Search

[...]Today, on October 18th 2018, exactly at 10:18 local time, the official groundbreaking took place for the erection of the new company building for HUBER China in the Shaxi District of Taicang (Jiangsu province). The cornerstone laying ceremony took place in the presence of the official representatives of the local government / administration and the team of HUBER China represented by managing director Franck Loctin The Shaxi District is located in the northwest of Shanghai on the Changjiang river (also called “blue river”). The construction works for the 13,000 m² new office and production area, 1,800 m² of which are office buildings, will go on there until autumn 2019. The new production facility will have five times the capacity of the previous production in China. The medium-term goal is to manufacture there machines at the value of at least 30 - 40 million Euros and sell them exclusively to the important Chinese market. Owing to the further increase in competitiveness and capacity, all will profit from this ambitious plan and the innovative solutions and products: HUBER SE as parent company, our subsidiary in China and, not least, China’s environment![...]

[...]Suitable materials and effective corrosion protection for economical solutions The right choice of material for screens and screening machines is a key factor for their reliable and low-maintenance operation. For applications with river water and fresh water, we use 304 and 316L stainless steel. For applications in particularly corrosive seawater with high temperature and salinity, we use stainless steel in combination with corrosion protection as well as corrosion-resistant duplex stainless steel and super duplex stainless steel. All steel parts are pickled and passivated in our own production. For corrosion protection we choose between two principles, cathodic corrosion protection with external current and corrosion protection with sacrificial anodes. Protection of equipment HUBER solutions für corrosion protection Cathodic corrosion protection with external current Impressed Current Cathodic Protection (ICCP) is a proven system for protecting stainless steel against electrochemical corrosion. The basic principle is that the metal to be protected – the protected object – is turned into a cathode, which does not corrode. For cathodic corrosion protection with external current, HUBER works together with a globally recognised specialist. We design and manufacture the system components taking into account the site and installation environment as well as the prevailing operating conditions for the specific project application. Corrosion protection with sacrificial anodes Corrosion protection can also be achieved by using galvanic anodes, the so-called sacrificial anodes. These consist of an electrochemically less noble metal, usually aluminium, zinc or magnesium, which is connected to the protected object through the seawater acting as an electrical conductor. The decisive factor for effective corrosion protection is that the sacrificial anodes are either mounted directly on the protected object or are directly connected to it via a metal cable.[...]

[...]Hämeenlinna, Finland Maintenance costs caused by wear often impair the economic efficiency of centrifuges. Screw presses offer clear advantages in terms of costs and availability. But the operators of screw presses additionally benefit from other advantages. Decanter centrifuges are one of the most frequently used systems for sewage sludge dewatering. Their well known advantages, such as high dewatering degrees even with high throughputs, are due to the effect of the separation of heavy solids and the lighter water phase in the centrifugal environment with the three thousandfold of the gravitational acceleration. A drum rotation between 2,000 and 4,000 rpm is necessary to create such a strong centrifugal environment. Such a high rotation leads to abrasion and wear inside the centrifuge. As, due to wear, such fast running units can be a safety risk for the operating staff, centrifuges should be equipped with systems that monitor vibrations and the temperature of bearings. In addition the limitation of drum speed should be regulated. This will not avoid wear but ensure that wear is reliably detected. Also the dismounting of centrifuges at regular intervals by specialists contributes to high operating costs. In many markets this sort of wear test is even prescribed. Maintenance of a worn centrifuge usually includes the repair of the drum, renewal of the wear protection on the rotor and a bearing test. Also the sealing surfaces are renewed before the plant parts are balanced on a test stand. The costs for all these measures can easily amount to 10,000 € or more. Besides, this time-consuming and material-intensive work usually cannot be executed on site with the result of longer centrifuge shutdowns and possibly additional costs for bridging the shutdown periods by commissioning subcontractors. Increasing Maintenance Costs Lead to Searching for Alternatives The operators of STP Hämeenlinna in Finland experienced exactly the same scenario as described before. Due to increasing maintenance costs and