UK Rainwater Harvesting Model Development - Bradford University

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University
5.0
Rainwater Harvesting Model Development
5.1
Introduction
This chapter describes the development of a model for predicting the financial performance of RWH systems using a whole life costing approach. It has been implemented as a spreadsheet application using Microsoft Excel and is a deterministic model based on discrete timesteps of one day. It contains both empirical and process model elements. The water saving reliability is predicted using a mass-balance transfer model based on the YAS reservoir operating algorithm described by Latham (1983), as discussed in chapter three. The model was developed using the concepts and information presented in chapters two, three and four.
This chapter is divided into two sections. The first provides an overview of the modelling tool and describes its main features, scope, analysis capabilities, data requirements and limitations. The second provides details on the underlying algorithms that drive the hydrological and financial analysis engine.
Referring to the flowchart presented previously in figure 3.1, this chapter can be considered to cover the following model development stages: formulation of equations (where these have not already been presented), creation of model structure, formulation of methods for solving and formulation of computational methods.
217
Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com
5.2
Model overview
The spreadsheet developed during this research is a mass-balance transfer model that represents RWH systems which supply non-potable water to residential, commercial, industrial and institutional buildings. The primary purpose of the application is to provide an assessment of the hydrological and WLC performance of these systems for individual buildings. The model simulates and then compares two scenarios: a building with a mains-only supply and the same building with a RWH system plus mains top-up function. This allows the user to judge the relative cost effectiveness of a proposed RWH system compared to relying solely on mains-only water. It is also possible to predict its technical performance under a range of operating conditions and configurations. For example, a range of tank sizes (and associated costs/benefits) can be assessed and the results compared in order to determine which size optimises the financial performance under a given set of circumstances.
5.3
Model scope
A daily timestep has been employed and simulations can be run for up to 100 years. This upper limit was chosen as it represents a long enough time period over which to judge the performance of any system, and in any case for reasons of practicality most financial assessments would not be conducted on timescales of this length. The selection of a daily timestep was discussed and justified previously in chapter three. Any RWH system can be assessed providing that the configuration does not vary significantly from that shown later in figure 5.3. This configuration corresponds to most contemporary systems and
218
virtually all domestic ones. A range of key input parameters have been identified and most are user-definable, for example rainfall patterns, catchment size, storage tank capacity, water demand profiles, pump and UV unit characteristics (including electricity costs). Mains supply and sewerage systems are included as boundary conditions and only the volume of water passing to and from these is considered, along with any associated costs.
Both new-build and retro fit systems can be modelled, although this thesis only considers new-build situations.
Operating costs can be entered on a yearly basis and these include water supply and sewerage charges, electricity costs and the discount rate. This allows gradual long-term changes in costs to be taken into account. For instance there is a general trend of increasing water supply and sewerage charges in real terms. The same is also true of energy costs (see chapter four). These increases can be modelled in detail and it does not have to be assumed that prices remain static over time, a trait that was deemed to be a limitation of many of the existing models reviewed in the previous chapter. Maintenance activities and associated costs can be modelled on a temporal scale of at least one month, although costs for a given year are aggregated to give an overall annual expenditure. Maintenance activities can be programmed so that they occur only once or repeatedly at a specified time interval, e.g. once at five years, once every six months. It is possible to exclude a given financial cost from the analysis if it is not required, e.g. decommissioning costs.
219
5.4
Model structure
To recap from chapter three, the hydrological components explicitly modelled consist of rainfall depth, catchment surface (runoff characteristics), first flush diverter, coarse filter, pump, UV unit, potable (mains) water supply and sewerage systems (volumes to and from), storage tank and non-potable supply and demand. To this can be added the associated financial parameters identified in chapter four which consist of capital and decommissioning costs, volumetric water supply and standing charges, volumetric sewerage disposal and standing charges, electricity supply, maintenance frequencies plus associated expenses and the selected discount rate and discount period. Figure 5.1 shows a picture of the main navigation screen from which the rest of the application is accessed.
Figure 5.1
RWH system model: main navigation screen
220
The application is modular in design and broadly consists of three types of modules: input, analysis and computational. The input modules are where the user enters the data required by the program to perform an analysis. These can be further divided into hydrological and financial input modules and each has its own set of associated parameters that require user input, as shown in tables 5.1 and 5.2. In total there are 7 hydrological and 4 financial input modules.
Table 5.1
Hydrological input modules and associated parameters
Module Rainfall profiles
Associated parameters Units Historic daily rainfall data mm/day UKCIP-02 scenarios1 mm/day Catchment surface Catchment (plan) area m2 details Initial losses mm Runoff coefficient First-flush device litres Coarse rainwater filter Filter coefficient Storage tank Tank storage capacity m3 Initial degree of filling % Mains top-up location (storage tank or in-building header tank) Drain-down intervals Date Pump Pump installed? (yes/no) Power rating kW Pumping capacity litres/min UV unit UV unit installed (yes/no) Power rating W Operating time hrs/day Water demand Daily demand m3/day 1 Climate change scenarios generated from historic data using UKCIP (2002b) methodology
221
Table 5.2
Financial input modules and associated parameters
Module Capital/decommissioning expenses Water and sewerage charges
Associated parameters Units Capital costs Decommissioning costs Volumetric supply charge /m3 Supply standing charge /yr Volumetric sewerage /m3 charge Sewerage standing charge /yr Harvested water disposal /m3 1 charge Operating expenses Electricity cost p/kWhr Discount rate2 % 3 Maintenance activities Activity frequency Months/years Associated cost /activity 1 Not yet applicable in the UK but this situation may change in the future 2 Selected discount rate applies to all cost components including mains-only system 3 Specify up to 20 maintenance activities and associated costs/frequencies
There are three separate analysis modules available that allow the user to conduct a range of investigations of increasing complexity (and therefore of increasing data requirements). A range of analysis options was included because the user may not wish to perform a detailed assessment at the outset, which would require a large amount of data to be gathered. At first they may wish to perform a simpler scoping exercise in order to determine the feasibility of a system in terms of its ability meet a given set of design criteria, e.g. be able to supply a minimum amount of water or be financially viable. Once the feasibility of a system has been confirmed then time and resources can be dedicated to collecting the information required to perform a more detailed analysis. The available analysis modules are summarised in table 5.3.
222
Table 5.3
Module Assess tank sizes
Description of available analysis modules

