Ozone Library Navigation
General Ozone Generator Information:
Ozone Generator Applications:
New Information from Absolute Ozone to help you save money
|
Cost Savings of UV+Ozone compared to UV+Peroxide
| Parameter |
UV Photolysis |
Ozone Oxidation |
| Plant Flow (MGD / m3/hr) |
5 / 789 |
5 / 789 |
| Contaminant |
1,4-Dioxane |
NDMA |
| Treatment Goal (log reduction) |
1.0 |
1.0 |
| Estimated Power Cost ($/kWh / €/kWh) |
0.10 / 0.07 |
0.10 / 0.07 |
| Estimated H2O2 cost ($/lb / €/kg) |
0.35 / 0.57 |
0.35 / 0.57 |
| Estimated LOX Cost ($/Ton / €/m3) |
N/A |
85 / 0.10 |
| Estimated EEO Value 3 (kWh/order/1000 gal / kWh/order/m ) |
0.4/0.1 |
0.16/0.04 |
| Estimated H2O2 Dose (35% Peroxide Solution) (ppm) |
3 |
7 |
| Estimated Power Usage (kWh/d) |
2000 |
800 |
| Estimated H2O2 Usage (lbs/d / kg/d) |
125 / 57 |
292 / 133 |
| Est. Annual Power Cost ($/yr / €/yr) |
$73,000 / 54,075 |
29,200 / 21,630 |
| Est. Annual H2O2 Costs ($/yr / €/yr) |
15,969 / 11,829 |
37,303 / 27,632 |
| Est. Annual LOX Costs ($/yr / €/yr) |
N/A |
20,922 / 15,498 |
| Subtotal Operating Cost ($/yr / €/yr) |
88,969 / 65,903 |
87,425 / 64,576 |
| Total Combined Op. Cost ($/yr / €/yr) |
176,394 / 130,479 |
|
| 20 Year NPV Operating Cost ($ / €)(2) |
2.20M / 1.63M |
|
(1) Peroxide addition for NDMA to prevent reformation after UV-photolysis. (2) Net Present Worth Value assuming 20 year life cycle and 5% interest (12.46
factor). (3) Life Cycle evaluation does not include O&M cost associated with lamps, ballasts,
etc. |
|
|
Summary of design and cost parameters for UV-photolysis & ozone AOT for NDMA and 1,4-Dioxane
UV + H2O2 + Ozone system will result in operating cost savings of over five times that of the UV + Peroxide system alone. Had the evaluation included the quantity and cost of lamps and ballasts, the Ozone AOT option would be even more attractive.
Conclusion
There are many potential applications for Advanced Oxidation. Today, the industry tends to view AOP as a UV + Hydrogen Peroxide technology. There are several options for advanced oxidation technologies. Although a given technology may seem the appropriate choice for a given application (e.g. NDMA with UV- photolysis), one must always consider the impact of parameters such as water quality (suspended solids, TOC, UV-T, carbonates, etc.), by-product formation, cost of utilities (power, hydrogen peroxide, oxygen), footprint, cost of consumables (lamps, ballasts, etc), and ability of the selected technology to efficiently achieve the desired result.
As the concern over Emerging Contaminants grows, it is only a matter of time until more and more of these contaminants are regulated. More than looking for a specific technology, end users should focus on selecting a cost-effective advanced oxidation solution to meet their treatment needs.
References
|