frequent failures due to wear they wanted to relace the centrifuge they had installed six years before. It has been well known in Scandinavia for years that HUBER Screw Presses cause far less maintenance costs that decanters. The reason for the low abrasion is the low rotational speed of the Screw Presses, which is < 1 rpm. The analysis of the sludges in the HUBER laboratory showed satisfactory guarantee values, e.g. cake DR contents > 28% with a throughput of 200 kgDR/h and a polymer consumption of 9 g/kgD. In addition, the numerous HUBER reference installations in Finland reinforced their decision to choose a HUBER Screw Press Q-PRESS® size 620. All guarantee values were met already during the first provisional start-up: With a polymer dose of 8 g/kgDR and a solids throughput of 280 kgDR/h DR contents of 33 % were measured. These values were even better than the performance data achieved by the six year old centrifuge on site with a low load and optimal settings. But whereas the centrifuge consumes 12 kW to achieve these performance data and shows a noise level in excess of 86 dB(A), the Screw Press needs only 1 kW with a noise level below 68 dB(A). Besides, a performance test proved that the Screw Press achieves significantly higher dewatering results: We wanted to maximize throughput and minimize polymer consumption. In fact, the Q-PRESS® 620 achieved an unbelievable cake DR of 38.5% with a solids load of 350 kgDR/H and a polymer dose of 6.5 g/kgDR – a far better result than that achieved by the centrifuge. Siginficantly Decreased Maintenance Costs It remains to be seen in how far maintenance costs will decrease in Hämeenlinna which were the decisive factor for the customer to buy the HUBER product. On the basis of the experience we have made over many years with our HUBER Screw Press Q-PRESS® units, however, we expect savings of 70 to 80% compared to the centrifuges.[...]

[...]The renowned Cramer Klett Price by the Association of German Engineers is awarded to Christian Frommann, head of HUBER's business unit Mechanical Treatment, for his achievements in the field of heat recovery from wastewater. The Theodor-von-Cramer-Klett Prize is awarded every two years to young scientists and engineers by The Association of German Engineers VDI. The prize is named after the Nuremberg entrepreneur Theodor von Cramer Klett who lived from 1817 to 1884 and was one of the outstanding personalities of that time. With his farsightedness he initiated numerous projects and businesses and also laid the basis for the worldwide known MAN Group. It is therefore only logical that the prize is traditionally awarded at MAN in Nuremberg. Volker Thomas, Chairman of VDI North-East Bavaria, welcomed the invited guests and in his speech pointed out Christian Frommann’s outstanding achievements in the field of heat recovery from wastewater. The wastewater flowing through our sewers has a constant temperature of at least 10 to 12 °C all year round. And if we consider that these are really huge amounts of wastewater it becomes clear that our sewers hold an enormous energy potential which can be used to heat buildings, provided the suitable technology is applied. Mr. Frommann, businesss area manager in HUBER SE, rose to this challenge and opened up a new field of business for the company. The core of this innovative technological solution is the HUBER RoWin Heat Exchanger which is especially designed for the use with wastewater. A unique, patented heat exchanger combined with a heat pump extracts thermal energy from wastewater. This energy can then be used to heat buildings. In this process, the wastewater cools only by few degrees. Another interesting point is that this principle can optionally be used to cool buildings. For this type of application, the heat pump extracts thermal energy from the building and transfers this heat energy to the wastewater via the heat exchanger. In view of the present discussion about the finite nature of fossil fuels, the looming climate change and the energy turnaround it is an absolutely sustainable and future-oriented technology. The use of wastewater heat eliminates the need for oil and gas which are necessary for conventional heating and therefore significantly reduces CO 2 emissions. In his presentation Christian Frommann described all his development activities related to wastewater heat recovery from 2006 until today. He explained with pictures and examples which obstacles had to be overcome and which technical and engineering challenges had to be mastered until a functioning and marketable product was developed from the first idea and the first orders were received finally. After Christian Frommann's presentation Volker Thomas handed over the Cramer-Klett-Prize 2012 document and then disclosed the secret of the surprise non-cash prize: Christian Frommann and his wife were invited to spend a luxury weekend in Dresden including two nights in a hotel, special visits, and tickets for the Semper Opera. After the prize award ceremony the guests had the opportunity to join a tour of the MAN factory before they were invited to have lunch together with Dr.-Ing. Ulrich Dilling, director of MAN Truck & Bus AG.[...]