Description For a given system, predicts the percentage of demand likely to be met by assessing the performance of a range of tank sizes (0.1-1000m3) As above but also predicts the WLC of both the RWH system and an equivalent mains-only system and calculates the financial savings associated with a range of tank sizes Similar to the assess savings module but only assesses one system at a time. However, results are available in much greater detail Parameters requiring data Analysis time horizon, tank sizes, rainfall profile, catchment area, initial losses, runoff coefficient, coarse filter coefficient, water demand and firstflush volume As above plus capital and decommissioning costs, water supply and sewerage charges, discount rate, electricity charge, pump power rating and capacity, UV unit power rating and operating time and maintenance items (frequency and associated costs) Same as for assess savings module
Assess savings
Detailed analysis
The assess savings module determines the WLC performance of a range of tanks during the same simulation run. That is, for a given building and set of conditions (climate, building characteristics, water demand) the module will perform a comparative simulation for different tank sizes and their associated capital/decommissioning costs. All other costs are assumed to be the same, for instance water supply and sewerage charges, maintenance requirements, electricity costs. This allows the user to optimise the financial performance of the RWH system by selecting the most cost effective tank size from the available range. Figure 5.2 shows the results from an analysis conducted for a proposed school system in the West Yorkshire region. The graph clearly shows an initially increasing profitability as tank size increases but this peaks at about 30m3 and then declines for all tank sizes after that. The optimisation results would therefore indicate that, under the assumptions used in the analysis, a
223
tank size of approximately 30m3 represents the best investment from a financial perspective.
Figure 5.2
18,000 16,000 14,000
Example of a WLC optimisation analysis
Savings @ NPV ()
12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Tank size (cu.m)
Notes: results are for school building with 200 male and 200 female pupils, harvested water uses were urinal and toilet flushing, yearly demand = 1,226m3, roof area = 1,150m2, runoff and filter coefficients = 0.9, mains water supply and sewerage charges as described in chapter four. Discount rate = 3.5%, discount period = 50 years
Once the optimum tank size has been determined then the associated capital/decommissioning costs are transferred to the detailed analysis module, if a more in-depth study is required. This module outputs assessment results as a series of performance indicators. The primary indicators consist of the total water demand over a systems lifetime and percentage of demand met by harvested water, WLC of the RWH system at present value, WLC of an equivalent mains-only system at present value, financial savings (if any) of the RWH system compared to the equivalent mains-only system, and the pay-back period (if any). It is also possible to examine system performance in greater detail than with the other modules. For example a detailed breakdown of the
224
WLC contribution from each maintenance item is available whereas in the assess savings module maintenance costs are aggregated each year into a single figure. More hydrological performance details are also available, e.g. number of overflows, overflow volume, number of empty tank days, maximum consecutive empty tank days, total water to tank, water utilised as percentage of total catchment runoff.
There is one computational module plus associated Visual Basic for Applications (VBA) code. This can be considered as the engine of the model as it links the other modules together and contains the algorithms that represent the physical components of the RWH system. The operation of the computational module is covered in greater detail later in this chapter.
5.5
Model limitations
There are a number of limitations with the current version of the model. It does not explicitly take account of water quality although it does include a representation of components that are known to improve it, such as coarse filters and UV units. It was shown in chapter two that coarse filtration is considered sufficient treatment for most non-potable applications. The addition of UV sterilisation would further reduce any associated risks but would also increase costs. The assumption therefore is that the harvested water will always be of sufficient quality for the non-potable uses considered during this research project.
225
There is an implicit assumption that mains top-up water will always be available for those times that the RWH storage tank runs empty. This is a reasonable supposition as the literature review showed that the vast majority of contemporary systems located in urban areas have a mains top-up function.
5.6
Assessment procedure
The model consists of two analysis components. One assesses the hydrological performance and the other the financial performance. Both the proposed RWH system and an equivalent mains-only system are simulated. For a given time period t the hydrological performance is evaluated first. The model operates on a daily time-step and, for the RWH system, simulates the water fluxes associated with the storage tank in a 24 hour period. In order to keep the volume of data produced to manageable levels the application was programmed so that it performs a single years worth of daily analysis and then aggregates the outputs and records the key daily results from that current year, e.g. percentage of demand met, volume of mains top-up required. Daily results for the current year are then deleted before proceeding to the next year. The equivalent mains-only system is modelled in a similar fashion. However, the process is less complex than for the RWH variant and it is simply assumed that all non-potable demand is met by mains supply water.
The financial aspects are evaluated on an annual basis after the hydrological calculations have been performed and aggregated for a particular year. Some financial components are dependant on the results from the hydrological analysis whilst others are affected only by the passage of time, i.e. costs are
226
incurred on a daily basis or on a specific calendar date regardless of hydrological performance. The former include pump operating, mains top-up and harvested water disposal costs. The latter include capital, decommissioning and UV operating costs, supply and sewerage standing charges as well as any maintenance activities.
This process is repeated until the number of years simulated have reached the value specified by the user, up to a maximum of 100 years. Figures 5.3-5.5 show schematic representations of the hydrological and financial components and demonstrate how they are linked to produce a complete systems model.
Figure 5.3
Schematic representation of the hydrological model
Rt ILt + RLt ERt A
FFLt
FF FFt
Mt
Tank
Dt
Building
Ot S DDt Vt Pu
Qt Yt
FLt
227
Where:
A Rt ILt RLt ERt FF FFt FFLt F FLt = Effective catchment (roof) area (m2) = rainfall depth in time t (m) = Initial losses in time t (m) = runoff losses in time t (m3/day) = effective runoff in time t (m3) = first flush filter = first flush pass forward flow in t (m3) = first-flush losses in time t (m3) = coarse filter = coarse filter losses in time t (m3) Qt S Vt Mt Ot DDt Pu Yt Dt = tank inflow in time t (m3) = storage capacity of tank (m3) = storage content in time t (m3) = mains top-up in time t (m3)* = overflow in time t (m3) = drain-down in time t (m3) = pump unit = yield in time t (m3) = water demand in time t (m3)
*Mains top-up can also occur in the in-building header tank, location is user-definable
Unless otherwise stated the time interval t refers to one day, y denotes the current simulation year and n is the analysis time horizon in years
Figure 5.4
MSYSTEM
Schematic representation of mains-only financial model
MSUPPLIED
MSUPCOST/YR
SupSC SewSC
MDISPOSED
SewCOST/YR
Financial model boundary
SewSYSTEM
Where:
MSYSTEM MSUPPLIED MSUPCOST/YR MDISPOSED SupSC SewSYSTEM SewCOST/YR SewSC r = mains (public) water supply system = volume of mains water supplied (m3/yr) = volumetric mains water supply cost (/yr) = volume of mains water discharged to sewer system (m3/yr) = mains water supply standing charge (/yr) = public sewer system = volumetric sewerage disposal cost (/yr) = sewerage standing charge (/yr) = discount rate (%)
228
Figure 5.5
Schematic representation of RWH system financial model

