- Permanent Link:
- Regulatory and Economical Feasibility of Using a Sustainable Technology for the Transformation of Sewage, Residual Water Treatment Sludge, and Biomass, into; Ash, Potable Water, and Electricity in the Mexican Emerging Economy
- Araujo Leal, Marco Andreas
- Place of Publication:
- [Gainesville, Fla.]
- College of Design, Construction and Planning, University of Florida
- Publication Date:
- Physical Description:
- Project in lieu of thesis
- Master's ( Master of Science in Architectural Studies)
- Degree Grantor:
- University of Florida
- Committee Chair:
- Ries, Robert J.
- Committee Co-Chair:
- Tilson, William L.
- Committee Members:
- Srinivasan, Ravi
- Subjects / Keywords:
- Biomass ( jstor )
Electricity ( jstor )
Energy ( jstor )
Internal rate of return ( jstor )
Mud ( jstor )
Prices ( jstor )
Renewable energy ( jstor )
Sales operations ( jstor )
Sewage sludge ( jstor )
Sludge treatment ( jstor )
- The regulatory and economical feasibility of using a sustainable technology for the transformation of biomass from sewage and sludge of residual water treatment plants into; ash, potable water, and electricity in the Mexican emerging economy was evaluated. The technology evaluated was the Omni Processor® (OP) S200 developed by Janicki Bioenergy, which under optimal operating conditions with an input of 80,000 kg of wet sewage or sludge per day, is capable of producing about 68,000 l of potable water, 250 kWh of electricity, 12,000 kg of ash, and 58 GJ of residual heat / day. Regulatory compliance for the operation of the OP plant in México requires the classification of the sewage or sludge required for its operations according to their level of toxicity and pathogen levels into hazardous or non hazardous materials; according to Official Mexican Norms NOM-004- SEMARNAT-2002 and NOM-052-SEMARNAT-2005. Most sewage and sludge in México would be catalogued as non-hazardous, and susceptible to utilization with no direct contact with the general public. However, processing of both hazardous and non hazardous muds is possible with the OP plant. Very significant financial benefits could be generated for a plant operator by processing hazardous muds and turning them into inert ash and potable water. Electricity generation of less than 300 kWh from renewable resources, which is the case for the OP plant, is viable without any special permits, except for a buy back or preferential tariff agreement signed with the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Besides an accelerated depreciation rate of the equipment, there are not enough regulatory or tax incentives, particularly for small producers, to encourage production of electricity with renewable energy sources in México. The operation of the OP plant with full revenue from the collection of sludge, and sales of potable water, electricity, and ash, showed a positive Internal rate of return of 20%; which was determined as feasible, since it is higher than the discount rate for public projects in México which is 10%, and the discount rate for private projects which was determined at 14% for this analysis. The most important revenue product for the operation of the plant is the sale of potable water (up to 60 % of revenue), followed by sludge collection services (16%), sales of ash (15%), and sales of electricity (9%). In line with these results, variation in prices of the sale of water are the most significant economic variable, since a 50% variation in the sales price of water can drop the IRR of the whole operation from 20% to only 7%. The operation of the OP exclusively on the basis of the regulatory framework and economic results is feasible in the Mexican economy. However, if the sanitary, environmental, and public health benefits of such a process are valued, the operation is highly feasible and desirable, especially in developing countries where water treatment capacity and potable water availability are often limited.
- General Note:
- sustainable design terminal project
- Source Institution:
- University of Florida
- Holding Location:
- University of Florida
- Rights Management:
- Copyright Marco Andreas Araujo Leal. Permission granted to the University of Florida to digitize, archive and distribute this item for non-profit research and educational purposes. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder.
- Resource Identifier:
- 1022120887 ( OCLC )
This item is only available as the following downloads:
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EYQAYZD1Y_P7MRW6 INGEST_TIME 2016-04-21T19:41:57Z PACKAGE AA00034606_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID EVA7FUCUA_SDDSW0 INGEST_TIME 2016-04-19T21:20:32Z PACKAGE AA00034606_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
! " ! Regulatory and Economical Feasibility of Using a Sustainable Technology for the Transformation of Sewage , Residual Water Treatment Sludge , and Biomass , into ; Ash, Potable Water, and Electricity in the Mexican Emerging Economy . By Marco Andreas Araujo Le al Masters Research Project Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters in Sustainable Desig n , in the School of Architecture, University of Florida, Gainesville Florida, July 2015. Chair : Dr. Robert J. Ries Co ch air: Dr. William L. Tilson Member : Dr. Ravi Srinivasan
! "" ! COPYRIGHT PAGE. Â© Copyright 2015 , Marco Andreas Araujo Leal, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. All Rights Reserved.
! """ ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to Dr. Robert J . R ies who served as Committee C hair ; Dr. William L. Tilson C ommittee Co chair; and Dr. Ravi Srinivasan C ommittee M ember , for this research. My special thanks to the faculty in the School of Architecture, particularly to Dr. Ruth Steiner for her valuable advice, as well as Dr. Bradley Walters and Dr. Margaret Carr, for the great experiences during our courses and the trips to Singapore and the Netherlands. Special Thanks to Dr . William L. Tilson and Michael Kung for their advice and support during the program. A special acknowledgment to Sara Van Tassel from Janicki Bioenergy, for providing the necessary technical information for this research. I wou ld like to express my most sincere and loving appreciation to my wife Lorena and my sons Alonso and Cristobal, who always s upported m e during the completion of this program. To all my classma t es who m ade this experience memorable. Fina lly to my colleagues in Soluciones Ambientales for their support and understanding.
! " ! TABLE OF CONTENTS. COPYRIGHT PAGE. II ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. III TABLE OF CONTENTS. 1 LIST OF TABLES. 2 LIST OF FIGURES 3 ABSTRACT 4 INTRODUCTION. 6 LITERATURE REVIEW. 8 I MPORTANCE OF THE B UILT E NVIRONMENT IN THE C ONTEXT OF S US TAINABILITY 8 E NERGY AND W ATER AS I MPORTANT C OMPONENTS OF S USTAINABILITY 9 S USTAINABILITY IN D EVELOPING C OUNTRIES 11 S EWAGE AND S LUDGE AS B YPRODUCTS OF D EVELOPMENT 13 C ONVERSION OF B IOMASS AND R ESIDUAL M UD TO E NERGY 14 E NVIRONMENTAL R EGULATION C ONCERNING R ESIDUAL W ATER AND S LUDGE IN M ÂƒXICO 16 M EXICAN R EGULATION FOR E NERGY P RODUCERS AND THE P ROMOTION OF R ENEWABLE E NERGY S OURCES 21 I NCENTIVES TO CLEAN E NERGY PRODUCTION . 24 METHODOLOGY: 27 D ESCRIPTION OF THE TE CHNOLOGY . 2 8 RESULTS: 30 E CONOMIC ASSUMPTIONS . 31 F INANCIAL ANALYSIS . 36 DISCUSSION: 47 R EGULATORY FEASIBILIT Y 47 I NCENTIVES TO RENEWAB LE ENERGY PRODUCTION . 49 E CONOMIC ANALYSIS . 50 S OCIAL AND HEALTH IMP LICATIONS 53
! # ! L IST OF TABLES. T ABLE 1. M AXIMUM ALLOWABLE HEA VY METALS IN SLUDGE ACCORDING TO NOM 004 2002. ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 20 T ABLE 2. C LASSIFICATION OF MUD AND SLUDGE ACCORDING TO THEIR BIOLOGICAL POLLUTION INDICATORS . ................................ ................................ ..................... 20 T ABLE 3. C LASSIFICATION OF MUD AND SLUDGE ALLOWABLE USE ACCORDING TO PATHOGEN LOAD . ................................ ................................ ............................... 20 T ABLE 4. O PERATION PARAMET ERS FOR THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ S200 ...................... 31 T ABLE 5. C ONSUMER TARIFFS FOR ELECTRICITY ( K W H ) IN P ESOS AND IN U S D OLLARS , FOR THE CENTRAL REGI ON OF M ÂƒXICO . ................................ ................................ 33 T ABLE 6. A VERAGE COST OF POTAB LE BOTTLED WATER IN M ÂƒX ICO , J UNE 2015. .......... 35 T ABLE 7. C APITAL COST OF BUYIN G , IMPORTING AND COMMIS SION AN O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ S200 PLANT IN CENTRAL M ÂƒXICO . ................................ ................................ ....... 36 T ABLE 8. F UEL AND MAINTENANCE OPERATIONAL COSTS FO R O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ S200 I N C ENTRAL M ÂƒXICO . ................................ ................................ .......................... 37 T ABLE 9. L ABOR OPERATIONAL COS TS FOR THE O MNI PROCESSOR Â¨ S200 IN M ÂƒXICO . . 37 T ABLE 10. I NTERNAL RATE OF RETU RN (IRR) FOR THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 WITH FULL REVEN UE FROM THE SALE OF WATER , ELECTRICITY , FLY ASH , AND SLUDGE COLLECTIO N . ................................ ................ 38 T ABLE 11. I NTERNAL RATE OF RETU RN (IRR) FOR THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 WITH REVENUE FROM TH E SALE OF WATER , ELECTRICITY , FLY ASH , BUT NOT FROM SLUDGE COLL ECTION SERVICES . ................................ ...... 39 T ABLE 12. I NTERNAL RATE OF RETU RN (IRR) FOR THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI PROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 WITH REVENUE FROM WA TER , ELECTRICITY , SLUDGE COLLECTION SERVICES , BUT NOT FROM FLY ASH . ................................ .................. 40 T ABLA 13. I NTERNAL RATE OF RETU RN IRR FOR THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ S200 WITH REVENUE FROM WA TER , FLY ASH , SLUDGE COLLECTION SERVICES , BUT NOT FROM ELECTRI CITY . ................................ ............................... 41 T ABLE 14. I NTERNAL RATE OF RET URN (IRR) FOR THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI PROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 WITH REVENUE FROM TH E SALE OF FLY ASH , SLUDGE COLLECTION SERVICES , ELECTRICITY , BUT NOT FROM WATER . ................................ 42 T ABLE 15. I NTERNAL RATE OF RETU RN (IRR) S200 FOR THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI PROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 WITH REVENUE FROM TH E SALE OF FLY ASH , SLUDGE COLLECTION SERVICES , ELECTRICITY , WATER AND HEAT . ................................ ....... 43 T ABLE 16. S UMMARY OF THE I NTERNAL R ATE OF R ETURN (IRR), UNDER DIFFERENT REVENUE SCENARIOS FO R THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ OP S200. .............................. 44
! $ ! LIST OF FIGURES F IGURE 1. C HANGES IN THE INTERN AL RATE OF RETURN (IRR) ON THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 AS A FUNCTION TO CHA NGES IN THE SALES PR ICE OF WATER , IN A SIX YEAR INVEST MENT PROJECT , P ESOS / LITER . ................................ 45 F IGURE 2. C HANGES IN THE INTERN AL RATE OF RETURN (IRR) ON THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI PROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 AS A FUNCTION TO CHA NGES IN THE SALES PR ICE OF ELECTRICITY , ON A SIX YEAR INVESTMENT PROJECT . P ESOS / K W H . ........................ 45 F IGURE 3. C HANGES IN THE INTERN AL RATE OF RETURN (IRR) ON THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI PROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 AS A FUNCTION TO CHA NGES IN THE SALES PR ICE OF F LY A SH , ON A S IX YEAR INVESTMENT P ROJECT . P ESOS / KG . ................................ .. 46 F IGURE 4. C HANGES IN THE INTERN AL RATE OF RETURN (IRR) ON THE OPERATION OF THE O MNI P ROCESSOR Â¨ (OP) S200 AS A FUNCTION TO CHA NGES IN REVENUE FROM THE SALE OF SLUDGE REMOV AL SERVICES , ON A S IX YEAR INVESTMENT P ROJECT . P ESOS / T ON OF WET SLUDGE REM OVAL . ................................ ................................ .......... 46 !