[...]In September 2011, HUBER SE was officially granted the status of an authorised economic operator (AEO) of the EU. The certification allows HUBER SE to benefit from customs simplifications (AEO C). Also our customers within the EU will now benefit from even more efficient processing of customs formalities. Furthermore, the AEO certification helps us to make international supply chains safer. Various criteria and requirements of the EU customs code, transposed into European law, must be met by applicants to obtain the AEO status. The legal provisions applicants have to meet include reliability, solvency and compliance with applicable laws and safety regulations. AEO certificates represent a quality seal for reliable business partners. HUBER SE has basically complied with the provisions for many years already as the necessary organisational measures have been taken that would systematically guarantee the compliance with applicable standards. This includes provisional measures, such as information and education of all employees concerned on the one hand and monitoring of relevant company-internal processes on the other hand. The new AEO certificate is the official confirmation of our own quality standards. It is our aim for the future to obtain the extended AEO certification that includes “safety” (AEO F). AEO certification granted to HUBER SE: Certificate no.: Valid since: Issued by: DE AEOC 111739 20.09.2011 Regensburg main customs office[...]

[...]Wastewater and residue treatment for the milk processing industry Reducing disposal costs Separating solids and contaminants Separating grease and protein Dewatering sludge Separating biomass Reducing phosphorus Cooling wastewater and recovering heat We offer well-proven customized solutions for the specific wastewater problems that occur in industrial dairy companies – from raw milk processing to the manufacture of end products, we are your competent partner for the equipment of your wastewater treatment plant. High solids loads, grease content and COD values are characteristic of dairy wastewater. We have safe and proven solutions to significantly reduce the pollution loads (COD) on site. In this way, even strict limit values are complied with and the treated wastewater can usually be discharged into the public sewer system without incurring heavy pollution charges. HUBER products and solutions for your requirements Our well-proven HUBER ROTAMAT® screens remove coarse solids from the production process (solids and impurities). HUBER HUBER Dissolved Air Flotation Plants are available to remove grease, solids and protein and reduce particulate and colloidal COD. The clear effluent can be discharged to the sewer or passed on to additional biological treatment. With the use of the HUBER Chemicals Dosing DIGIT-DOSE , operating costs and residual material generation can be minimised and limit values can be specifically complied with. With the newly developed HUBER Dissolved Air Flotation Plant HDF S , existing plants can be upgraded or modernised. In addition, the space required for biological treatment and secondary clarification is greatly reduced. Residual materials are thickened with special HUBER machines, thus saving transport and disposal costs. The treated sludge can optionally be further processed in biogas plants. Maximum volume reduction and thus low transport and disposal costs can be achieved if dewatering systems are used, such as the HUBER Screw Presses. We reduce high wastewater temperatures with the HUBER Heat Exchanger RoWin and can thus recover heat for process or heating purposes. The numerous projects we have successfully executed in the milk-processing industry and related branches, combined with our many years of experience in wastewater treatment, guarantee the reliable and efficient operation of your wastewater and/or residue treatment system! Our solutions for your challenges: COD, fat and solids reduction Reliably comply with discharge limits Reduce operating costs for wastewater treatment Reduce disposal costs for waste and sludge Recover wastewater heat and reduce wastewater temperature Access solutions for manholes and tanks[...]