RWHSYSTEM MSYSTEM
RWHCAPCOST
PuCOST/YR
PuEnt
MTOP-UP
MSUPCOST/YR
RWHMACOST/YR
UVCOST/YR
UVEnt
MTOP-DIS
SewCOST/YR
SupSC RWHDECOST RWHDISCOST/YR RWHDISPOSED SewSC r

Financial model boundary
SewSYSTEM
Where:
RWHSYSTEM RWHCAPCOST RWHMACOST/YR RWHDECOST PuEnt PuCOST/YR UVEnt UVCOST/YR RWHDISPOSED RWHDISCOST/YR MTOP-UP MTOP-DIS
1
= rainwater harvesting system = capital cost () = maintenance cost (/yr) = decommissioning cost ()1 = pump energy usage (kWhrs) = pump operating cost (/yr) = UV unit energy usage (kWhrs) = UV unit operating cost (/yr) = volume of harvested water discharged to sewer (m3/yr) = disposal charge for RWHDISPOSED (/yr) = annual volume of mains top-up required (m3/yr) = annual volume of mains top-up to sewer system (m3/yr)
Assumed to occur at end of analysis period (year n)
The other terms are as previously defined.
229
5.7
Hydrological model algorithms
The underlying principles of the selected hydrological modelling approaches were discussed in chapter three. This section details their inclusion within the developed model in terms of the algorithms used to implement them.
Figure 5.6 is a flowchart that demonstrates the order in which the hydrological calculations are conducted. Note that the arrangement of inflow/outflow fluxes associated with the storage tank correspond to those of a YAS operating algorithm (Jenkins et al, 1978). Different algorithms, for instance YBS, would have a different order of operations. The numbered boxes on the flowchart refer to equations presented later in this chapter and demonstrate how the equations are linked to form a complete model.
230
Figure 5.6
Flowchart demonstrating order of hydrological operations

Collect and input data Start simulation ( y=1, t=1)
Read rainfall depth for current day
Initial and coefficient losses (depression storage etc)
Subtract initial losses from daily rainfall depth
Effective rainfall depth and runoff from catchment
3 First-flush losses First-flush filter
4 Coarse filter losses Coarse (leaf) filter
y+1 No Yes y = n? 8
Read water demand for current day
Storage Tank (YAS) 1) Determine yield 2) Inflow 3) Overflow 4) Extract yield
5 6 7
Overflow losses
t+1 No
t=1 Yes t = 365? 9
In storage tank Mains top-up (if required) 10 Pump unit
In header tank No t = 365 AND y = n? Water use and disposal / losses
Yes Foul sewer system and / or garden Simulation ends
Notation Key n = analysis period in years y = current year t = current day in year y
231
5.7.1 Initial losses The user is required to input the initial loss value in mm for a given catchment material (e.g. roof tiles). Since the model works on a daily timestep the initial losses are also calculated at this time scale. The program compares the initial loss value with the rainfall depth occurring on a given day. If the rainfall depth is greater than the initial losses then subtract the initial loss value to give the effective rainfall depth. See equation 5.1.
Rt REt 0
ILt
if Rt if Rt
ILt
(5.1)
ILt
where: REt Rt ILt = effective rainfall depth in time t (m) = rainfall depth in time t (m) = initial losses (m)
5.7.2 Effective runoff and runoff losses The effective runoff is the volume of rain falling on a catchment (plan) area that can be collected and routed into the RWH system. A coefficient is used to represent the volume of rainfall that is lost from the system, for example due to processes such as depression storage, surface wetting and evaporation (these are in addition to the initial losses described in section 5.7.1). Equation 5.2 shows the algorithm employed in the model.
ERt
Rt A CR
(5.2)
232
where: ERt Rt A CR = effective runoff in time t (m3) = rainfall depth in time t (m) = effective catchment area (m2) = catchment runoff coefficient
5.7.3 First flush device First flush devices capture a predefined volume of the effective runoff originating from the catchment surface. It is possible for the effective runoff volume to be less than that of the first flush volume (such as on a day with little or no rainfall) and this condition requires evaluation. The first flush pass forward flow (volume of water bypassing the device) is given by equation 5.3.
ERt FFt 0
FFVOL
if ERt if ERt
FFVOL FFVOL
(5.3)
0
where: FFt FFVOL = first flush pass forward flow in time t (m3) = first flush volume (m3)
5.7.4 Coarse filter The volume of water passing into the storage tank via the coarse filter is represented by a coefficient as shown in equation 5.4. It is assumed that no further components exist between the coarse filter and the storage tank and so the cleaned water from the filter is routed directly to the tank (equation 5.5).
Ft
EFt CF
(5.4)
233
Qt
Ft
(5.5)
where: Ft CF Qt = course filter pass forward flow in time t (m3) = coarse filter coefficient = inflow to storage tank in time t (m3)
5.7.5 Storage tank water fluxes The operation of the storage tank was modelled using the generalised YAS/YBS algorithm described by Latham (1983). The storage operating parameter was set to zero, meaning that the model behaved the same as the YAS variant. A more detailed explanation of the YAS/YBS operating rules can be found in chapter three. The generalised YAS/YBS algorithm is shown here in equations 5.6 and 5.7.
Yt
min
Dt Vt Qt
(5.6)
Vt
min
(Vt
Qt )Yt
Yt ) (1
)Yt
S (1
(5.7)
where: Yt Dt Vt Vt-1 = yield from system in time t (m3) = demand from system in time t (m3) = storage content in time t (m3) = storage content in time t-1 (m3) = Storage operating parameter coefficient
234
Note that in equation 5.6 the daily demand Dt is automatically extracted from the Demand Generator module (see chapter three).
5.7.6 Overflow An overflow algorithm was developed using the same principles as that used by Latham (1983) to derive the generalised YAS/YBS equations, as shown in equation 5.8.
0 Ot max Vt
1
(5.8)
Qt Yt S
where: Ot = overflow in time t (m3)
5.7.7 Mains top-up The volume of mains top-up required is determined by subtracting the yield obtained on a given day, Yt, from the demand occurring on the same day, Dt. The difference between the two parameters is the daily shortfall which is assumed to be compensated for by mains top-up water (equation 5.9).
Mt
Dt Yt
(5.9)
where: Mt = mains top-up in time t (m3)
235
5.7.8 Pump unit Pump unit operating time per day is given in equation 5.10. The volume of water which requires pumping can be affected by the location of the mains top-up function (storage tank or in-building header tank) and so this condition requires evaluation.
Yt Mt PuCAP PUTIME Yt PuCAP
if top - up in storage tank