! % ! ABSTRACT The regulatory and economical feasibility of using a sustainable technology for the transformation of biomass from sewage and sludge of residual water treatment plants into ; ash, potable water, and electricity in the Mexican emerging economy was evaluated. The technology evaluated was the Omni ProcessorÂ¨ (OP) S200 dev eloped by Janicki Bioe nergy , which under optimal operating conditions with an input of 80,000 kg of wet sewage or sludge per day, is capable of producing about 68,000 l of potable water, 250 kWh of electricity, 12,000 kg of ash, and 58 GJ of residual heat / day. Regulatory compliance for the operation of the OP plant in MÂŽxico requires the classification of the sewage or sludge required for its operations acco rding to their level of toxicity and pathogen levels into hazardous or non hazardous materials; according to Official Mexican Norms NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002 and NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005. Most sewage and sludge in MÂŽxico would be catalogued as non hazardous, an d susceptible to utilizatio n with no direct contact with the general public. However, processing of both hazardous and non hazardous muds is possible with the OP plant. Very significant financial benefits could be generated for a plant operator by proc essing hazardous muds and turning them into inert ash and potable water. Electricity generation of less than 300 kWh from renewable resources, which is the case for the OP plant, is viable without any special permits, except for a buy back or preferenti al tariff agreement signed with the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Besides an accelerated depreciation rate of the equipment, there are not enough regulatory or tax incentives, particularly for small producers, to encourage production of
! & ! electricit y with renewable energy sources in MÂŽxico. The operation of the OP plant with full revenue from the collection of sludge, and sales of potable water, electricity, and ash, showed a positive Internal rate of return of 20%; which was determined as feasible , since it is higher than the discount rate for public projects in MÂŽxico which is 10%, and the discount rate for private projects which was determined at 14% for this analysis. The most important revenue product for the operation of the plant is the sale of potable water (up to 60 % of revenue), followed by sludge collection services (16%), sales of ash (15%), and sales of electricity (9%). In line with these results, variation in prices of the sale of water are the most significant economic variable, si nce a 50% variation in the sales price of water can drop the IRR of the whole operation from 20% to only 7%. The operation of the OP exclusively on the basis of the regulatory framework and economic results is feasible in the Mexican economy. However, i f the sanitary, environmental, and public health benefits of such a process are valued, the operation is highly feasible and desirable, especially in developing countries where water treatment capacity and potable water availability are often limited. !
! ' ! INTR ODUCTION. Sustainability of the environment is one of the biggest challenges we will face as a society in the next 50 years. Availability of clean air, water, food, and sanitary conditions are increasingly becoming limiting factors for the sustainability o f our global community. While developed countries are rapidly reshaping the landscape by sprawling urban developments along the world's coastlines, water sheds, and rural areas, developing countries are facing a densification of the landscape, creating meg acities which cannot keep up with the demands of their people. Although originated by different driving forces, both strategies seem doomed for failure. The imbalance in living conditions and labor opportunities between the developed and developing countri es hinders the possibility of equitable global development, and promotes an unhealthy sense of resentment between countries that is leading to a lack of international cooperation and an increase in radicalism. Environmentally speaking, water and energy ar e always related; this phenomenon is exemplified by what is called the water energy nexus, which states that if you want more water you will probably need more energy, and if you need more energy you will probably need lots of water to produce it (Schnoor, 2011) . In both developed and developing economies, the sustainability in the use of water and energy is usually a combination of assets and liabilities; however, more so in the developing world, any technology that improves the sustainability of water and energy will have a substantial effect on the well being of society as a whole. Currently, a water and sanitation crisis is spreading in the developing world; it has been estimated that about one bil lion people worldwide suffer from water scarcity
! ( ! (T he Water Project, 2015) , about 2.5 billion people don't have access to adequate bathrooms, and more than 500,000 children die every year from diarrhea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation (Wateraid, 2015) . Without safe water and sanitation conditions, people are trapped in a cycle of poverty. One of the components of this crisis in the developing world is the treatment of raw sewage and residual mud or biosolids, which are an inevitable byproduct of human settlements and the consequential water treatment, or lack thereof (PÂŽrez Elvira, Diez, & Fdz Polanco, 2006) . An example of the amounts of sewage sludge produced in the worl d are the following (values in dry metric t ons , DMT ): USA 6,514,000 DMT ; China 2,966,000 DMT; Japan 2,000,000 DMT ; Brazil 372 DMT (LeBlanc, Matthews, & Richard, 2009) . Due to the high cost of treating residual sludge and other byproducts of water treatment facilities, the amounts p roduced are often not reported or minimized. Raw sewage and residual mud pose severe environmental and health threats; however, they can also be considered an important energy resource. Finding environmentally sound ways to use them effectively is certainl y a significant part of the development of sustainable communities in our society. Historically, most of the residual sludge produced in the world has been directed to incineration, landfilling, or disposal at sea, with a small amount reused in agricultura l and landfill applications (Hospido, Moreira, MartÂ’n, Rigola, & Feijoo, 2005) . Depending on their specific pollutant load, mud can be disposed in landfills, or used as land conditioners or fertilizers. If mud is categorized as a hazardous residual product, it becomes an even bigger problem since it has to be destroyed or confined in a hazardous waste landfill. However, raw sewage residual mud and biosolids can have a cal oric content, as high as
! ) ! 10,400 (KJ)/dry kg (Winkler, Bennenbroek, Horstink, Van Loosdrecht, & Van de Pol, 2013) , but are often loaded with pollutants such as heavy metals and disease promoting pathogens. Applying sustainable technologies that will allow the effic ient treatment of raw sewage and residual mud from waste treatment plants is a valuable asset, especially if the caloric and water content of the products can be reutilized. The purpose of this study is to determine the feasibili ty of a new technology call ed Omni processor Â¨ (OP) , developed by Janicki Bioenergy, that converts residual sludge and biomass into potable water, inert ash, and electricity. A regulatory and economic feasibility within the scope of a developing economy such as MÂŽxico will be dete rmined. The contribution to global sustainability and improved living conditions in the developing world of such a technology will be discussed. LITERATURE REVIEW. Importance of the Built Environment in the Context of Sustainability Estimates on the total percentage of the greenhouse gas emissions derived from the built environment range from a low of 40% (International Energy Agency, 2014) (Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative, 2009) to as much as 70% (Solecki, Rosenzweig, Hammer, & Mehrotra, 2014) . In terms of energy, buildings are the largest consuming sector worldwide , with a consumption of about 19 million barrels of oil per day (Santamouris, 2013) . It has been estimated that energy consumption in the buil t environment will increase by 34% in the next 20 years (PÂŽrez Lombard, Ortiz, & Pout, 2008) . Because of these reasons, the built
! * ! environment is the d ominant driver of global energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions (Anderson, Wulfhorst, & Lang, 2015) . Consequently, the idea of "Greening the built environment" makes a lot of sense (Epstein & Buhovac, 2014) . Residential and commercial buildings account for 39% of all energy consumed in the U.S. (Glicksman, 2008; International Energy Agency, 2014) . Any strategy that promotes energy efficiency ca n have a profound impact on sustainability. Energy is commonly used for heating, cooling, and lighting within the built environment. It has been determined that the use of sustainable technologies such as passive cooling, h eating, lighting, and recycling c an reduce energy consumption in the built environment by up to 60% (Kibert, 2012) . In addition, energy efficiencies, particularly those obtained by passive design traits, do not necessarily increase the cost of construction, once operating and maintenance costs are accounted for (Department of Energy, 2000; Ge orges, Massart, Van Moeseke, & De Herde, 2012; Lechner, 2014) . Energy and Water as Important Components of Sustainability Water and energy are recognized as indispensable inputs to all modern economies (Hussey & Pittock, 2012) , usually becoming two of the most important objectives for the environmental policy at regional, national, and international levels of most countries (PÂŽrez Lombard et al., 2008) . Within the built environment, energy and water are two of the main components of sustainability, often called the water energy nexus; if the need for on e increases, the other one usually increases proportionally (Waite, 2010) . With the global need to feed and house more than nine billion people by 2050 (Ezeh, Bongaarts, & Mberu, 2012) , the size of the built
! "+ ! environment and its water and energy requirements will increase significantly at an accelerated pace. As a result of this requirement, the byproducts of water use and processing, such as raw sewage and residual mud, will also have an accelerated increase in the next 50 years. It has been estimated that management of municipal solid waste and wastewater accounts for up to 2.8% of global em issions of greenhouse gasses and can account for up to 3% of all electricity used worldwide (LeBlanc et al., 2009) . Currently in the U.S. more than 84% of the total energy consumption comes from fossil fuels, and in countries such as Qatar, the p ercentage can be as high as 100% (The World Bank, 2015a) . It has been estimated that the world has fossil fuel reserves that will last no more than 60 to 80 years (Senior, 2015) ; consequently, all strategies that will divert energy consumption from fossil fuels to renewable energies will significantly contribute to sustainability (The National Academies, 2015) . Water is an increasingly scarce resource; it is estimated that by 2020, the planet will need 30 to 45% more water just for agricultural use (World Bank Group, 2014) . According to the World Health Organization, 884 million people do not use improved sources of drinking water and 2.6 billion do not use improved sanitation (USAID, 2011) . Of those with access to water, per capita demand has been estimated at a minimum of 50 L / day (World Buisness Councill for Sustainable Development, 2006) : In the U.S. 11% of water usage per year goes to the municipal drinking supply (Grace Communication Foundation, 2015) ; comparatively, the built environment has also been accounted for as much as 11% of the water usage in the U.S., with some of the most intense functions being c ooling towers, irrigation, and laundry (Betz, Kuh, & Engineers, 2014) . Water is considered one of the most significant factors for sustainability in
! "" ! the built environment, not solely due to its high demand, but also due to its link to energy consumption (Graham, 2009) . Efficiency of water usage in the built environment can be signi ficantly increased by passive design features such as separating grey and black waters, capturing rainfall, and reuse procedures (Blowers, 2013; Friedman, 2012) . The combined effect of the efficiency in the use of water and energy nexus in the built environment has an increasingly important effect on the overall balance of sustainability (Waterforlifedecade., 2014) . Sustainability in Developing Countries Sustainability of the built environment in developing countries is driven by a different set of variables than those in developed countries; some of those variables are the different notions of comfort (ChappellsÂ & ShoveÃ , 2005) , economic, cultural, and social discrepancies (Sustainability Diversity, 2011) . However, because of these different cultural and economical frameworks, the built environment of dev eloping countries has great areas of opportunities for increasing levels of sustainability (Elliott, 2012; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007; Kaygusuz, 2012) . It is clear that introducing sustainable technologies into the built environment of developing countries will have a very significant effect in the overall sustainability of the planet (United Nations, 2008) . It is also important to consider that most of the new built environment, particularly in the housing sector, is happening in developing countries (Pugh, 2013) . China, which is the second largest economy in the world, will build houses for at least 200 million families, emigrating from urban to rural areas in the next 10 years (Gong et al., 2012) . Comparatively, MÂŽxico whose economy in 2013 was ranked number 12 in the
! "# ! world, according to its gro ss domestic product (The World Bank, 2015b) , has plans to build at least one million new houses during 2015 (Sociedad Hipotecaria Federal, 2014) . Notwithstanding these great opportunities, it has been documented that sustainable technologies used in developed countries are not alway s applicable to developing countries (Couret, 2000) (United Nations, 2013) . One of the efforts to breach this gap is happening at the Centro Mario Molina (Molina, 2015) , where one of the main efforts is to produce a comprehensive normativity and policy that will promote the use of sustainable technologies in the built environment. Some of the relevant projects develop ed at the center include: analysis of the life cycle of buildings; study on the integral sustainable transit system for the city of Toluca; institutional strategies to promote sustainable buildings in North America, particularly the case for MÂŽxico; and ev aluation of sustainability of the built environment in MÂŽxico; among many others (Molina, 2015) . Of particular importance is the conclusion reached in the document "Evaluation of the sustainability in the housing sector of MÂŽxico" (Centro Mario Molina, 2012 ) , which concludes that the lack of appropriate water treatment infrastructure, as well as the current sources of energy supply, are two of the main factors lowering the index of sustainability of the housing sector in the country. Other studies such as (Florian, Sodi, Gabilondo, Galindo, & Lopez, 2013; Partida, 2012) have reached similar conclusions where energy and water are two of the most important elements in the sustainability of the built environment. These findings confirm that the adaptation of economically an d culturally sound strategies for the supply and use of energy and water into the built environment should be in the forefront of the strategic agenda in the promotion of sustainability.