[...]HUBER Resilience Thought Leadership: In the first of a series of thought leadership insights, Steve Morris , Managing Director at wastewater technology specialists HUBER Technology explores whether there’s a disconnect between high level ambitions about resilience and what it actually means in terms of operational delivery. Steve Morris: The National Infrastructure Commission's newly-published Annual Monitoring Report 2021 is a timely reminder, if any were needed, of the importance attached to ensuring the resilience of the UK's critical national infrastructure. Resilience is the word which is heard time and again in the water sector at the moment – from regulators, the Government, the water companies and the supply chain alike – Tier 1s down to SMEs. It’s also not uncommon to hear it referred to in the same breath as asset health - and both are of fundamental importance. In the face of the growing impacts of climate change, population growth and increased customer expectations, resilience is absolutely key – evidenced by the high level messages from the Government, the regulator and the senior management teams at the water companies. But how is resilience actually being delivered on the ground – and are there any blockages or barriers in place which are somehow currently preventing the industry from maximising its full potential? The supply chain is keen to play its part – yet it seems to me that this still continues to be an over-looked area where greater collaboration could really contribute with solutions which would help strengthen the resilience of the systems, processes and critical assets which make up the complex national water and wastewater infrastructure. Targeting resilience at both a strategic and granular level of detail However, in order to achieve the required level of resilience, I would argue that without looking at the granular level of detail, achieving it at the strategic level becomes much harder. I also wonder about the extent to which the high level message is disseminated and embedded throughout an organisation – and whether it somehow gets diluted along the way as it filters down. If a top-down approach is needed to drive the message down, then bottom-up results are necessary to demonstrate that it is having a real and measurable positive effect. Understandably, the focus and the attention of the water companies sometimes appears to be at the top of this particular pyramid. This after all is where most of the attention is on the performance metrics and outcomes which determine how they're rewarded or penalised accordingly. When we speak about resilience, we could describe this as the robustness of the system and its ability to respond and adapt to changes in the whole environment – from individual events in the system to larger scale events like extreme weather –in order to ensure continuity of services to meet customer demands. Ofwat’s own definition in its Towards Resilience discussion paper is: “Resilience is the ability to cope with, and recover from, disruption, and anticipate trends and variability in order to maintain services for people and protect the natural environment, now and in the future.” The UK Government current guidance on resilience - Keeping the Country Running - considers resilience as the ability of assets, networks and systems to anticipate, absorb, adapt to and/or rapidly recover from a disruptive event. Keeping the Country Running – the 4Rs of Resilience R edundancy - avoiding dependencies on single assets R esistance - proofing the system so that it is resistant to known risks – for example, flood defences R eliability - a system that operates effectively, irrespective of whether or not risks materialise R esponse/recovery (the ability to recover quickly so that service is not unduly impacted Resilience in AMP7 – driven by the customer voice in PR19 and impacted by COVID in 2020? So how is resilience being addressed in AMP7 and beyond? It’s important to remember that resilience is now one of Ofwat’s statutory duties and one of the four benchmarks that underpinned the PR19 process that led up to the water companies’ AMP7 Business Plans. There was a major focus on customer engagement in PR19 – much more consultation with customers to find out what they wanted. So some of the resilience requirements e.g. uninterrupted supply, clean drinking water, reduced risk of sewer flooding – reflect the customer’s voice. They may not have been described as resilience – but that’s what they equate to. I think the other thing here to bear in mind is the fact that the start of AMP7 coincided with the start of the COVID 19 and what the legacy of the pandemic is likely to be for the water sector in terms of resilience. COVID has clearly had an impact on operational activities. Just to take one example, like other companies in the supply chain, we’ve noticed a requirement to minimise the time contractors spend on site. Whether the measures the water companies have put in place to COVID-proof their activities will result in long-term behavioural changes, or whether post-pandemic they will revert to the status quo, remains to be seen. For me, I think there will however be an undoubted legacy of the water companies seeking to build even greater resilience into their assets. I’m thinking here in particular of Design for Manufacture and Assembly (DfMA) - the use of offsite manufacturing facilities for onsite installation and more controlled onsite processes. The other major shift which has started to bring about transformational change is of course the increasing use of smart technologies and amount of data analysis now being undertaken. Vast amounts of operational data are now available compared with 5/10 years ago, which in theory should enable informed decision-making and an increased focus on putting investment spend where it is really needed. Embedding a resilience culture - a disconnect between theory and practice? However, at the moment there still seems to be a disconnect between the theory and practice of embedding a resilience culture throughout the water sector. While there’s a high level of desire that’s there when it comes to talking about resilience, the key question is whether more could be done to strengthen practical implementation? Key areas which I would suggest clearly impact on an organisation’s view of the resilience