Conventional and Environmental Life Cycle Costing of Water Resource Recovery Facilities

Abstract

This study assessed the economic implications of extending conventional life cycle costing (cLCC) to environmental LCC (eLCC) in circular water resource recovery facilities (WRRFs) in Portugal, Cyprus, and Spain. By integrating monetized environmental impacts from life cycle assessment, internal costs, and external environmental costs, normalized per m 3 of wastewater inflow, are compared. Operational costs were dominated by electricity in Portugal and Cyprus, and chemicals in Spain. Resource recovery varied, Cyprus recovered calcium, magnesium and sodium salts, Portugal recovered a biopolymer, and Spain targeted phosphorus. Cost values are expressed as positive, while revenues are expressed as negative values. The Portuguese WRRF, employing Nereda ® and Kaumera technologies, achieved the lowest cLCC (-0.15 €/m 3 ) and eLCC (-0.03 €/m 3 ) owing to the best environmental performance, low chemical use, and renewable electricity. The Cypriot WRRF, with energy-intensive processes recorded the highest cLCC (1.3 €/m 3 ) and eLCC (2.07 €/m 3 ), driven by fossil-based electricity. The Spanish WRRF yielded a negative cLCC (-0.14 €/m 3 ) but a positive eLCC (0.2 €/m 3 ). Applying only cLCC highlighted the cost-effectiveness of Portuguese and Spanish WRRFs owing to revenue from recovered products, but cLCC underestimated Cypriot WWRF’s operational burden. The eLCC revealed external cost impacts, due to climate change and toxicity, with Portuguese WRRF showing potential profitability. These findings underline the need for circular economy-oriented WRRF planning that integrates resource recovery efficiency with energy system considerations and environmental cost monetization.

Bibliographic Information