! "$ ! Sewage and Sludge as Byproducts of Development The treatment of human and animal waste is a very significant problem, particularly in developing countries. Sewage that contains human and animal waste is a serious threat to the general health of the population unless it is treated properly, and unfortunately in most of the d eveloping world it is not (LeBlanc et al., 2009) . The largest byproducts of the aerobic and anaerobic treatment of waters are residual sludge and mud. Sludge is the result of the treatment of wastewater either on site, commonly in septic tanks, o r off site, usually through activated sludge processes (United Nations Envrionment Programme, 2015) . The importance of these byproducts is that they usually need to be further reprocessed or confined with a consequential added cost to the operation (CalderÂ—n, RodrÂ’guez, de la Rosa, & de Casas, 2014) . Residual mud is a worldwide problem because it generates greenhouse effect gases such as methane and C02, it usually has a high load of pathogens and pollutants, and in d eveloping countries it is often not treated correctly for its disposal (Remis & Espinosa, 2011) . Residual mud and biosolids have been utilized mostly in the following applications: land reclamation, forestry, industrial processes, horticulture and landscaping, and resource recovery (minerals, metals, proteins, etc ., and energy recovery (LeBlanc et al., 2009) . The cost of treatment and disposal of wastewater sludge varies significantly amongst countries. In the U.S., where environmental regulation is enforced strictly, the cost of wastewater byproduct disp osal can be as high as 50% of the operational cost of a wastewater plant, while in countries like Colombia, the cost of waste water sludge treatment and disposal can be as low as 3% of total wastewater treatment
! "% ! costs (LeBlanc et al., 2009) . It has been determined that MÂŽxico alone processes about 242 m 3 of wastewate r per second, however only 95 m 3 / s of this water is properly treated in wastewater plants (ComisiÂ—n Nacional del Agua, 2013) . Out of the water that i s properly treated, about 640,000 million tons of waste sludge are produced per year (Espinosa & Remis, 2013) . Out of this amount, about 64% is directly disposed as earth fill which is a potenti al liability for the environment (Remis & Espinosa, 2011) . When mud and biosolids are considered hazardous wastes, they need to be analyzed to determine their level of reactivity or CRETIB to determine the specific strategy for their further disposal or reprocessing (O. GarcÂ’a, 2006) . Converting residual mud, sludge, and biosolids to energy and other byproducts has been determined as a way that eliminates the need to deactivate and confine them (Samolada & Zabaniotou, 2014) . Conversion of Biomass and Residual Mud to Energy Burning wood to generate heat was the first energy conversion process known to humans (T. Bridgwater, 2006) . Wood burning was the primary source of energy until the 19 th century, when coal, oil, and gas became more important energy sources (Goldemberg, 2009) . The use of biomass is considered a sustainable and renewable energy source (Ekpeni & Olabi, 2012) . However, an abuse in the use of biomass such as wood and other crops to produce energy or biofuels can be a deterrent to the overall sustainability of the planet (Abbas et al., 2011) . A process that has been growing in acceptance is the use of municipal solid waste and sludge as a caloric source for energy generation (Frijns, Hofman, & Nederlof, 2013) . Particularly, the use of water treatment plant sludge has been
! "& ! identified as a good source of energy (Rulkens, 2007) . The organic matter in excreta and biosolids also contains energy in the form of chemical bonds. This energy can be released by oxidation, or burning. The energy value in wastewater sludge or biosolids can be as high as 20 mega joules (MJ)/dry kg, more or less, depending on the percentage of organic matter (LeBlanc et al., 2009) . The transformation of biomass in the form of solid waste, mud, sludge, or biosolids into energy can be accomplished with three main processes. Incineration is a controlled burning of biomass to ash with a reduction in biomass of about 95% at temperatures of about 200 300 o C; however, it produces large amounts of C02, dioxins, and furans (Waste Management Resources, 2015) . Pyrolysis is a controlled process of combustion at a temperature range of 200 760 o C, usually under pressure and in the absence of oxygen. Pyrolysis is usual ly a more efficient process of bu rning biomass , which generates useful byproducts such as sterile liquids, gas with potential caloric value, solid chars, ash, tars, and oils (A. Bridgwater, 1980) . The third process is gasification , which is a controlled high temperature conversion of organic matter occurring between 480 Ã 1,650 o C (Moun touris, Voutsas, & Tassios, 2008) that does not use biomass as a fuel, but as a feedstock of a chemical conversion of biomass to syngas (Gasification technologies council, 2015) . Out of these three processes for transforming biomass to useful byproducts, the best results from a cost benefit analysis and the usefulness of its byproducts is pyrolysis (Samolada & Zabaniotou, 2014) .
! "' ! Environmental Regulation Concerning Residual Water and Sludge in MÂŽxico In MÂŽxico all components of the environment, including water resources, are governed by the Federal Law of the Ecological Balance and En vironmental Protection (LGEEPA) (Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 1988) , which was developed, approved, and recently updated by the Mexican congress in 2015 (Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2015) . The main ob jective of this law is to guarantee and promote the sustainable development of the country by enforcing the following principles: to guarantee that every citizen has the right to live in a healthy environment that promotes develo pment, health, and general well being; to define the principles of the nation's environmental policy and the instruments for its application; to preserve, restore, and improve the environment; to promote the sustainable use, preservation, and remediation of the land and water resour ces of the country; to protect and preserve the biodiversity of the country; to prevent and control the pollution of the air, land, and water; and to determine and implement the regulations and controls that guarantee the conformance with the mandates and sanctions of the law. The LGEEPA was recently amended in 2013 (Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2013a) , and specifically guarantees that all the water in the nation is used, treated, and disposed under sustainable management principles. However, the lack of enforcing capacity, especially at the local and municipal level, hinders and limits the effectivene ss of this very progressive law. With the mandate to manage, protect, and define the specific uses of the water resources of the nation, the National Water Commission (CONAGUA) was created as a federal regulatory
! "( ! agency in 1989. One of its most controversi al duties is to determine the annual availability of water for all the different users of the resource. The methodology for the resource allocation is defined in the framework of the Law of National Waters NOM 011 CONAGUA 2015 (ComisiÂ—n Nacional del Agua, 2015 ) . This is a general normative framework from which all the secondary regulatory framework is implemented through specific Of ficial Mexican Norms, or NOMS . A NOM is an official Mexican Standard of technical nature and compulsory application (SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2015) . The NOMS are prepared and validated by the Mexic an General Directorate of Standards (DGN), which represents MÂŽxico in the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) (SecretarÂ’a de EconomÂ’a, 2015) , and published in the Mexican Diary of the Federation (Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 1986) once they have been approved by congress for their implementation and enfo rcement. Besides the general framework of the National Water Law, there are several Mexican regulatory norms (NOMs) that apply specifically to the discharge of residual water which are the main source of residual mud and other biosolids from treatment pla nts and sewage systems. The NOMs issued by the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT) determine the maximum allowable level of pollutants and pathogens in residual waters and mud (biosolids) for different uses and productive applicat ions. The maximum allowe d levels of pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, cyanide, copper, chrome, mercury, n ic kel, lead, and z inc, Total Suspended Solids (TSS), Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD), and pathogenic bacteria in residual waters which will be disch arged into natural bodies of water, are determined NOM 001 SEMARNAT 1996 (SecreatarÂ’a
! ") ! de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 1997) ; for residual waters to be discharged into municipal sewage systems, maximum levels are determined by NOM 002 SEMARNAT 1996 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 1998a) ; and for residual waters to be reused as water for public services, maximum levels are determined by NOM 003 SEMARNAT 1997 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 1998b) . Residual mud and biosolids are produced o ut of all water treatment processes or directly from raw sewage sumps . These mud can be characterized as primary, secondary, or digested, according to their biological and physicochemical components (Casanova, 2014) . In most instances regardless of its high caloric content and its biological potential as a fertilizer, mud represent s an operational and environmental liability for water treatment plants. The degree of the liability is related to how this mud is classified by the environmental normativity and the ease of disposal and reutilization on each specific plant (O. GarcÂ’a, 2006) . Initially it is necessary to determine if the mud or biosolids need to be treated as a hazardous waste. Their classification as hazardous waste is determined as positive if a product has any of the following properties: corrosive, reactive, explosive, toxic, inflammable, or biological ly infectious ( Known as positive CRETIB reaction ) in accordance to the specifications of NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2006) . In the event that a mud or sludge shows a positive CRETIB reaction , it must be handled as a hazardous product or residue, in accordance to federal regulations determined by the general law of the ecological balance and environmental protection (Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 1988) . The responsibility of the hazardous product is always reta ined by the
! "* ! person or entity that generated the p roduct originally, regardless if it was transferred to another person or entity for its transportation of final confinement (Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2013a) . Any activity that would utilize a hazardous material in its process, would require the elaboration of a Environmental Impact Study (MIA), co nformance with t ransportation and confinement regulations for hazardous materials according to NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2006) , and in the event of incineration, pyrolysis, or gasification of the residues, conformance t o the regulations of NOM 098 SEMARNAT 2002 (SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambient e y Recursos Naturales, 2004) , which controls the incineration of residues and their emission of gasses to the atmosphere during the process. All residues with a negative CRETIB reaction fall under the normative parameters of NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Na turales, 2002) , which classifies the mud or sludge according to their levels of pollutant and pathogens into the following categories for their further use or disposal as municipal solid waste in accordance to NOM 083 SEMARNAT 2003 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2003) . All mate rials that do not fall in the category of a hazardous residue fall within state regulations.
! #+ ! Table 1 . Maximum allowable heavy metals in sludge according to NOM 004 2002. Pollutant Category Category Excellent Good Arsen ic 41 mg/kg 75 mg/kg Cadmium 39 mg/kg 85 mg/kg Chrome 1200 mg/kg 3000 mg/kg Copper 1500 mg/kg 4300 mg/kg Lead 300 mg/kg 840 mg/kg Mercury 17 mg/kg 57 mg/kg Nickel 420 mg/kg 420 mg/kg Zinc 2800 mg/kg 7500 mg/kg * NOM 004 SEMARNAT 20 02 ! Tabl e 2 . Classification of mud and sludge according to their biological pollution indicators. Bacteriological indicator Pathogens Parasites of pollution Class Fecal co l iforms NMP/g Salmonella spp . N MP/g Helminthes eggs/g dry basis dry basis dry basis A < 1000 < 3 ! < 1(a) B < 1000 < 3 ! < 10 C < 2,000,000 < 300 ! < 35 * NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002 Table 3 . Classification of m u d and s ludge allowable use according to pathogen load. TYPE CLASS EXCELLENT A Uses for Classes B and C. EXCELLENT OR GOOD B Urban uses without direct contact to the general public Uses established for class C. GOOD C NOM 004 SEMARNAT-2002 ALLOWABLE USE Urban in contact with the public Forestry and agricultural uses only, soil improvement.