of its assets and processes and feed into this include: the extent to which resilience is viewed through the prism of TOTEX and whether in reality an opex versus capex approach still applies whether spending decisions are based on Whole Life costs inherent tensions which result from the ongoing misalignment of the water companies’ planning requirements and widely varying timescales On the third point, to mention just two, are the constantly debated 5 year AMP investment cycles and the Water Resources Management Plans the water companies produce every five years setting out how they will manage water supplies in their region to meet current and future needs over a 25 year timeframe. In my view, reconciling the inevitable short-termism behaviours, which the AMP investment cycles drive, with the complex investment planning decisions needed to meet long-term objectives does not necessarily produce the most efficient and cost-effective outcomes. At the end of the day, the key question for the water companies charged with delivering resilient critical water and wastewater infrastructure is how to ensure resilience is driven down and embedded through their own company. Alongside that, is how to make sure it is also embraced by other key stakeholders. I would of course include the supply chain which plays a significant role in delivering their investment programmes. If the ambition for resilience is there at the top, the supply chain can help realise it at operational level Which brings me back to my original point on the importance of collaboration – if the ambition for resilience is there at the top, the supply chain can help them to realise it at an operational level. It’s true to say that in general, operational resilience has the most immediate and visible impact on customers. At an operational level, risks include critical asset failure or telemetry failure – and it is undoubtedly the case that the failure of even a single asset, in the complex collection of assets, processes and systems that make up the UK’s water and wastewater infrastructure, has the potential to massively cascade into a problem with major impacts. I’d like to suggest that the water companies should not overlook the capability and potential of the supplier to provide invaluable insights, wherever their equipment or process sits at key points of the system. What they can bring to the party is the ability to look upstream and downstream either side of that point and understand the ramifications when the system goes out of kilter, how problems can cascade at key points of failure and what the potential options are to ensure its robustness. Water companies now have a legal duty to ‘secure long-term resilience’ Resilience is now embedded in water-related legislation for England and Wales - the water companies have a legal duty to ‘secure long-term resilience’ and Ofwat has a primary duty to enforce this. One of the four key themes of PR19, resilience is an integral part of water companies’ functions in order to meet their statutory security of supply and service obligations. While there are a wealth of papers and policy documents on infrastructure and resilience relevant to the sector, I’d like to conclude by flagging up two interesting papers which highlight some practical routes forward at both a regulatory and water company level to achieving greater resilience across the water sector. Resilience metrics at company level can help to measure and manage resilience At a company level, as part of PR19, Ofwat highlighted the resilience metrics methodology prepared by Arcadis for United Utilities AMP7 Business Plan submission as an example of good practice. The paper proposed a risk based approach to measuring resilience with resilience metrics defined to focus on: the consequences of the system failing the likelihood of the hazards occurring the vulnerability of the system to the threat resilience controls in place that can reduce any of the above The paper said that at a high level, a standardised risk assessment of resilience would be beneficial as it drives the right behaviours in the customers’ interest - such as focusing on potential service failures. Key questions the paper suggests each water company should ask themselves include: In the event of a critical asset failure, what is the expected duration the system would be out of service for? How many times has the system failed in the last 5 years due to a critical asset failure? Is there a proactive maintenance and monitoring approach for the critical assets within the system? Is the system operated at 100% capacity for the majority of time? At the regulatory level, a paper published by the Government Office of Science– Infrastructure Resilience - said that regulators should use their levers to promote adaptation and resilience building against value for money. In addition, “instead of encouraging efficiency which reduces resilience, regulations should be revised to reflect future threats and allow more information-sharing and collaboration across the supply chain.” The report recommended: “Operators need to develop a resilience strategy which employs the principles of redundancy, resistance, reliability, response and recovery for protection against disruptions. This strategy needs to have buy-in from other stakeholders including supply chain, customers and operators …and needs to be considered at all levels of the organisations.” “It must be understood that striving for optimisation and efficiency can compromise resilience making infrastructure brittle. Strong at impact, but catastrophic at failure. Instead, operators should aim for elastic infrastructure through sacrificing efficiency for the sake of resilience.” Useful food for thought in both documents for all stakeholders in the UK water sector. The supply chain stands ready to help – and given the opportunity, has the potential to bring significant added value to the water sector’s work to strengthen its resilience. Further reading: Current UK Government guidance on resilience- Keeping the Country Running– natural hazards and infrastructure Ofwat- Towards Resilience discussion paper Ofwat - PR19 Final Determinations – Securing Long-term Resilience Government Office of Science Report - Infrastructure Resilience Arcadis report for United Utilities Measuring Resilience in the Water Industry[...]

