Media update, page-2239

Hi @nequalsone, as per usual, thanks for posting this info. I spent over an hour earlier this morning drafting up a response but managed to lose it after I tried to include too many images, so here we go again for a second try. I'm annoyed so this one is likely to be shorter.

While Fluence have a couple of Canadian partners in H2Flow and ETA, Canada does not appear to be a territory that is going to be invested in at this stage. I don't believe they will bid on this, as Oxymem and Suez cartridges have already been specified.

In reality, the only Fluence retrofit SUBRE plant in operation is still undergoing a testing phase at Maayan Zvi. Black & Veatch are currently doing a report on this which will be published early next year. Until this one line has been fully optimized and proven and then has been expanded into the 2nd line at maximum capacity, I do not think Fluence will be winning any North American tenders for retrofit plants, as the tender requirements are onerous. First we will need a few Chinese plants to take the plunge, as they will likely be more willing to risk a new technology. For mine, 2021 and beyond is where we will see more action in the retrofit market when it comes to Western countries and tenders. The only way I see wins coming any faster, is if an old plant is releasing such bad effluent (excess nitrogen) that they are being fined by the EPA and are forced to upgrade quickly.

Luckily, the small to mid-sized SUBRE greenfield plants appear to be ramping up in wins, and these may go some way to proving and optimizing the tech for later retrofit use.
___________________
You may want to have a good read of this Norfolk Island Wastewater Option Study.
http://www.norfolkisland.gov.nf/sites/default/files/Norfolk%20Island%20Wastewater%20Options%20Report%20Draft_0.pdf
Specifications were for a 360 m3/d plant which is subject to high ammonia spikes due to high short term tourism use versus average connected population.
It provides a very detailed comparison from a pricing and technology perspective, with considerations for reuse and recycling strategies. We don't usually get to see such detailed documents with regards to specific long term pricing. Note that this is a study to compare technologies for a future upgrade, this is not a tender.

A custom greenfield SUBRE concrete 8 x 2 module plant was proposed by Aquatec Maxcon and Fluence. This also included an additional $700k UF (Ultrafiltration) option to enable comparisons to MBR with wastewater recycling in the report. To my eyes, this proposed plant was overkill in comparisons to the specifications required. A containerized Aspiral MABR plant similar to an ITEST 4 x L4 400 m3/d plus UF containers would instead have been a lot cheaper and more cost efficient due to the pre-engineering of the packaged plants and the alleviation of the custom concrete basin that needs to be casted on-site on Norfolk Island with the SUBRE option.






It was compared to a containerized MBR plant and a containerized MBBR plant from MAK Water, with a Trickling filter + wetland option and a RBC + IDAT. Only the MABR and MBR plants have UF and can therefore be considered for direct recycling of the effluent.


Fluence provided the most custom and high specced solution with an additional $700k UF unit and the additional expense of having to cast the concrete basin on-site, leading to direct construction costs of $7.6m. ($1.8m higher than the MBR and $1.7m higher than the MBBR). This also led to the 15% estimated contractor and 15% contingency calculations being higher for total CAPEX of $10.8m (MBR = $8.3m, MBBR = $8m).

Amazingly, despite being so high on CAPEX compared to MBR and MBBR, OPEX is so low, that after 8 years of operation, MABR catches up to MBR, and after 12 years catches MBBR. Without the UF option, CAPEX drops by about $1m, and OPEX reduces by about 40%, which may reduce intersection points to around 5 years for MBR and 8 years for MBBR.

Sludge produced by MABR is also the lowest of all the compared technologies, which is a large ecological consideration on an island when it comes to effective disposal.

Cost per EP (equivalent person) over 25 years.

What this report highlights is the sheer long term OPEX advantage MABR has over its main competition.
The solution that Aquatec Maxcon and Fluence presented was overkill in comparison to the specifications, if a much lower cost containerized Aspiral plant was used as a fair comparison to the containerized MBR and MBBR plants then there would have been a clear winner. However, as this is not a tender, it does not matter so much, and instead gives us an insight into the specific pricing and considerations related to the SUBRE greenfield plants that have been won in Jamaica and China (minus UF module). In the future, if a tender is released for a new plant for the Norfolk Islands, maybe both an Aspiral based plant, and a SUBRE plant can be pitched, to give a lower cost option.

In Jamaica, where petroleum based fuel is burnt to generate electricity, long term OPEX is a major factor, as cost of electricity is some of the highest in the world and fluctuates with the price of oil. It may explain why SUBRE plants are starting to gain traction quickly there.