(5.10)
if top - up in header tank
where: PUTIME PUCAP 5.8 = pump operating period in time t (hrs) = pump capacity (m3/hr)
Financial model algorithms
The underlying principles of the selected financial modelling approaches were discussed in chapter four. This section details their inclusion within the model in terms of the algorithms used to implement them.
The selected financial assessment method is fundamentally a comparison between two possible options: one in which a building uses a metered mains supply to satisfy potable and non-potable demand, and one in which a RWH system with mains top-up is used to satisfy some (or potentially all) of the nonpotable demand. In the latter case water is still drawn from the mains for potable uses. Both options have associated costs. For the metered mains-only scenario water supply and sewerage charges are incurred, as are standing
236
charges. These may also apply to the RWH system due to the use of mains topup water. The rainwater system also incurs expenses that the mains-only system does not and these consist of capital, operation, maintenance and (possibly) decommissioning costs. The financial analysis procedure for both the mains-only and RWH systems are demonstrated in figures 5.7 and 5.8. The numbered boxes refer to equations from this chapter and demonstrate how they are linked.
Figure 5.7
Flowchart demonstrating order of financial operations for mains-only system
Collect and input cost data
Start simulation ( y = 1)
Sum daily water demand volumes for t=1 to 365 inclusive
Daily water demand values
11
Annual demand x volumetric supply & sewerage charges
Vol. sewerage charges, account for non-return losses
11
11
Sum costs to give total annual cost at current prices
Yearly supply and sewerage standing charges
11
Calculate and record PV of costs for year y Notation Key n = analysis period in years y = current year t = current day in year y PV = present value
y+1
No
y = n?
Yes 12 Sum present values for all years to give mains-system WLC
Simulation ends
237
Figure 5.8
Flowchart demonstrating order of financial operations for RWH system

Collect and input data Start simulation ( y = 1)
y = 1? No Sum pump annual operating time and energy usage
Yes
Add capital cost to RWH system WLC sum
Calculate and record pump operating cost at PV
15
Sum UV annual operating time and energy usage
17
Calculate and record UV operating cost at PV
Electricity unit charges
21
Supply and sewerage charges
24
Calculate and record mains top-up costs at PV
Calculate volume of mains top-up required
23
19
Calculate and record harvested water disposal cost at PV
Calculate volume of harvested water to public sewer
13
Calculate and record yearly maintenance cost at PV
Maintenance activities and costs
y+1
No
y = n?
Yes Calculate and record decommission cost at PV Notation Key n = analysis period in years y = current year t = current day in year y PV = present value
Simulation ends
Sum present values for all years to give RWH system WLC
14, 16, 18, 20, 22, 25, 26
238
All future costs are related back to their equivalent present values using standard discounting techniques.
5.9
Mains-only system financial calculations
Mains-only system costs are limited to the non-potable fraction which harvested water is intended to substitute, for example the volume of mains water used to flush the WC, wash clothes and/or irrigate the garden. The costs of other nonpotable and potable uses are not included in the analysis since they are independent of the RWH system. The algorithms that calculate the yearly cost and total WLC of the mains-only system are given in equations 5.11 and 5.12.
MCOST / YR
(MSUPPLIED MUNITCOST) (SupSC SupSC%) (MSUPPLIED [1 SewLOSSES] SewUNITCOST) (SewSC SewSC%)