! #" ! Final disposal of muds will vary according to their classification, either as a non hazardous residue, in accordance to NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002, meaning that they can be disposed as municipal solid waste in accordance to NOM 083 SEMARNAT 2003 (SecretarÂ’a del Medio Ambienete y Recursos N aturales, 2003) , or as a hazardous residue in accordance to NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005 (SecreatarÂ’a de Me dio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2005) . However muds from water treatment plants, even in the best case scenario of being categorized as municipal waste, always need to be stabilized, dried, incinerated, or transferred to approved confinement sites, wi th significant added costs to the operation of water treatment plants (N. O. GarcÂ’a, 2006) , (Remis & Espinosa, 2012) (MacÂ’as, 2013) . M exican Regulation for Energy Producers and the Promotion of Renewable Energy Sources Before 1992 only the Federal Government in MÂŽxico was allowed to produce, sell, and distribute electricity. In 1992 the Mexican constitution was amended to allow electrici ty generation by private entities (Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 1992) ; however, private entities could sell electricity only to the Federal Governm ent's electricity commission (CFE). It was until after 2008, with the new law of the Public Service of Electric Energy, which amends Articles 27 and 28 of the Mexican Constitution (Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2008) , that private entities have been allowed to generate electricity either for their own consumption or for sale only to the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE). Private entities were still not allowed to sell electricity to the public, participate in
! ## ! the planning of the national electricity strategy, or distribute electr icity through the national grids or any other parallel system. It is not until the very recent Energy Structural Reforms (Honorable Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2014) that electricity generation by private entities for sale to the public and that actually compete with the Federal Elec tricity Commission is allowed. The new reform also includes a constitutional mandate to promote the generation of electricity with renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind, hydraulic, geothermic, and biomass for the production of energy. The new manda te establishes that by 2024, at least 35% of all the energy consumed in the country should come from renewable resources. Within the framework of this law, articles 36 and 111 define as small producers anybody who will generate no more than 30 MW per proje ct. A small producer can use the electricity for its own consumption, to sell to communities that do not have access to the national grid, or for sale directly to the National Electricity Commission, and does not require a special permit and requires only the signature of an interconnection contract. A medium size producer is one that will generate more than 30 kW and less tha n 500 kW of electricity, and does not require a permit, but needs a special interconnection contract. A large producer is one that generates more than 500 kW and requires a special generation permit and a special interconnection contract. To determine the procedure and tariffs for the purchase of electricity by the Federal Government, the Energy Regulatory Commission published the fol lowing documents: an electricity purchasing contract for a small producer; guidelines for the bidding processes under the framework of relative auction for small projects that generate electricity from renewable energy sources; a methodology for the fee ca lculation for payment
! #$ ! to renewable energy producers; a methodology for short term fee calculation for energy producers (Camara de Diputad os H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2013b) . The specific laws that govern the generation of electricity from renewable sources are the following: The law of the public service of electric energy, which rules the relationship between the producer and the user of energy (Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 1992) . The law for the use and finance of the transaction to renewable energy sources, which promotes the aut o production and cogeneration of electricity with the use of renewable energies (Diar io Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 2008) . The law of the Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE), which allows the CRE to grant energy production permits, to approve the specific conditions for the operation of the producers, to determine the operational and admini strative contracts with the producers, to act as a mediator between producers and consumers, and to apply corrective measures. The CRE has determined that for the generation of electricity from renewabl e resources of less than 500 kW / project , it is not n ecessary to request a permit. This law also establishes that if the producer of energy consumes less electricity than its own consumption, it can sell back this electricity to the Federal Electricity Commission (CFE) by the signing of a simple buy back agr eement, only if the to tal production is less than 10 kW / project, in residential a pplications, or less than 30 kW / project for all other low tension applications. Once the agreement has been signed, the CFE will install a bidirectional energy meter and w ill determine the net amount of energy consumed
! #% ! by the producer. Any exceeding electricity can be stored in a virtual bank for up to 12 months . Incentives to clean energy production. In 2012, the G eneral Law of Climatic Change determined that by 2024, a t least 35% of all electricity generated in the country should come from renewable energy sources (Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n, 2012) . Some of the incentives included in this law were: The creation of a virtual energy bank, where a producer can accumulate unused energy for future use by supplying energy to the national grid; pr eferential tariff for energy transmission through the nation grid for electricity produced with renewable energy sources; and net energy tariff system, where a producer can net out, the energy consumed with the energy produced for a net end result. The en ergy produced and consumed is exchanged at the same price, kW used per kW produced. However, it is not until the proclamation of the Energy Reform of December 2013 that a true incentive to clean energy producers, is implemented through the normative t hat allow the issue of Certificates for Clean Energy (CEL). This program works in a similar fashion to the Carbon Bonds program, implemented by the UN and which is currently in operation (LÂ—pez, Cruz, Lucas, & Olvera, 2014) . The clean energy certificate are an exchange bond that represent compliance with clean energy generation, and is the only method that will incentivize the generation of electricity through the use of clean fuel sources, since there is no premium paid, on the price that clean energy producers receive from the CFE or for that matter, from any energy consumer. The Secretar y of Energy (SENER) established on April 1 st 2015, that the requirement of CELÂ«s for
! #& ! energy intensive users will be of 5%. In the event that the user can not demonstrate that 5% of itÂ«s energy comes from renewable resources, it can buy the difference fro m the open CEL market. The legal framework has been established and mandatory compliance will begin in 2018. Other incentives to the production of clean energies are. The mandate to expedite the interconnection and transmission through the grid with no delays or added costs. The clean energy producers will be able to sell electricity to CFE at regulated prices or have access to the open market through the regulation of the National Center for Energy Control (CENER). The CENER guarantees an even opport unity for all generators, to sell electricity under equitable conditions. Private generators will have access to large private users, and to small commercial and residential users, through a system that includes a spot market, auctions, and long term cont racts. Based on the Special Program for Climatic Change 2008 and supported by the Energy Reform of 2013, private entities are allowed to operate small and medium size clean energy generation operations for private or commercial use and are guaranteed the purchase of all excess electricity by CFE through the signing a contract of interconnection. The requirements for the interconnection contract for a "small producer" is to have a regular low tension supply contract in place, to have the plant comply with all applicable Mexican NOMS and CFEÂ«s specifications, and to have a produ ction capacity of less than 10 k W residential i nstallations, and less than 30 k W for commercial installations. To elaborate an interconnection contract for medium producers, the pro ducer must have a supply contract on medium tension, to have the plant comply with all applicable Mexican NOMS and CFEÂ«s specifications, and to have a production c apacity of less than 500 k W. Duration of
! #' ! the agreements has not due date and it can be term inated by the producer at any time with a 30 day notice to CFE. There are currently no tax incentives applicable to renewable energy producers; however the following incentives do apply. There will be no import duty or tariffs applied on the importation of any machine of equipment that prevents pollution and for resea rch and development in the field of energy technologies. An accelerated depreciation will be allowed for any infrastructure projects that use renewable energy resources. Interconnection ag reements for renewable energy generators will be expedited by the CRE.
! #( ! METHODOLOGY: Study design : The study was a cross sectional non experimental, qualitative and quantitative analysis of the regulatory and economic feasibility of operating the OMN I Sludge and B iomass P rocessor S200 Â¨ (OP) (Janicki Bioenergy, 2015) plant in MÂŽxico. The hypothes is for the research was that t he operation of a biomass processing plant (OP) , that converts residual muds to ash, potable water, and electricity , is financially feasible under the economic parameters of an emerging economy such as MÂŽxico. Financially fea sible, was defined as an operation that has an internal rate of return equal or higher than the recommended discount rate for projects of public interest in MÂŽxico, which based on historical and current financial information was determined at 10% in 2014 w ith a recommendation to review in 5 years (Copppola, Fernholz, & Glenday, 2014) . A secondary feasibility factor was determined by calculating the discount rate as the average of the active preferential interest rate of five major banks in MÂŽxico in June 2015. Based on these assumptions, two discount rates for the purposes of evaluating feasibility were esti mated a) Public discount rate = 10%, a nd b) Private discount rate = 14 %. The internal rate of return (IRR), is the interest rate required to bring the net present value (NPV) to zero. In other worlds, it is the interest rate that would result in the pre sent value of the capital investment, or cash outflow; being equal to the value of the total returns over time or cash inflow.
! #) ! The IRR was calculated using the formula: !"# ! !"#$%& ! !" ! !"# ! ! !"#$ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !"#$%& ! !"# !"#$!%# ! ! R = Internal rate of return. t = the number of time periods. IRR is calculated using the NPV formula and solving for R when then NPV equals zero. Data Collection: The data sources which were used to evaluate the normative compliance of the OP were the Secretary of the Environment and Natural Resources (SEMARNAT), The Secretary of Energy (SENER), and the Energy Regulatory Commission (CRE). The financial data for the operation of the OP was obtained from the Bank of MÂŽxico (Banjico), the Federal E lectricity Commission (CFE), the Energy Regulation Commission (CRE), and the National Water Commission (CONAGUA). The technical information on the operation and performance parameters for the OP were obtained from publicly available informa tion publi shed by Janicki Bioenergy, (Janicki Bioenergy, 2015) . Description of the technology. The Om ni P roce s sor Â¨ (OP) itÂ«s a plant that utilizes semi dry fuel in the form of raw sewage or residual sewage sludge, and generates, through a controlled combustion at high temperature (1000 o C), electricity, potable water, and residual heat. The plant join s three technologies, a sludge dryer, a f luidized bed boiler, and a steam engine. Based on the principle that one kg of wet raw sludge has
! #* ! about 800g of water and 200g of dry combustible solids, The 200 g of solids have a caloric value of about 3,720 k J, while boiling 800 g of water requires only 2057 kJ, this leaves a ratio of about 1.8 to 1, of excess energy, that can be converted to electricity, while burning the biomass and producing potable water. Feeding System: Receives the biomass in the form of raw sewage, water treatment sludge, or any other combustible biomass with a minimum of 10% moisture. Sludge dryer: Removes excess moisture from sludge. Water treatment s ystem: The OP water system converts water in the steam coming from drying of th e sludge, to clean and safe drinking water. The system includes a steam filter, condenser, hot aerator, chiller, cold aerator, filtration, storage tanks and a polishing filter. Boiler: A fluidized bed boiler is responsible for actually burning the biom ass, once it has been dehydrated and transfer the heat of combustion into steam. Fluidized bed boilers are the most common boiler used for burning biomass. The mixture of fuel (biomass) is mixed with inert particles usually sand, and the mixture is susp ended by a flow of hot air. A scrubbing action takes place between the fuel and the inert particles, which strips away CO 2 and allows oxygen to reach the fuel material faster, this process increase the rate and efficiency of the process. Burning tempe ratures of around 1000 o C, produce less nitrogen oxide and less sulfur dioxide (Crawford, 2012) . Boiling the residual water also eliminates all pathogens from the solid and liquid p ortions of the fuel. Steam engine: Most steam power plants like the ones found in a combined cycle power plant, use steam turbines to produce energy, however, this technology is cost prohibitive so a steam engine was adapted for the plant. Given the size range and operational conditions of the OP, it was determine that a steam engine was thermally more efficient than a
! $+ ! turbine, and economically affordable given the planned operating conditions for the plant. Exhaust Control Systems: Exhaust from the OP complies with all US EPA regulations for clean air, which are more strict than most of regulations in the developing countries where the plant is expected to operate. Exhausts are controlled by the low burning te mperatures of the fluidized bed , which produces hardly any NOx, components. Dioxins and Furans are controlled by the injection of a dry sorbent that removes all Chlorine from the reaction. Sulfur is controlled by a dding calcium to the flue gas, while C0 2 is emitted in low amounts, and no me thane is produced. RESULTS: The OP can produce up to 300 kWh , cont inuously and needs less than 50 k Wh for its own operation, s o there is a net output of 250 kWh. The OP can be synchronized to functio n with grid power or as a stand alone plant. The OP can produce 70,000 l /day during normal operation. The water is evaporated from the sludge, then condensate back into liquid form, purified and ready f or human consumption. An ultra purification system, assures, sterile and odor free water. The OP will produce fly ash as a by product of the process. Any elements in the chosen fuel, that do not burn, will be collected at the end of the process as fly ash; usually 10 to 20% of the dry matter that is fed to the machine will come out as ash.