[...]Back to overview[...]

[...]Back to overview[...]

[...]As Ofwat ponders how to explore, how stimulate more trading in the slowly developing bioresources market, Mike Willis, Business Development Director at HUBER Technology, takes a look at some of the supply chain solutions already available to the UK water companies with the potential to make a significant contribution to enhance growth. Mike Willis: During the last price review period Ofwat published it’s Towards 2020 paper setting out how it wanted to approach PR19. Part of their strategy was to develop markets in order to encourage competition. One of these was bioresources – specifically sludge treatment, transportation and disposal - a market which Ofwat has identified with a potential value of £780 million. According to the regulator’s latest bioresources monitoring report published in October 2020, water companies, which make better use of bioresources activities – transporting, treating, recycling and disposing of wastewater sludge to develop low carbon energy -, could provide real benefits to customers, society and the environment. However, the report reveals that Ofwat has concerns about how trading in bioresources is developing and as a result the regulator is now in the process of conducting a review. Over the next few months, Ofwat is taking a more comprehensive look at the market, including assessing the current barriers to competition and the development of the market. “Trading of sludge for treatment is very low and falling” The report says that while there is a reasonable degree of competition in the market for sludge transport and disposal – with third parties providing for 43% and 45% respectively – the trading of sludge for treatment is very low and falling. The water and sewerage companies have also reported a number of barriers to competition. As a provider of key technologies in the bioresources marketplace, we see the work streams identified by Ofwat of treatment, transportation and disposal of wastewater sludge as intrinsically interlinked. So HUBER takes a particular interest in how the market is or is not – developing. We have technologies, which allow you to either thicken or dewater sludge more cheaply than conventional solutions on the market. We also looked at this in the context of how it can contribute towards reducing transportation costs. In particular, from where we stand, the choice of initial biosolids treatment directly dictates how the product is subsequently transported and disposed – and has a significant impact on overall costs. It is already generally acknowledged that the planning and design phase at the start of a project has a major impact on its overall success– not simply on the upfront capital investment cost, but also on Whole Life Costs over what are frequently many years of operational life. Early supply chain involvement has a key role to play in the development of the bioresources market – and in my view, it can make a major contribution to delivering the most effective solution in terms of cost, operational performance and carbon savings, to mention just a few. According to Ofwat’s monitoring report, the regulator is particularly concerned by the fall in sludge treatment between the water and sewerage companies WaSCs over the three-year period it has been collecting data from the WaSCs. This has fallen from 2% in 2017/18 to 0.8% in 2019-20 – and appears to be mostly made up of short-term “emergency trades” resulting from either temporary outages or a large unexpected increase in volume at a site. Ofwat’s concern is understandable, given that treatment made up approximately 70% of bioresources expenditure in 2019-20, with transport and disposal accounting for around 15% respectively. Part of Ofwat’s Water 2020 analysis suggested that up to 13.5% of sludge could be traded across company borders without facing prohibitive transport costs – but evidently the market is currently operating far below this level. Why the bioresources market activity in sludge treatment under is- developed? So why is market activity in sludge treatment much less developed – and what are the barriers hindering the expansion of longer – term trades? It seems clear to suggest that a greater focus on this stage of the process holds the key to unlocking the potential for further expansion in the market – which would in turn be likely to result in more competition in sludge transport if volumes increase. In particular, the choice of thickening and dewatering services at treatment stage should be seen as crucial to enabling trading optimisation both within a Water Company’s own region and cross-border activity between regions. Ofwat’s activity dashboard based on companies’ 2019-2020 information identifies the