(5.11)
y n
MNPV
y 1
MPVCOST / YR
(5.12)
where: MCOST/YR MSUPPLIED MUNITCOST SupSC SupSC% SewLOSSES SewUNITCOST SewSC SewSC% MNPV MPVCOST/YR = annual mains water cost (/yr) = annual volume of mains water supplied (m3/yr) = volumetric supply charge for mains water (/m3) = supply standing charge (/yr) = fraction of supply standing charge applicable = fraction of non-return to sewer losses = volumetric disposal charge for sewerage (/m3) = sewerage standing charge (/yr) = fraction of sewerage standing charge applicable = discounted NPV value of mains supply over n years () = discounted annual mains water costs (/yr)
239
It would have been technically acceptable to disregard the supply and sewerage standing charges since these apply equally to both the mains-only and RWH systems. The selected WLC approach allows costs that are common to all options to be ignored since ultimately they do not affect the WLC difference between the modelled scenarios. However, it can still be useful to include the standing charges since this gives a better indication of the total cost of each system and also the true unit cost of water supplied from each, not just the difference between the two.
Supply and sewerage standing charges were assigned to the RWH system by estimating the total water demand (potable plus non-potable) of a building, and then calculating the percentage of the total demand that could potentially be met by harvested rainwater. The same percentage of the supply and sewerage standing charges were then assigned to the RWH system. For example if half of all water demand could met by harvested water then 50% of the supply and sewerage charges would be assigned to the RWH system costs. In all cases the daily per capita internal water use was assumed to be 120 litres (see chapter three).
5.10
RWH system financial calculations
The key RWH system cost components include capital, operating, maintenance and decommissioning costs. The operating costs consist of pump and UV electricity charges as well as any main top-up required.
240
5.10.1
Capital costs
There is no algorithm for calculating the capital costs. The application requires that the user input the aggregate capital costs as a single figure. Since capital expenditure occurs in financial year zero no discounting needs to be conducted and the capital figure can simply be added unadjusted to system WLCs.
5.10.2
Maintenance costs
The maintenance cost module allows the user to specify when maintenance activities will occur, how much they will cost and whether a given activity is oneoff or recurring. Frequencies can be input in months or years. The module is linked to a VBA code macro that, when run, populates a maintenance activity data table with the user specified information. The replacement of system components once they have reached the end of their service lives should also be entered in the maintenance module, e.g. pump and UV units, control systems, valves and pipework.
For each year of the analysis, the program calculates the PV of each activity, then aggregates the results to give the PV of the overall maintenance cost for that year. The total maintenance cost for the whole analysis period is calculated by summing all of the yearly aggregate present value costs. See equations 5.13 and 5.14 below.
i 20
RWHMACOST / YR
i 1
MaiCOST / YR
(5.13)
241
y n
MaNPV
y 1
RWHMACOST / YR
(5.14)
where: RWHMACOST/YR MaiCOST/YR MaNPV 5.10.3 = annual RWH system maintenance cost (/yr) = annual maintenance cost for item i, where i = 1-20 = discounted NPV of total maintenance costs over n years ()
Decommissioning costs
Decommissioning is assumed to occur during the final year of the selected analysis period. The user is required to input the estimated decommissioning costs at current prices in the Decommissioning Cost module. During analysis of the final simulation year (y=n) the program calculates the present value of the decommissioning cost and adds this to the WLC of the RWH system.
5.10.4
Pump operating costs
The operating (electricity) cost of the pump is related to the energy usage, which in turn is dependant on the pump operating time and power rating. The determination of pump operating time was given previously in this chapter (equation 5.10). Pump power usage was covered in chapter three (equation 3.5). Equations 5.15 and 5.16 below demonstrate how annual and lifetime pump operating costs were calculated.
t 365
PuCOST / YR
t 1
PuEnt
ElUNITCOST 100
(5.15)
242
y n
PuNPV
y 1
PuCOST / YR
(5.16)