! $" ! Table 4 . Operation parameters for the Omni Processor Â¨ S200 !"#$%&'()*+%$%,#$-*** .%/',0,*"$(1#--#2*3#&*-4025#* 6789 ,9:2%; <4#1&$'1'&;*(0&"0&*"#$*2%; 9== >? +(&%@4#*3%$*"$(201#2 ABC=== 4:2%; D((&*"$')&* E== ,7 F)$)%4*#)#$5;*$#G0'$#,#)&H= >? I$;#$*"$#--0$#* J @%$ D0#4*0&'4'K#2 .%/',*,('-&0$#*')*L0#4* 66 M N0,@#$*(L*"#("4#*-#$O#2*@;*&P#*!+*Q7== E==C===*R*7==C=== Q#3%5#C*Q4025#C*S'(,%-C*.Q?8* Data published by (Janicki Bioenergy, 2015) . Economic assumptions . To determine the economic performance of the OP, the costs of it s operation supplies and end products was determined from reliable literature sources. The main supply for the operation of the OP is the actual fuel for the process, in the form of raw sewage, process sludge, or an y altern ate form of biomass. In most instances the s ludge input can be a source of income, since water treatment and sewage systems incur in a cost t o get read of the sludge. Most disposal systems include the stabilization, dewatering, sterilization, and proper disposal of the sludge (Project on urban reduction of eutrophication, 2014) , which can account from a low
! $# ! of 3% of the cost of a water treatment plant in countries like Colombia, to a high of 40% in countries like the United S tates (LeBlanc et al., 2009) . Since there are no hard facts regarding the cost of managing sludge in MÂŽxico. For the economic feasibility analysis, it was determined the cost of the sludge would be a positive income to the OP operation, equiva lent to the cost incurred by a water treatment plant operator of trucking the sludge 5 k m to a disposal site = 10 US/ton. Fly ash is a residu e of the operation of the OP, which is often used as a n additi ve in the production of cement. in MÂŽxico, it has a n estimate sales price of about 4.5 Pesos/kilogram (QuimiNet, 2015) , considering possible transportation, packaging , and marketing prices, the sales price for the ash, Ex works OP plant, was considered at 0.90 Pesos / kg. As part of the OP syst em, the plant needs to start it s operation with external fuels such as diesel, natural gas, or e lectricity. During this initial period of operation, exte rnal fuels are considered costs. Propane Ga s: 14.49 Pesos /kg (PEMEX, 201 5) Diesel: 14.20 Pesos /l (PE MEX, 2015) For the initial operation of the OP, the equipment's needs to run with a negative energy requirement for a period of about two hours, using propane gas to initiate the biofuel burning process, and diesel to generate electricity and initially run the plantÂ«s systems. Electricity: cost of electricity is divided by geographic regions and by applications. The cost is also dependent upon the amount of electricity used by the consumer, and if the service is delivered in low, mid, or high volta ge . Some of the most
! $$ ! common electricity rates are presented for the central region of MÂŽxico, which correspond s to MÂŽxico City (ComisiÂ—n Federal de Electricidad, 2 015) . Table 5 . Cons umer tariffs for electricity (kW h) in Pesos and in Us Dollars, for the central region of MÂŽxico. !"#$%&'& ()#*'++,-& (./0& 1,&/2#3&%45647 4548 9:; !%3=#3&%457>? 454? 9:; @/A;#3&%B5687 45C6 9:; DA-/23+03-% 45648 4548C 9:; DE3,23+03-% 84F#&2'3.0 G.<3&0-/,+ H'I#J'+0,A% B54BC 45CK 9:; !/<#J'+0,A% C5468 454> 9:; @/A;#J'+0,A% 45648 4548 9:; L,+3%/.#!%M/2,.#$%&',.<#/.#()#*'++,-&5### The price at which the Federal Electricity Commission pays the energy to the independent producer varies according to geographical zone, time of day, and current availability of energy in the grid. It is a complex system that doe s not allow small producers to offer energy directly to the consumers, they need to go through a interm ediary concentrator that will put the electricity to bid through the Energy Distribution Center. However, according to the Citizens Energy Observatory (Villareal, 2015) , the average cost of energy paid by the CFE to independent producers is about 0.6 USD / kW h. However , this is a very low value since it accounts for the production costs of natural gas combined cycle plants . Small producers, are subjected to different tariffs according to (Robles, Leonel, & Cecilia,
! $% ! NA) the CFE contract for the purchase of electricity to small producers is divided in the foll owing brackets. 1. Contract for interconnection of intermittent renewable energy sources > 500 kWh. Is capable of s el l ing electricity only to CFE and pa yment will be 0.85% of the cost of energy at the point of interconnection. 2. Contract for interconnectio n for renewable sources with production capacity of les s than 300 kW h. Energy will be swa p ped for a net value in favor or in charge of the producer. Exchange value is 100% of the cost of energy supplied at the point of interconnection. 3. Contract for th e sale of electricity for small producers from any so urce of renewable energy < 300 kW h. The total amount of energy produce is sold to "supplier" that will sell the energy in the spot market or through bids to the CFE. Energy is paid at 98% of the short term cost of energy in the point of interconnection. Assuming that t he OP will generate less < 300 kW h, in the context of a mid voltage energy supplier, the cost of the energy produced and sold to the CFEÂ«s energy distribution center would be 98% of the local tariff which would be 1.085 * 0.9 8 = 1.063 Pesos/kW h. Potable water: The average cost for potable tap water from the National Water Commission in the Central region of MÂŽxico is 16.17/m3 or 0.016 Pesos per liter (ComisiÂ—n Nacional del Agua, 2015) . However, most of the water distribution system is not reliable, with the consequential pollution of the water in the system. Most people in MÂŽxico City and many other cities in the country, do not consume
! $& ! tap water and instead buy bottle water. Acco rding to the Beverage Marketing Corporation, MÂŽxico is the country with the largest consumption of bottled water in the world. It has been estimated that on average, each person in MÂŽxico consumes about 234 liters of bottled water per year (Revista del Consumidor, 2014) . Average cost of bottled water in MÂŽxico City: Table 6 . Average cost of potable bottled water in MÂŽxico, June 2015. Brand Cost. Bonafont 6.70 Pesos/l Ciel: 7.50 Pesos/l EPura: 5.50 Pesos/l Average: 6.50 Pesos/l (Superama, 2015). From the sales price of a bottle of water, it has been documented that approximately only 10% of the sales price is the co st of water itself (Dinero en Imagen, 2015) . For purposes o f the feasibility study, the sales price for potable water coming from the OP will be considered at 0.65 Pesos/l. Heat: Due to the temperate geographical location of the proposed feasibility study in the central part of MÂŽxico, residual heat from the OP will have no com mercial value in this analysis . However, there are possible avenues for the use of residual heat during the OP operation, such as an absorption cooling device, which uses a heat source as energy to drive cooling devices (Uuemaa, Vigants, Blumberga, & Drovtar, 2014) . Based on information provided by (Janicki Bioenergy, 2015) , the Cap ital Cost for the OP imported and installed in MÂŽxico City is approximately $ 2,861,050 USD.
! $' ! Financial analysis. Table 7 . Capital cost of buying, importing and commission an Omni Processor Â¨ S200 plant in central MÂŽxico. Capital cost in US Dollars, for and OP processing machine. Data obtained from (Janicki 2015). Model: S200 Capital cost 2,500,000.00 $ Shipping to MÂŽxico (three 40" Containers from Sedro-Wolley, WA to MÂŽxico City. 35,000.00 $ Importation under NAFTA treaty 76,050.00 $ Site preparaton, Setup, and training. 250,000.00 $ Total USD 2,861,050.00 $ Total Pesos 44,346,275.00 $ Exchange rate Pesos / Dollars. 15.50 $ O perational costs , without labor , a ssuming the purchase of a yearly maintenance contract and one shutdown and restart per week, which requires two hours of additional electricity and propane gas to ignite the process.
! $( ! Table 8 . Fuel and maintenance operational costs for Omni Processor Â¨ S200 in Central MÂŽxico. Operational Costos for an OP Processing machine. MÂŽxico City setup. !"#$% &$'()"% *'+"%,#+'+ -'"&.% /&0)"#)&)1#%2#3%4#&3 5 567896:;;<;; =%%% % 567896:;;<;; =%%% % Diesel /year /liters >6?;;<;; %%%%%%%%%%% % 5?<> 8?6;@;<;; =%%%%%%%% % Propane/year/kg 76A;;<;; %%%%%%%%%%% % 5?7 =%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% % 58765;?<;; =%%%%%% % -'"&.%2#3%4#&3%2#+'+ >655;6A@?<;; =%%% % -'"&.%2#3%4#&3%%BCD% 58A6598<5A =%%%%%% % E++($0)F%?%3#+"&3"3+%2#3%$')"G6%H0"G%"H'%G'(3+%'I%I(.#%1')+($2"0')%&%"G#%3&"#%'I% ,3'2&)#%F&+% 5;; JFKG'(3 D0#+#.%L>:MHN% >: .KG'(3% Table 9 . Labor operational costs for the Omni process or Â¨ S200 in MÂŽxico. Operational Labor Costos for an OP Processing machine. MÂŽxico City setup. !"#$%&'()* +')#",''(."/,$* +'#"# 0"$(-* 1',')(-*2(,(3')* 4 5678999:99 ;****** * 5678999:99 ;****** * Technician < =768999:99 ;****** * 489>=8999:99 ;*** * accountant 4 65<8999:99 ;****** * 65<8999:99 ;****** * ?@.A,:*?##A#$(,$ 4 =768999:99 ;****** * =768999:99 ;****** * B(C")*D')*&'()*D'#"# =86558999:99 ;*** * B(C")*D')*&'()*E"--()# 4F=85<45/>
! $) ! Table 10 . Internal rate of return (IRR) for the operation of the Omni P roce s sor Â¨ (OP) S200 with full revenue from the sale of water, electricity, fly ash, and sludge collection. !"#$%&'()*"%$%+#$,*-($*!+)'*.$(/#,,($*!.*0122 3#&*4(56+#*(-*,5678#9*7%: ;2<222=2 ********* * >8 ?$:*4(56+#* @AB B ?$:*C#'8D&* @1<222=2 ********* * EF 3%$*4(56+#* G;<222=2 ********* * H ?%:,*(-*("#$%&'()*9*:#%$* I12=2 ************** * ?%:, J(6$,*(-*("#$%&'()*"#$*7%: 1K=2 **************** * J(6$, L#4#)6#*(6&"6&*"$(76/&,*-($*&D#*!+)'"$(/#,($*!.*0122 .$(76/&* M)'&* N+(6)& 0%5#,*.$'/#* O(&%5*$#4#)6#* B*(-*L#4#)6#* 3%$* 5 1@8 I<;K2<222=2 ***** * 2=S2 Q*************** * I8 1A
! $* ! Table 11 . Internal rate of return (IRR) for the operation of the Omni P roces s or Â¨ (OP) S200 with revenue from the sale of water, electricity, fly ash, but not from sludge collection services. !"#$%&'()*"%$%+#$,*-($*!+)'*.$(/#,,($*!.*0122 3#&*4(56+#*(-*,5678#9*7%: ;2<222=2 ********* * >8 ?$:*@(56+#* ABC C ?$:*D#'8E&* A1<222=2 ********* * FG 3%$*@(56+#* H;<222=2 ********* * I ?%:,*(-*("#$%&'()*9*:#%$* J12=2 ************** * ?%:, K(6$,*(-*("#$%&'()*"#$*7%: 1L=2 **************** * K(6$, M#@#)6#*(6&"6&*"$(76/&,*-($*&E#*!+)'"$(/#,($*!.*0122 .$(76/&* N)'&* O+(6)& 0%5#,*.$'/#* P(&%5*$#@#)6#* C*(-*M#@#)6#* 3%$* 5 1A8 J<;L2<222=2 ***** * 2=T2 R*************** * J8 1B
! %+ ! Table 12 . Internal rate of return (IRR) for the operation of the Omni proce s sor Â¨ (OP) S200 with revenue from water, electricity, sludge collection services, but not from fly ash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
! %" ! Tabla 13 . I n ternal rate of return I RR for the operation o f the Omni Process o r Â¨ S200 w ith reven ue from water, f ly ash , sludge collection services , but not from electri city. !"#$%&'()*"%$%+#$,*-($*!+)'*.$(/#,,($*!.*0122 3#&*4(56+#*(-*,5678#9*7%: ;2<222=2 ********* * >8 ?$:*4(56+#* @AB B ?$:*C#'8D&* @1<222=2 ********* * EF 3%$*G(56+#* H;<222=2 ********* * I ?%:,*(-*("#$%&'()*9*:#%$* J12=2 ************** * ?%:, K(6$,*(-*("#$%&'()*"#$*7%: 1L=2 **************** * K(6$, M#G#)6#*(6&"6&*"$(76/&,*-($*&D#*!+)'"$(/#,($*!.*0122 .$(76/&* N)'&* O+(6)& 0%5#,*.$'/#* P(&%5*$#G#)6#* B*(-*M#G#)6#* 3%$* 5 1@8 J<;L2<222=2 ***** * 2=S2 R*************** * J8 1A
! %# ! Table 14 . Internal rate of retur n (IRR) for the operation of the Omni proce s sor Â¨ (OP) S200 with revenue from the sale of fly ash, sludge collection services, electricity, but not from water. !"#$%&'()*"%$%+#$,*-($*!+)'*.$(/#,,($*!.*0122 3#&*4(56+#*(-*,5678#9*7%: ;2<222=2 ********* * >8 ?$:*4(56+#* @AB B ?$:*C#'8D&* @1<222=2 ********* * EF 3%$*G(56+#* H;<222=2 ********* * I ?%:,*(-*("#$%&'()*9*:#%$* J12=2 ************** * ?%:, K(6$,*(-*("#$%&'()*"#$*7%: 1L=2 **************** * K(6$, M#G#)6#*(6&"6&*"$(76/&,*-($*&D#*!+)'"$(/#,($*!.*0122 .$(76/&* N)'&* O+(6)& 0%5#,*.$'/#* P(&%5*$#G#)6#* B*(-*M#G#)6#* 3%$* 5 1@8 J<;L2<222=2 ***** * 2=U2 S*************** * J8 1A
! %$ ! Tabl e 15 . Internal rate of return (IRR) S200 for the operation of the Omni processorÂ¨ (OP) with revenue from the sale of fly ash, sludge collec tion services, electricity, water and heat. !"#$%&'()*"%$%+#$,*-($*!+)'*.$(/#,,($*!.*0122 3#&*4(56+#*(-*,5678#9*7%: ;2<222=2 ********* * >8 ?$:*4(56+#* @AB B ?$:*C#'8D&* @1<222=2 ********* * EF 3%$*G(56+#* H;<222=2 ********* * I ?%:,*(-*("#$%&'()*9*:#%$* J12=2 ************** * ?%:, K(6$,*(-*("#$%&'()*"#$*7%: 1L=2 **************** * K(6$, M#G#)6#*(6&"6&*"$(76/&,*-($*&D#*!+)'"$(/#,($*!.*0122 .$(76/&* N)'&* O+(6)& 0%5#,*.$'/#* P(&%5*$#G#)6#* B*(-*M#G#)6#* 3%$* 5 1@8 J<;L2<222=2 ***** * 2=T2 R*************** * J8 1A
