Developing industrial water reuse synergies in Port Melbourne: cost effectiveness, barriers and opportunities

Abstract

Urban water scarcity from ongoing drought and an increasing population are driving a range of water saving options to be explored in Melbourne (Australia). This paper assesses the cost effectiveness of five water treatment and industrial reuse options in the Fishermans Bend industrial area at Port Melbourne. In consultation with industrial stakeholders and the local water utility, the study design began by identifying potential water sources and sinks in the area. Treatment technologies for each option – using a combination of membrane bioreactors (MBR) and in some cases reverse osmosis (RO) technologies – were developed. In evaluating the potential for future implementation, the cost effectiveness ($/kiloLitre) was assessed relative to water supply augmentation and water demand management options available in Melbourne. Additionally, the opportunities and barriers for option implementation in Port Melbourne were contrasted with the Kwinana Industrial Area, Western Australia where many regional synergy projects have been undertaken. This research identifies that the future implementation of industrial ecology opportunities requires strong and ongoing stakeholder involvement as described in this paper.

Introduction

Industrial symbiosis is perhaps the best-known application of industrial ecology principles. It deals with the exchange of by-products, water, energy, and process wastes among closely situated firms (Chertow, 2000, Chertow, 2007, Chertow and Lombardi, 2005, Geng et al., 2009, Geng and Cote, 2004, van Schaik et al., 2010). Because of the many links between firms, an industrial area is transformed into an ‘industrial ecosystem’. Synergistic links between firms are labelled ‘industrial symbiosis’ as defined by Chertow: “Industrial symbiosis engages traditionally separate industries in a collective approach to competitive advantage involving physical exchange of materials, energy, water, and/or by-products (Chertow, 2000). The keys to industrial symbiosis are collaboration and the synergistic possibilities offered by geographic proximity” (Shi et al., 2010). Localised industrial ecology in the form of industrial symbiosis could also have the broader benefit of linking to regional development (Deutz and Gibbs, 2008). The related term ‘regional synergies’ was formulated in 2005 arising from a study seeking to encourage and facilitate the greater utilisation of regional synergy opportunities to improve the overall eco-efficiency of resource processing intensive regions (Bossilkov et al., 2005). The study found several other terms and definitions for Industrial Symbiosis, with a common implementation aim at ‘creating a system for trading material, energy, and water by-products among companies, usually within a park, neighbourhood, or region’ (Lowe, 2001). In the present paper, the authors use the term ‘regional synergies’, as it better emphasises the broader cooperative organisational focus of the activity based on the synergistic use of water, energy or by-products (rather than giving primary focus to the synergistic use of materials and energy via collaboration).

Both industrial symbiosis and regional synergies have a focus on the benefits of promoting inter-firm exchanges, for waste, energy and water, however less attention has been given to how the waste hierarchy often phrased as ‘reduce, reuse, recycle’ (Cohen-Rosenthal, 2004) applies differently with waste, energy and water. For waste, one can minimise resource use on-site and then with whatever is left as a solid waste product, seek to find a use at a neighbouring firm for the product. Similarly for energy, recovery and use of low grade heat from one processes for another is common. By contrast, with water there is a greater tension between reducing on-site use though water use efficiency (which is generally cheaper and conserves the water resource in the first place), if there is a water recycling or reuse synergy, which created a symbiotic relationship with a neighbouring firm. In addition to providing safe and reliable water supplies, Australia’s National Water Initiative seeks to increase water use efficiency and as Lowe (1997) notes, “The trading of wastes as by-products is not a good in itself if there are more effective waste reduction solutions upstream.” The tension can manifest where using less water on-site leads to an increasing concentration in wastewater discharges, which in turn requires greater treatment costs (and resources). In integrated resources planning for urban water (White et al., 2006a, White et al., 2006b, White and Fane, 2002, Turner et al., 2008, Mitchell et al., 2007) a cost effectiveness framework is used to rank the desirability of efficiency versus recycling options for conserving water in the city and the options proposed in this paper will be discussed in this context, together with barriers and opportunities for regional synergy development. This contrasts the industrial symbiosis and industrial ecology literature where, even with a water focus (such as van Beers et al., 2008 or Geng and Yi, 2006 who even mentions integrated resources planning) there is little discussion of how to reconcile trade offs between options promoting recycling versus options promoting efficiency.

Whilst approximately 70% of water in Australia is used in agriculture and irrigation, 15% in industry and 15% in residential demand, in urban centres where water is generally sourced from localised catchments unconnected from major river systems, the majority of water is used by residential customers (householders), rather than industry. In the Melbourne area, annual water consumption is approximately 470 GL divided between the following uses: 60% in residential homes, 30% in industry and commercial uses, 10% in non-revenue water (Our Water Our Future, 2006). Consequently, water saving initiatives are directed towards both residential consumers and industry, and the relative costs for saving water in each sector become highly relevant to which options the government-owned utility pursues (which serves both residential and commercial/industrial sectors). Urban water scarcity from drought, climate change and an increasing population are driving a range of water saving options to be explored and implemented in Melbourne and indeed throughout Australian cities (White et al., 2006b, Our Water Our Future, 2006, Turner et al., 2008). Options developed by government-owned water utilities in Australian cities to reduce water use include: encouraging the uptake and installation of water efficient toilets, low flow showerheads and water efficient washing machines; the installation of raintanks in homes and industry; assisting industry to save water through efficiency and recycling initiatives; and the construction of desalination plants in addition to the existing rain-fed water supply system.

One strategy to reduce the industrial demand on the centralised supply system would be to recycle water between companies within a heavy industrial area such as Port Melbourne. This initial activity could also encourage companies to pursue further initiatives to reduce impacts related to energy and waste. A scoping study of the technologies, costs, barriers and opportunities for water reuse synergies forms the focus of this paper. Water reuse synergies have been identified and successfully implemented at other industrial areas in Australia, most notably in Kwinana, Western Australia (van Beers et al., 2008) and similarities and differences between the barriers and drivers in both locations are discussed in this paper. The Kwinana Industrial Area in Western Australia is used a comparison example in this paper as is was found to be one of the best international examples of regional synergy development, in terms of the level and maturity of the industry involvement and collaboration, and the commitment to future regional resource synergy projects (Bossilkov et al., 2005).

The aims of this paper are to:

• Explore potential industrial water reuse synergies identified in the Port Melbourne area and the process by which they were developed;

• Evaluate the role of a cost effectiveness framework in prioritising reuse synergy options relative to other water saving options in the urban context;

• Discuss the barriers and drivers for implementation of industrial water reuse synergies in Port Melbourne, and contrast them with the barriers and drivers in Kwinana, Western Australia;

• Recommend generalised areas for further research – informed by the industrial symbiosis literature – to overcome barriers and promote the appropriate development of regional synergies.