where: PuEnt ElUNITCOST PuNPV 5.10.5 = pump energy usage in time t (kWhrs) = unit cost of electricity (p/kWhr) = discounted NPV of pump operating costs over n years ()
UV unit operating costs
The operating (electricity) cost of the UV unit is related to the energy usage, which in turn is dependant on the units operating time and power rating. Equations 5.17, 5.18 and 5.19 below demonstrate how the energy usage, annual and lifetime UV operating costs were calculated in the model.
UVEnt = UVPOW x UVTIME
(5.17)
t 365
UVCOST / YR
t 1
UVEnt
ElUNITCOST 100
(5.18)
y n
UVNPV
y 1
UVCOST / YR
(5.19)
where: UVEnt UVPOW UVTIME UVCOST/YR ElUNITCOST UVNPV = UV unit energy usage in time t (kWhrs) = lamp power rating (kW) = UV unit operating time (usually 24 hours/day) (hrs) = UV unit operating cost (/yr) = unit cost of electricity (p/kWhr) = discounted NPV of UV unit operating costs over n years ()
243
5.10.6
Harvested water disposal costs
A disposal charge can be applied to any harvested water discharged to the foul sewer system and this in effect replicates the volumetric sewerage charge associated with mains supply water. Currently no UK water utility charges for harvested water discharged to the sewer system but it is not inconceivable that this situation may change in the future if the use of RWH systems were to become more widespread. Water utilities are required to cover their operating costs and with zero harvested water disposal charge they are essentially treating a portion of a customers foul flow without recovering their own costs.
The algorithm used in the model allows the user to route only a fraction of used harvested water into the sewer system. This enables the model to take into account situations in which not all of the harvested water goes to the sewer, for example where non-potable uses include an element of garden watering. However, this does require an estimation to be made regarding the percentage of water that will remain outside of the sewer system and it is unlikely that the selected value will be completely accurate. Equations 5.20 and 5.21 demonstrate how the disposal volume and associated costs are calculated.
t 365
RWHDISCOST / YR
t 1
Yt SewDIS% DisUNITCOST
(5.20)
y n
DisNPV
y 1
RWHDISCOST / YR
(5.21)
244
where: RWHDISCOST/YR SewDIS% DisUNITCOST DisNPV 5.10.7 = annual disposal charge for harvested water (/yr) = fraction of harvested water disposed of to sewer system = harvested water unit disposal cost (/m3) = discounted NPV of disposal costs over n years ()
Supply and sewerage standing charges
Equation 5.22 shows how the combined supply and standing charges are calculated for the rainwater system on a yearly basis. Equation 5.23 shows how the yearly costs are combined to provide the net present value of the standing charges over the selected analysis period.
SCYR
(SupSC SupSC%) (SewSC SewSC%)
(5.22)
y n
SCNPV
y 1
SCyr
(5.23)
where: SCYR = annual standing charge costs assigned to RWH system (/yr) SCNPV = discounted NPV of RWH standing charges over n years () The value for SCYR is calculated using the same method described previously for the mains-only system previously in section 5.9.
5.10.8
Mains top-up costs
This depends on the quantity of mains top-up required and the associated volumetric supply and sewerage unit charges. The volume needed in a given year is calculated as shown in equation 5.24. The formula for calculating the daily top-up volume required, Mt, was given previously in equation 5.9. The
245
yearly cost to supply MTOP-UP is calculated as shown in equation 5.25 and the total mains top-up cost over the whole analysis period, at NPV, is given in equation 5.26.
t 365
MTOP
UP t 1
Mt
(5.24)
MTOPCOST / YR
(MTOP (MTOP
UP UP
MUNITCOST) [1 SewLOSSES] SewUNITCOST)
(5.25)
y n
TopUpNPV
y 1
MTOPCOST / YR
(5.26)
where: MTOP-UP = annual volume of mains top-up required (m3/yr) MTOPCOST/YR = annual mains top-up cost (/yr) TopUpNPV = discounted NPV of mains top-up over n years () 5.10.9 Net present value of RWH system
The NPV of the RWH system is given by summing the NPV of the individual cost items presented in sections 5.10.1 to 5.10.8, as shown in equation 5.27.
RWHNPV
RWHCAPCOST MaNPV PuNPV UVNPV SCNPV TopUpNPV RWHDECOST
DisNPV
(5.27)
where: RWHNPV = discounted NPV of RWH system over n years ()
246
5.11
WLC comparison between mains-only and RWH systems
Once the discounted WLC of the mains-only and RWH systems have been calculated then the cost effectiveness of the latter can be evaluated. The model is able to do this in a number of ways as described below.
5.11.1
Determination of WLC difference