! %% ! Table 16 . Summary of the Internal Rate of Return (IRR), under differ ent revenue scenarios for the Omni proce s sor Â¨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
! %& ! Figure 1 . Changes in the internal rate of return (IRR) on the operation of the Omni P roces s or Â¨ (OP) S200 as a functi on to changes in the sales price of water, in a six year investment project, P eso s / liter . Figure 2 . Changes in the internal rate of return (IRR) on the operation of the Omni proce s sor Â¨ (OP) S200 as a function to changes in the sales price of electricity, on a six year inv estment project. Pesos/kW h. !D!!!! !&C++!! !"+C++!! !"&C++!! !#+C++!! !#&C++!! !$+C++!! !$&C++!! !%+C++!! !%&C++!! !"C+&!! !+C*&!! !+C)(!! !+C(*!! !+C(#!! !+C'&!! !+C&*!! !+C&$!! !+C%(!! !+C%$!! !+C$)!! !""# E,,! !D!!!! !&C++!! !"+C++!! !"&C++!! !#+C++!! !#&C++!! !$+C++!! !"C("!! !"C&&!! !"C%"!! !"C#)!! !"C"(!! !"C+'!! !+C*&!! !+C)'!! !+C((!! !+C(+!! !+C'$!! !""# E,,!
! %' ! Figure 3 . Changes in the internal rate of return (IRR) on the operation of the Omni proce s sor Â¨ (OP) S200 as a function to changes in the sales price of Fly Ash, on a s ix year investment project. Pesos/kg. Figure 4 . Changes in the internal rate of return (IRR) on the operation of the Omni P roces s or Â¨ (OP) S200 as a function to changes in revenue from the sale of s ludge removal services, on a six year investment project. Pesos / Ton of wet sludge removal. !D!!!! !&C++!! !"+C++!! !"&C++!! !#+C++!! !#&C++!! !$+C++!! !"C%&!! !"C$#!! !"C#+!! !"C+*!! !+C**!! !+C*+!! !+C)"!! !+C($!! !+C''!! !+C&*!! !+C&$!! !""# E,,! !D!!!! !&C++!! !"+C++!! !"&C++!! !#+C++!! !#&C++!! !$+C++!! !#%"C&)!! !#"*C'#!! !"**C'&!! !")"C&+!! !"'&C++!! !"&+C++!! !"$&C++!! !"#"C&+!! !"+*C$&!! !*)C%#!! !))C&(!! !""# E,,!
! %( ! DISCUSSION : Regulatory feasibility The operati on of the Omni Processor Â¨ (OP) with sewage, sludge, mud , or biosolids from residual w aters is viable under Mexican regulation, falling within the normativity of the Secretary of Natural Resources and the Environment (SEMARNAT). In M ÂŽ xico, s ludge or any other type of organic aggregates can be use d as fuel for energy production without an y specific permits or requirements, as long as they do not produce any corrosive, reactive, explosive, toxic, inflammable, or biologically infections reactions ( Known as Positive CRETIB) under NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005 (SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 200 6) , or exceed the levels of heavy metals or pathogens described by NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002 (SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2002) . If the mud or sludge shows a positive CRETIB reacti on, or high levels of heavy metals or pathogens, these would be categorized as hazardous waste or residues and fall under the regulat ion of NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005. A hazardous waste or residue, can only be transported by authorized vehicles under the regu lation of NOM 052 SEMARANT 2005 (SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2005) , NOM 053 ECOL 1993 (SecretarÂ’a de Desarrollo Urbano y EcologÂ’a) , and NOM 051 SCT2/2003 (SecretarÂ’a de Comunicaciones y Transportes, 2003 ) , there can be no direct contact of any personnel with the residues, and t he products could only be confined in authorized hazardous waste confinement centers. The operation of an OP plant with sewage or sludge categorized as hazardous materials would require the elaboration of an
! %) ! Environmental Impact Study (MIA) and further a uthorization of the Secretary of the En vironment and Natural Resources, since t he treatment and disposal of hazardous waste is a highly regulated and expensive process. The operation of the OP plant with mud or sludge categorized as hazardous, would also require compliance wit h NOM 098 SEMARNAT 2002 (SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturale s, 2004) , which regulates the incineration of residues and their emission of gasses to the atmospher e during the process. S ince the by products of the OP plant which ar e potable water and sterile ash would eli minate the hazardous liability for the operator, this by far, guarantees the financial feasibility of the OP operation. I f the sewage, sludge, muds , or biosolids are not considered a hazardous residue then they must be classified according to their levels of fecal coliforms, pathogens, an d parasites, as determined by NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002 (SecreatarÂ’a d e Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2002) , which categorizes the residues into; Type A, Urban uses in contact with general public during their application; Type B, Urban uses without direct contact with the general public during their application; or Type C, only for use in forestry and agricultural improvement. Use of a Type C sludge or a sludge that has been categorized as hazardous, for the generation of energy would require a study of environmental impact, or their evaluation for possible incl usion as a residue under special management regime according to NOM 161 SEMARNAT 2011 (SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, 2011) ; which allows a simplified management process for residues th at have a high commercial value and can be processed to eliminate their toxicity.
! %* ! Incentives to renewable energy production. The Mexican government proclaimed that by 2024, at least 35% of all it s elec tricity will be generated with renewable resources. However, it is not clear how this will be accomplished. Currently, small and medium producer s that generate less than 300 k W of electricity , will be able to use if for self consumption, or sell it at a simil ar rate than the ruling tariff in their r egion and voltage requirements. Another option would be to net out their production capacity with their consumption at a 1:1 cost ratio. Energy p roducers from renewable resources with a pro duct ion capacity of < than 500 k W will be able to sell the electricity at 98% of the value of the short term cost of energy at the point of interconnection. Large producer with a capa city of > 500 kW , according to the new energy reforms, will have to sell their production throu gh a system of wholesale distributors that will offer e lectricity to the CFE through auctions, based on the real time demand requirements from the grid. Green energy producers are allowed to use an accelerated depreciation rate in their financial statements, but th ere are no other tax or tariff incentives to promote green energies . The only government proposal with the potential to promote green energy production in the future is the introduction of the clean ener gy certificate bonds (CELÂ«s) . The CEL proposal establ ishes the legal framework for the creation of a marketplace where bonds issued to green energy producers can be bough by energy consumers to comply with their green energy requirements; however, the system will not be operational until 2018. Preferential tariffs and policies create a friendly environment for green energy producers; however, under the currently low fossil fuel costs , the countryÂ«s incentives are no t aggressive enough to promote a
! &+ ! significant difference in the balance of energy genera tion . A good example are the incentives p romoted by countries like China which have strong aggressive policies that allow three years exemption from corporate income tax and 50% redu ction f or an additional 3 years, in addition to 50 percent refund of value added tax (VAT) on inves tments in renewable energy proj e cts . O ther examples are found in France, w ho offers fix feed in tariffs, for up to ten years, for o nshore wind power or s olar generation plants , and bonuses on energy produced by biomass, that can go up to 0.125 Euros per kWh, on top of the already preferential tariffs offered to green producers. (Boekhoudt & Behrendt, 2014) . These are just two examples of many incentives o ffered around the world to clean energy produce rs , w hich under the current environment of low fossil fuel prices , are absolutely nece s sary to promote and mai n tain the gr owth in clean energy production capacity. E conomic analysis. The operation of the Omni P roce s sor Â¨ (OP) in MÂŽxico, with full revenue from the sale of sludge removal services, electricity, water, and fly ash, was determined to be financ ially feasible with an IRR of 20 % in a 6 year investment scenario. The operation was determined feasible, since its IRR of 20 % is higher than the discount rate determined f or public (10%) and private (14%) projects. The most important variable for the operation of the OP is the production and sales pric e of w ater, since it represents up to 60 % of the to tal revenue of the operation. Sludge removal services represents 1 6 % sale of fly ash 14 %, and sale of electricity at 12 % of the to tal revenue of the operation. For this evaluation the sale of heat wa s not considered as part of the revenue streams, since the possibilities of sellin g it were
! &" ! considered low under current economic conditions in MÂŽxico . It should be considered however, that t he sale of residual heat at even ! of it s p ossible wholesale sales price, would in crease the IRR of the OP from 20% to almost 25 %. Heat is a byproduct of the operation which could create revenue without any added cost , and could be used in applications such absorption cooling device s, which use a heat source as energy to drive cooling devices . Sensibility to changes in the sales price of products was also analyzed, and as expected, changes in the sales price of water had the most significant effect in the outcome of the IRR. The internal rate of return went from a low of 9% with a sales price of water of 0.38 Pesos / liter , to a high of 39% wit h a sales price of 1.71 Pesos / liter. Changes in the sales price of ash were affected from a high IRR of 25% with a sales price of 1.45 Pesos /kg, to a low of 19% with a sales pr ice of 0.53 Pesos/kg. Changes in the IRR from variations in the sales price of electricity, went from an a high IRR o 25% with an electricity sales price of 1.71 pesos / kwh, to a low of 19% with an electric ity sales price of 0.63 Peso s / kW h. Changes in th e IRR fr om sales of s ludge removal services changed form a high IRR of 27% with a sales price of 241 pesos / ton removed, to a low of 10% with a sales price of 88 Pesos / ton removed. The OP system can support significant changes in the sales prices of electric ity, sludge removal services, and ash, but is highly susceptible to chang es in the sales price of water. C onsidering that only 10% of the sales price of bottle water accounts for the actual cost of water, t he addition of a bottling plant to the OP operation would significantly improve the IRR on the investment (Janicki Bioenergy, 2015) . Profits from the sales of bottled potable water could significantly enhanced the profitability of the operation, since MÂŽxico has the
! ! largest consumption of bottle d water in the world at 23 4 l iters / person / year (Universidad Nacional AutÂ—noma de MÂŽxico, 2015) . As a compar ison, the United States, consumption of bottle d water per person per year is only 128 liters /person/ year (International Bottled Water Association, 2014) . The most important issue s concern ing the investment into a bottling plant attached to the OP Processor would be the distance of the potential water consumers, and the associated distribution capacity . Many of the costal areas of MÂŽxico which do not have readily access to fresh water would represent ideal opportunities, such as Northern and Southern Baja California States, as well as isolated island communities, which due to the lack of fresh wat er and geographical isolation, are curren tly investing in desalinating plants (PeÂ–a, Ducci, & Plascencia, 2013) . Densely populated urban areas area also a great area of opportunity for the OP operation. Either as a single unit, or as a network of units , large cities provide great opportunities and increased revenue due to the economies of scale and the optimized logistics involved in setting up multiple operations in a smaller geographical area. An additio nal market for the OP processor are the on site installation s as part of existing w at er treatment plants. MÂŽxico has an installed water tre atment capacity of more than 97m 3 /s (LeBlanc et al., 2009) and just MÂŽxico City has a potential s ludge generation capacity of more than 8.4 Million of m 3 per year (PeÂ–a et al., 2013) . On site installation of the OP at large water treatment plants would elimi nate the prob lems of sludge disposal for the plant operator s , would decrease the energy consumption of the water treatment process , and would add water and ash as potential revenue s for the operation.
