen des Kernkraftausstiegs auf die Versorgungssicherheit (Past Effects of the Exit From Nuclear Power on Supply Reliability)
.
Energy Brainpool
,
Berlin
,
Germany
.
August 2016
.
Kolisch
G.
Mergelmeyer
M.
2014
Optimierung der Klärgasnutzung, Steigerung der Energieausbeute auf kommunalen Kläranlagen (Optimisation of using Digestion Gas, Increasing Energy Yield on Wastewater Treatment Plants)
.
Ministerium für Klimaschutz, Umwelt, Landwirtschaft, Natur- und Verbraucherschutz des Landes NRW (MKUNLV). Final Report. October 2009
.
Müller
E.
Graf
E.
Kobel
B.
Hurni
A.
Wenger
R.
Frei
U.
Christen
C.
Moser
R.
Fritzsche
C.
Mathys
O.
Kernen
M.
Fahrni
J.
2013
Potential der Schweizer Infrastrukturanlagen zur Lastverschiebung (Potential of Swiss Infrastructure Plants for Load Shifting)
.
Final Report. Bern, Switzerland. June 2013
.
Nowak
O.
Enderle
P.
Schloffer
M.
Lang
E.
Pregartbauer
R.
2015
Loadshift-ARA – Lastverschiebung in der Abwasserreinigung – Kommunale Kläranlagen als Bestandteil smarter Energiesysteme
.
Final Report. Vienna, Austria
.
Schäfer
M.
Schmitt
T. G.
Sinß
M.
2016
Die Kläranlage als Regelbaustein im Energienetz (Wastewater treatment plants as control units in energy grids)
. In:
Proceedings 3rd Conference Future energy grids with renewable energy
.
Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy (BMWi). 26–27 January, Berlin, Germany
.
Sterner
M.
Stadler
I.
2014
Energy Storage – Demand, Technologies, Integration
.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg, Germany
.
Thompson
L.
Song
K.
Lekov
A.
McKane
A.
2008
Automated Demand Response Opportunities in Wastewater Treatment Facilities
.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Berkeley, CA
.
Thompson
L.
Lekov
A.
McKane
A.
Piette
M. A.
2010
Opportunities for Energy Efficiency and Open Automated Demand Response in Wastewater Treatment Facilities in California – Phase II Report – San Luis Rey Wastewater Treatment Plant Case Study
.
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkley National Laboratory
,
Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Berkeley, CA
.
WVE
2015
WVE bündelt Klärgasanlagen zu virtuellem Kraftwerk (WVE is Pooling Wastewater Treatment Plants as a Virtual Power Plant)
.
EUWID Wasser und Abwasser
.
WA43/2015
. p.
13
.
York
D.
Kushler
M.
2005
Exploring the Relationship Between Demand Response and Energy Efficiency: A Review of Experience and Discussion of Key Issues
.
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy
.
Report Nr. U052. Washington, DC, USA. March 2005
.