This determines the long-term financial cost/benefit. The WLC of the mains-only system is calculated as per equation 5.12. This equation gives the discounted net present value of the mains-only system, i.e. this is the amount of money that would be required now in order to meet the predicted costs of the mains-only system as they arise over the selected analysis time horizon. The WLC of the RWH system with mains top-up is calculated as per equation 5.27. This equation gives the discounted net present value of the RWH system, i.e. it is the amount of money that would be required now in order to meet the costs of the RWH system as they arise over the selected analysis period.
Knowing these two values allows the relative cost effectiveness of the RWH system to be determined. Subtract the WLC of the RWH system from that of the mains-only system (equation 5.28). If the result is positive then this represents the financial saving arising due to the RWH system, at present value. If the result is negative then this is the financial loss due to the RWH system, at present value. The positive/negative sign can be used as a decision rule, as can the magnitude of the savings achievable.
RWHFCB
MNPV
RWHNPV
(5.28)
247
where: RWHFCB = RHW system long-term financial cost/benefit ()
It should be noted that whether the result is positive or negative can be dependant on the selected discount rate, especially in situations where the NPV is close to zero. In these cases care should be taken when using the NPV as a decision rule as changing the model assumptions may give a different result. It would be advisable to conduct a sensitivity analysis of the results in all cases.
5.11.2
Calculate average incremental cost (AIC)
This approach normalises the WLC of both systems and gives the results on a cost per unit benefit basis, which in this case is the average discounted unit cost of water measured in /m3 (equations 5.29 and 5.30). The RWH system can be considered to be cost effective if the associated AIC is lower than that for the mains-only system, or not cost effective if the reverse is true. The AIC results can be used as decision rule regarding whether or not to implement the rainwater harvesting system.
RWHAIC
RWHNPV
y n
(5.29)
Dyr
y 1
MAIC
MNPV
y n
(5.30)
Dyr
y 1
248
where: RWHAIC Dyr MAIC = RWH system average incremental cost (/m3) = annual demand (m3/yr) = mains-only system average incremental cost (/m3)
A further advantage of this method is that it also allows the cost effectiveness of RWH systems to be compared against various other demand measures where AIC values are available, for instance low flush WCs, urinal controllers, showers, rainwater butts, water efficient washing machines, water audits, metering schemes, greywater recycling and industrial re-use schemes (National Rivers Authority, 1995; Howarth, 1998; White & Howe, 1998; Foxon et al, 2000; Grant, 2003).
5.11.3
Payback period
The initial (financial year zero) cost of a RWH system will usually be greater than that of an equivalent mains-only system due to the required capital expenditure. Providing that the RWH system has lower operating and maintenance costs than the mains-only alternative then over time the cost difference between the two will narrow and may converge. This is the payback period, the point at which the WLC of the RWH system becomes equal to that of the mains-only equivalent. This condition is evaluated in the spreadsheet model once an analysis is complete and the results have been compiled. It is possible that payback is never achieved, for example if the running costs of the rainwater system are always higher than that of the mains-only system. In this case payback can never be achieved and the model returns a value of N/A. This
249
result is also given if payback is possible but lies outside the selected analysis time horizon.
5.12
RWH model development: summary
This chapter has explained the structure, functioning, purpose and limitations of the RWH assessment model developed as part of this research project. The key underlying hydrological and financial algorithms have been presented and described. Methods for comparing the cost performance of a RWH system and equivalent mains-only system were given and it was shown how these can be used as a decision rule when deciding whether or not to implement a rainwater system.
In the next chapter the model is used to assess the WLC performance of a range of domestic systems under a variety of operating conditions in order to provide insights into the cost effectiveness of domestic rainwater harvesting in the UK.
250