! &$ ! Social and health implications Currently about one billion people worldwide suffer from water scarcity (The W ater Project, 2015) , about 2.5 billion people don't have access to adequate bathrooms, and more than 500,000 children die every year from diarrhea caused by unsafe water and poor sanitation (Wateraid, 2015) . In many developing countries , the operatio n of an OP plant could be strongly driven solely on the healt h and social benefits it creates , e ven if the return on the investment was marginal . The OP process ing plant is the ultimate sustainable technology since it tackles a problem such as the lack of capacity to process sewage and residual waters, using the source of the problem as fuel to produce valuable by products such as water and electricity. The OP runs itself with the biomass that represents a health hazard , does not pollute the environment , and eliminates the health associated issues related to untreated residual muds and sewage. The key to t he future of the Omni ProcessorÂ¨, lies in the capaci ty to mass produce the equipment at an affordable price, specially considering that it will most likely be utilized in developing countries.
! &% ! CONCLUSIONS F! M ÂŽ xico will probably fail on its goal to produce at least 35% of its ene rgy by 2024 from renewable resources, because the current regulation does not have true incenti ves to promote clean energy production. I f the country wants to promote renewable energy production, a true energy reform needs to be implemented shortly. The regulatory and financial operation of the Omni P rocessor Â¨ (OP) S200 is feasible under current normative and economic parameters evaluated in the emerging economy of MÂŽxico . The full operation of the OP plant, with revenue from the collection of residual sludge, sale of water, electricity, and ash, resulted in an IRR of 20%. Increasing revenue by the sales of residual heat, although improbable under current economic conditions in MÂŽxico, could increase the IRR to 25%. The most profitable by product of the OP operation is by far the production of p otable water. Consequently, the sales price of water is the most sensitive variable for the operation of the plant. Profitability of operation for the OP p rocessing plant can be greatly enha nced by the following actions; a ddition of a water bottling plant associated to a st rong distributing network; sales of residual heat to industrial processes closely lo cated to the plantÂ«s site; increased economy of scale obtained by the operation of clusters of plants in densely populated area s; a nd by working with muds and sludges categorized as hazardous residues . The future of the OP system, particularly in emerging economies with poor sanitary conditions seems bright and secured. The key to the wide spread use of this technology wi ll depend on the capacity to mass produce the equipment at affordable prices , the ability to provide the necessary technological skills to the OP
! && ! users, and the possibility to provide financial aid for the purchas ing, commissioning, and initial operation of the eq uipment for one to two years. Besides itÂ«s financial benefits, the OP technology provide s a technically and commercially feasible system of improving the ove rall sanitary conditions in emerging countries, and this is a priceless asset . T he OP system provides strong evidence of how a technology can be profitable, have a positive social impact , and at the same time increase the level of sustainability in our planet .
! &' ! BIBLIOGRAPHY : Abbas, D., Current, D., Phillips, M., Rossman, R., Hoganson, H., & Brooks, K. N. (2011). Guidelines for harvesting forest biomass for energy: a synthesis of environmental considerati ons. Biomass and Bioenergy, 35 (11), 4538 4546. Anderson, J. E., Wulfhorst, G., & Lang, W. (2015). Energy analysis of the built environment Ã‘ A review and outlook. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 44 , 149 158. Betz, F., Kuh, W., & Engineers, A. (20 14). Simulationg water: supply and demand in the built environment . Paper presented at the Building simulation Conference, Altanta, Georgia. Blowers, A. (2013). Planning for a sustainable environment : Routledge. Boekhoudt, A., & Behrendt, L. (2014). Taxes and Incentives for the renewable energy. In K. Consulting (Ed.), cutting through complexity. Bridgwater, A. (1980). Waste incineration and pyrolysis. Resource Recovery and Conservation, 5 (1), 99 115. Bridgwater, T. (2006). Biomass for energy. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 86 (12), 1755 1768. CalderÂ—n, E. J. H., RodrÂ’guez, M. I. M., de la Rosa, M. G. V., & de Casas, M. d. S. M. (2014). LODOS RESIDUALES: MÂƒTODOS DE TRATAMIENTO, ESTABILIZACIÃ®N Y APROVECHAMIENTO. Â’ndice , 61. Camara de Diput ados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n. (2008). ConstituciÂ—n PolÂ’tica de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos . Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n. (2012). Ley General de Cambio ClimÂ‡tico: MÂŽxico. Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n. (2013a). Ley General del Equilibrio EcolÂ—gico y la ProtecciÂ—n al Ambiente. Nueva Ley publicada en el Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n el, 28 . Camara de Diputados H. Congreso de la UniÂ—n. (2013b). Ley para el Aprovechamiento de EnergÂ’as Renovables y el Financiamiento de la Transic iÂ—n EnergÂŽtica. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 28 . Ley General del Equilibrio EcolÂ—gico y la ProtecciÂ—n dal Ambiente (2015). Casanova, P. P. (2014). Alternativas de revalorizaciÂ—n de lodos residuales provenientes de plantas de lodos activados Celulosa Arauco y ConstituciÂ—n S. A, Planta ConstituciÂ—n. Centro Mario Molina. (2012). EvaluaciÂ—n de la sustentabilidad de la vivienda en MÂŽxico. MÂŽxico D.F.: Centro Mario Molina. . ChappellsÂ , H., & ShoveÃ , E. (2005). Debating the future of comfort: environmenta l sustainability, energy consumption and the indoor environment. Building Research & Information, 33 (1), 32 40. ComisiÂ—n Federal de Electricidad. (2015). Tarifas Generales de Medis TensiÂ—n. Retrieved June 2015, from http://app.cfe.gob.mx/Aplicaciones/CCFE/Tarifas/Tarifas/tarifas_negocio.as p?Tarifa=CMAMT&Anio=201 5
! &( ! ComisiÂ—n Nacional del Agua. (2013). Inventario Nacional de Plantas Municipales de PotabilizaciÂ—n y de Tratamiento de Aguas Residuales en OperaciÂ—n, Diciembre 2013. (pp. 298). MÂŽxico D.F.: Comi siÂ—n Nacional del Agua, . ComisiÂ—n Nacional del Agua. (2015). Sistema Nacional de Tarifas. . 2015 from http://www.conagua.gob.mx/Tarifas/Consultas.aspx ComisiÂ—n Nacional del Agua. (2015 ). NORMA Oficial Mexicana NOM 011 CONAGUA 2015, ConservaciÂ—n del recur so agua Que establece las especificaciones y el mÂŽtodo para determinar la disponibilidad media anual de las aguas nacionales. Al margen un sello con el Escudo Nacional, que dice: Estados Unidos Mexicanos. SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. Copppola, A., Fernholz, F., & Glenday, G. (2014). MÂŽxico: EstimaciÂ—n del costo de oportunidad del capital para proyectos de inversiÂ—n pÂœblica (Enero 2014). . In SecretarÂ’a de Hacienda y CrÂŽdito PÂœblico (Ed.). Couret, D. G. (2000). Sustainability in Devel oping and Developed Countries. Crawford, M. (2012). Fluidized Bed Combustors for Biomass Boilers. Retrieved June 18, 2015, from https://www.asme.org/engineering topics/articles/boilers/fluidized bed combustors for biomass boilers Department of Energy. (2 000). Pasive solar design, increase energy efficiency and comfort in homes by incorporating passive solar design features. . Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n. (1986). Â—rgano del gobierno constitucional de los Estados Unidos Mexicanos. MÂŽxico, DF, 31 . Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n. (1988). Ley General del Equilibrio EcolÂ—gico y la ProtecciÂ—n al Ambiente. MÂŽxico, Distrito Federal, 28 . Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n. (1992). Ley del Servicio PÂœblico de EnergÂ’a ElÂŽctrica. Diario Oficial de la Federaci Â—n. (2008). Ley de promociÂ—n y desarrollo de los bioenergÂŽticos: MÂŽxico, Gobierno de la RepÂœblica, publicada el. Dinero en Imagen. (2015). Cual es el costo real del agua embotellada. . Retrieved June 2015, from http://www.dineroenimagen.com/2013 09 08/25643 Ekpeni, L. E., & Olabi, A. G. (2012). Energy sustainability Ã an issue for today. Journal of Sustainable Development and Environmental Protection, 2 (2). Elliott, J. (2012). An introduction to sustainable development : Routledge. Epstein, M. J., & Buhova c, A. R. (2014). Making sustainability work: Best practices in managing and measuring corporate social, environmental, and economic impacts : Berrett Koehler Publishers. Espinosa, L. G. M., & Remis, R. R. (2013). UtilizaciÂ—n de biosÂ—lidos para la recuperaci Â—n energÂŽtica en MÂŽxico. ProducciÂ—n+ Limpia, 7 (2). Ezeh, A. C., Bongaarts, J., & Mberu, B. (2012). Global population trends and policy options. The Lancet, 380 (9837), 142 148. Florian, F. M., Sodi, P. V., Gabilondo, A. I., Galindo, R., & Lopez, M. (2013) . Estrategia Nacional para la Vivienda Sustentable; Componente Ambiental de la Sustentabilidad. MÂŽxico D.F. . Friedman, A. (2012). Principles of Sustainable Dwellings Fundamentals of Sustainable Dwellings (pp. 1 9): Springer.
! &) ! Frijns, J., Hofman, J., & Ned erlof, M. (2013). The potential of (waste) water as energy carrier. Energy Conversion and Management, 65 , 357 363. GarcÂ’a, N. O. (2006). Lodos residuales: estabilizaciÂ—n y manejo. Caos conciencia, 1 , 51 58. GarcÂ’a, O. (2006). Lodos residuales: estabiliza ciÂ—n y manejo. Caos conciencia, 1 , 51 58. Gasification technologies council. (2015). What is Gasification. Retrieved June 2015, from http://www.gasification.org/what is gasification/gasification vs incineration/ Georges, L., Massart, C., Van Moeseke, G. , & De Herde, A. (2012). Environmental and economic performance of heating systems for energy efficient dwellings: Case of passive and low energy single family houses. Energy Policy, 40 , 452 464. Glicksman, L. R. (2008). Energy efficiency in the built env ironment. Physics Today, 61 (7), 35. Goldemberg, J. (2009). Biomass and energy. QuÂ’mica nova, 32 (3), 582 587. Gong, P., Liang, S., Carlton, E. J., Jiang, Q., Wu, J., Wang, L., & Remais, J. V. (2012). Urbanisation and health in China. The Lancet, 379 (9818) , 843 852. Grace Communication Foundation. (2015). How the United States Uses Water. from http://www.gracelinks.org/210/how the united states uses water Graham, P. (2009). Building ecology: First principles for a sustainable built environment : John Wiley & Sons. Honorable Congreso de la UniÂ—n. (2014). DECRETO por el que se expiden la Ley de la Industria ElÂŽctrica, la Ley de EnergÂ’a GeotÂŽrmica y se adicionan y reforman diversas disposiciones de la Ley de Aguas Nacionales. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n . H ospido, A., Moreira, T., MartÂ’n, M., Rigola, M., & Feijoo, G. (2005). Environmental evaluation of different treatment processes for sludge from urban wastewater treatments: Anaerobic digestion versus thermal processes (10 pp). The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, 10 (5), 336 345. Hussey, K., & Pittock, J. (2012). The energy water nexus: managing the links between energy and water for a sustainable future. Ecology and Society, 17 (1), 31. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2007). Syne rgies with sustainability in developing countries. International Bottled Water Association. (2014). Bottled Water Market 2015, from http://www.bottledwater.org/economics/bottled water market International Energy Agency. (2014). World Energy Outlook. Workin Together to ensure reliable, affordable and clean energy. from http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/publications/weo 2014/ Janicki Bioenergy. (2015). S200 Omni Processor Overview. In J. Bioenergy (Ed.). USA. . Kaygusuz, K. (2012). Energy for sustainable dev elopment: A case of developing countries. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 16 (2), 1116 1126. Kibert, C. J. (2012). Sustainable Construction: Green Building Design and Delivery: Green Building Design and Delivery : John Wiley & Sons.