UK Rainwater Harvesting Model Development - Bradford University

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

UK Rainwater Harvesting Model Development - Bradford University

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

A Whole Life Costing Approach for Rainwater Harvesting Systems Richard Roebuck PhD, Bradford University

Rainwater Harvesting Model Development

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

RWH system model: main navigation screen

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Hydrological input modules and associated parameters

Module Rainfall profiles

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Financial input modules and associated parameters

Module Capital/decommissioning expenses Water and sewerage charges

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Description of available analysis modules

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Example of a WLC optimisation analysis

12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Tank size (cu.m)

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Schematic representation of the hydrological model

Rt ILt + RLt ERt A

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Schematic representation of mains-only financial model

Financial model boundary

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Schematic representation of RWH system financial model

SupSC RWHDECOST RWHDISCOST/YR RWHDISPOSED SewSC r

Assumed to occur at end of analysis period (year n)

The other terms are as previously defined.

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Hydrological model algorithms

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Flowchart demonstrating order of hydrological operations

Read rainfall depth for current day

Initial and coefficient losses (depression storage etc)

Subtract initial losses from daily rainfall depth

Effective rainfall depth and runoff from catchment

3 First-flush losses First-flush filter

4 Coarse filter losses Coarse (leaf) filter

Read water demand for current day

Storage Tank (YAS) 1) Determine yield 2) Inflow 3) Overflow 4) Extract yield

t=1 Yes t = 365? 9

In storage tank Mains top-up (if required) 10 Pump unit

In header tank No t = 365 AND y = n? Water use and disposal / losses

Yes Foul sewer system and / or garden Simulation ends

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

where: Ot = overflow in time t (m3)

where: Mt = mains top-up in time t (m3)

Rainwater harvesting software from: www.SUDSolutions.com

Yt Mt PuCAP PUTIME Yt PuCAP

if top - up in storage tank

if top - up in header tank

Financial model algorithms

Flowchart demonstrating order of financial operations for mains-only system

Collect and input cost data

Sum daily water demand volumes for t=1 to 365 inclusive

Daily water demand values

Annual demand x volumetric supply & sewerage charges

Vol. sewerage charges, account for non-return losses