! &* ! LeBlanc, R. J., Matthews, P., & Richard, R. P. (2009). Global atlas of excreta, wastewater sludge, and biosolids management: moving forward the sustainable and welcome uses of a global resource : Un habitat. Lechner, N. (2014). Heating, cooling, lighting: s ustainable design methods for architects : John wiley & sons. LÂ—pez, A., Cruz, E., Lucas, I., & Olvera, J. (2014). Desarrollo de proyectos sustentables con financiamiento de bonos de carbono. Paper presented at the Ciencias Administrativas y Sociales, Handb ook T IV: Congreso Interdisciplinario de Cuerpos AcadÂŽmicos. MacÂ’as, J. G. L. (2013). Los lodos de las plantas de tratamiento de aguas residuales, Ã€Problema o recurso?. (pp. 45). Guadalajara, Jalisco. Molina, M. (2015). Centro Mario Molina para etudios est ratÂŽgicos sobre energÂ’a y medio ambiente. . MÂŽxico, D.F. . Mountouris, A., Voutsas, E., & Tassios, D. (2008). Plasma gasification of sewage sludge: Process development and energy optimization. Energy Conversion and Management, 49 (8), 2264 2271. Partida, F. Ã§. (2012). Criterios e Indicadores de la Vivienda Sustentable. PEMEX. (2015). Precio PÂœblico de Productos Petroliferos. In P. Mexicanos. (Ed.). PeÂ–a, M. E. d., Ducci, J., & Plascencia, V. (2013). Tratamiento de aguas residuales en MÂŽxico. In B. I. d. D esarrollo. (Ed.). MÂŽxico. . PÂŽrez Elvira, S., Diez, P. N., & Fdz Polanco, F. (2006). Sludge minimisation technologies. Reviews in Environmental Science and Bio/Technology, 5 (4), 375 398. PÂŽrez Lombard, L., Ortiz, J., & Pout, C. (2008). A review on buildi ngs energy consumption information. Energy and buildings, 40 (3), 394 398. Project on urban reduction of eutrophication. (2014). Good practices in sludge management. . Baltic Sea Region Program 2011 2013. , from http://www.purebalticsea.eu/index.php/gpsm:good_practices Pugh, C. (2013). Sustainable cities in developing countries : Routledge. QuimiNet. (2015). Precios de cenizas volantes. InformaciÂ—n y Negocios, segundo a segundo. . Retrieved June 2015, from http://www.quiminet.com/productos/ceniza volante 6157622188/precios.htm Remis, R. R., & Espinosa, L. G. M. (2011). El potencial de generaciÂ—n de energÂ’a elÂŽctrica empleando biosÂ—lidos como fuente de materia prima: El caso de la ciudad de Ensenada, Baja California. Remis, R. R., & Espinosa, L. G. M. (2012) . UtilizaciÂ—n de biosÂ—lidos para la recuperaciÂ—n energÂŽtica en MÂŽxico. ProducciÂ—n MÂ‡s Limpia, 7 (2). Revista del Consumidor. (2014). Reporte Especial: Consumo de agua embotellada. Revista del Consumidor en LÂ’nea. (10.1 ). Robles, J. A. A., Leonel, C. R., & Cecilia, F. N. (NA). Comparativa de requisitos para generar energÂ’a elÂŽctirica por medio de energÂ’as renovables entre empresas y particulares en MÂŽxico. . In S. d. P. d. I. P. Nacional. (Ed.): Instituto PolitÂŽcnico Nacional. . Rulkens, W. (2007). Sewage sludge as a biomass resource for the production of energy: overview and assessment of the various optionsÂ . Energy & Fuels, 22 (1), 9 15.
! '+ ! Samolada, M., & Zabaniotou, A. (2014). Comparative assessment of municipal sewage sludge incineration, gasification a nd pyrolysis for a sustainable sludge to energy management in Greece. Waste Management, 34 (2), 411 420. Santamouris, M. (2013). Energy and climate in the urban built environment : Routledge. Schnoor, J. L. (2011). Water Ã energy nexus. Environmental Science & Technology, 45 (12), 5065 5065. SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (1997). Norma Oficial Mexicana: NOM 001 SEMARNAT 1996, Que establece los lÂ’mites mÂ‡ximos permisibles de contaminantes en las descargas de aguas residuales en aguas y bien es nacionales. Enero. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n, 6 . SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2004). Norma Oficial MÂŽxicana NOM 098 SEMARNAT 2002, ProtecciÂ—n ambiental incineraciÂ—n de resÂ’duos de operaciÂ—n y lÂ’mites de emisiÂ—n de contaminantes. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n , 159. SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2011). NORMA Oficial Mexican a NOM 161 SEMARNAT 2011, Que establece los criterios para clasificar a los Residuos de Manejo Especial y determinar cuÂ‡les estÂ‡n sujetos a Plan de Manejo; el listado de los mismos, el procedimiento para la inclusiÂ—n o exclusiÂ—n a dicho listado; asÂ’ como lo s elementos y procedimientos para la formulaciÂ—n de los planes de manejo. Al margen un sello con el Escudo Nacional, que dice: Estados Unidos Mexicanos. SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. SecreatarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2015). Normas Oficiales MÂŽxicanas. 2015 (2015). SecretarÂ’a de Comunicaciones y Transportes. (2003 ). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM 051 SCT2/2003, Especificaciones especiales y adicionales para los envases y embalajes de las substancias peligrosas de la divisiÂ—n 6.2 agentes infecciosos. SecretarÂ’a de Desar rollo Urbano y EcologÂ’a. (1993). NOM 053 ECOL 1993. Que establece el procedimiento para llevar a cabo la prueba de extracciÂ—n para determinar los constituyentes que hacen a un residuo peligroso por su toxicidad al ambiente. Instituto Nacional de EcologÂ’a, MÂŽxico . SecretarÂ’a de EconomÂ’a. (2015). DirecciÂ—n General de Normas. 2015 . SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (1998a). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM 002 SEMARNAT 1996, que establece los lÂ’mites mÂ‡ximos permisibles de contaminantes en las des cargas de aguas residuales a los sistemas de alcantarillado urbano o municipal. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n . SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (1998b). Norma oficial mexicana NOM 003 SEMARNAT 1997, que establece las lÂ’mites mÂ‡ximos pe rmisibles de contaminantes para las aguas residuales tratadas que se reusen en servicios al pÂœblico. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n . SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2002). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM 004 SEMARNAT 2002, protecciÂ—n ambie ntal. lodos y biosolidos. . especificaciones y limites mÂ‡ximos permisibles de
! '" ! contaminantes para su aprovechamiento y disposiciÂ—n final. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n . SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales. (2003). Especificaciones de prote cciÂ—n ambiental para la selecciÂ—n del sitio, diseÂ–o, construcciÂ—n, operaciÂ—n, monitoreo, clausura y obras complementarias de un sitio de disposiciÂ—n final de residuos sÂ—lidos urbanos y de manejo especial. . SecretarÂ’a de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturale s. (2006). Norma Oficial Mexicana NOM 052 SEMARNAT 2005, que establece las caracterÂ’sticas, el procedimiento de identificaciÂ—n, clasificaciÂ—n y los listados de los residuos peligrosos. Diario Oficial de la FederaciÂ—n . SecretarÂ’a del Medio Ambienete y Recu rsos Naturales. (2003). Norma Oficial Mexicana, NOM 083 SEMARNAT 2003 Especificaciones de protecciÂ—n ambiental para la selecciÂ—n del sitio, diseÂ–o, construcciÂ—n, operaciÂ—n, monitoreo, clausura y obras complementarias de un sitio de disposiciÂ—n final de res iduos sÂ—lidos urbanos y de manejo especial. Senior, K. (2015). When will fossil fuels run out ? Carbon counted. 2015, from http://www.carboncounted.co.uk/when will fossil fuels run out.html Sociedad Hipotecaria Federal. (2014). Demanda de vivienda 2014 S olecki, W., Rosenzweig, C., Hammer, S., & Mehrotra, S. (2014). The urbanization of climate change: Responding to a new global challenge. Sustainable Urban Development Reader , 107. Sustainability Diversity. (2011). Sustainable diversity in a diverse world. . from http://www.susdiv.org/ Sustainable Buildings and Climate Initiative. (2009). Buildings and Climate Change, Summary for Decision Makers. . In U. S. B. a. C. Initiative. (Ed.). Paris, France.: United Nations Environment Programme. The National Acad emies. (2015). Renewable Resources, Biomass. What we need to know about energy. . from http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy sources/renewable sources/biomass/ The Water Project. (2015). Water Scarcity and the Importance of Water. Retrieved June 12 20 15, from http://www.thewaterproject.com The World Bank. (2015a). Fossil Fuel Energy Consumption (% of total). Working for a World Free of Poverty. , 2015, from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.USE.COMM.FO.ZS The World Bank. (2015b). GDP Ranking, PPP based. In T. W. B. Group. (Ed.), Working for a World Free of Poverty. United Nations. (2008). Achieving Sustainable Development and Promoting Development Cooperation . New York, USA. : United Nations. . United Nations. (2013). Sustainable Development Challenges. World Economic and Social Survey 2013 . New York. : United Nations. . United Nations Envrionment Programme. (2015). Sludge treatment, reuse and disposal. Retrieved June 2015, from http://www.unep.or.jp/ietc/publications/freshwater/sb_summary/10.asp Univer sidad Nacional AutÂ—noma de MÂŽxico. (2015). Red del agua UNAM 2015, from http://www.agua.unam.mx/noticias/2015/nacionales/not_nac_enero09_4.ht ml
! '# ! USAID. (2011). Safeguarding the WorldÂ«s Water, 2011 Report on USAID Fiscal Year 2010, Water Sector Activities. . Washington, DC. Uuemaa, P., Vigants, H., Blumberga, D., & Drovtar, I. (2014). Industrial CHP excess heat efficient usage for cooling. energetika, 60 (2). Villareal, J. L. A. (2015). Por que es cara la energÂ’a en MÂŽxico. Retrieved June, 2015 , from http://www.energia.org.mx Waite, M. (2010). Sustainable water resources in the built environment : IWA Publishing. Waste Management Resources. (2015). Incineration. Retrieved June 17, 2015 , from http://www.wrfound.org.uk/articles/incineration.html Wateraid. (2015). The hard facts behind the water and sanitation crisis in the developing world., from http://www.wateraid.org Waterforlifedecade. (2014). Water and Energy Sustainability. Winkler, M. K., Bennenbroek, M., Horstink, F., Van Loosdrecht, M., & Van d e Pol, G. J. (2013). The biodrying concept: An innovative technology creating energy from sewage sludge. Bioresource Technology, 147 , 124 129. World Bank Group. (2014). At a Glance: Water. Water. from http://water.worldbank.org/node/84122 World Buisness C ouncill for Sustainable Development. (2006). Water, Facts and Trends. . In R. Martin. (Ed.). Geneva, Switzerland. .