following types of treatment works spread across the WaSCs in England and Wales, together with details of the volume of sludge generated on a site-by-site basis: 275 Sludge Treatment Centres 1516 Wastewater Treatment Works 4129 small Wastewater Treatment Works Therefore, a technology, which could cut down on process operation and transportation costs, is undoubtedly crucial to helping with further market development. It is clear to us from the work we are already doing in the water sector in this area that technology has a key role to play. HUBER is now working with some of the WaSCs to put technologies in place, which enable them to either thicken or dewater more cheaply than conventional solutions on the market – technologies that are already being used extensively by public utilities outside the UK. Ofwat itself has separately pointed out “there is precedent to draw from in Europe.” The technologies offer WaSCs the opportunity to make an immediate and significant impact on their sludge treatment costs and operational performance – and step up their activity in bioresources trading as a result. The key feature of our technology solutions is that they are all based on equipment that rotates very slowly using one, low power motor running slowly. This not only reduces energy consumption but maintains the integrity of the poly generated floculant, reducing consumption and enhancing cake quality. It is also the reason why we come out much cheaper on a Whole Life Cost basis compared to alternative technologies on offer. I want to emphasise that this is based on evidence-based data - both from our work on municipal sludge applications outside the UK and the results of trials at a number of sites with some of the UK WaSCs. Technologies that deliver in terms of capital, energy and transportation costs – and cut operational carbon in the process I am pleased to say that the trials, which typically take between 2 to 4 weeks to deliver results, have been so successful that we are seeing increasingly greater uptake of our solutions by the water companies. Take the HUBER Q-PRESS® for example, which has specifically been designed for dewatering sludge at small to medium sized treatment works and which is now in place at South West Water’s Plymouth Central WwTW. This first of kind in SWW was facilitated by our early involvement, and collaboration with SWW’s Tier one contractor Kier. On capital costs alone, we were 25% cheaper than our nearest competitor, 30% cheaper than the replacement cost of new centrifuges and about 7% cheaper than the existing temporary solution in place. The Q-PRESS® delivered equally significant savings in terms of operational costs, including: a saving of £60k a year just on tankering transportation costs alone less than 10% of power consumption compared to energy used in a centrifuge solution roughly half the amount of polymer consumed compared to centrifuge solution Other options we’ve explored on behalf of WaSCs include localised treatment hubs with our equipment in place as a means of consolidating sludge treatment from a number of works (which could extended across cross-border sites) which are roughly equidistant from a hub, thereby reducing tanker volumes. After thickening treatment, it could then be transported to bigger strategic Sludge Treatment Centres to be used for biogas energy generation, for example. I would like to conclude by highlighting two other issues, which may be relevant to encouraging greater trading activity in the bioresources sector. Firstly, as part of its current review, Ofwat is considering how to assess different forms of competition and market models. The regulator might like to consider whether the 5-year regulatory cycle itself is distorting the picture in terms of a company’s ability to make informed decisions to invest in the best technology solutions based on a true analysis of Whole Life Costs, which may be spread across two or more 5-year investment periods. Need for a truly integrated bioresources strategy at both company and sector-wide level Finally if it is not in place already, the need for the water companies themselves to avoid a disconnect by having a truly integrated bioresources strategy in place in order to realise the benefits that increased trading could offer. The ability to see the picture in the round and pull a variety of different operational issues and drivers together is key to delivering this. For instance, if separate divisions within an organisation deal with treatment and transport / disposal, are the opportunities in place to discuss how their individual decisions could potentially impact their bioresource strategy? Likewise, how are their choices considered in the context of meeting their carbon net zero goals in terms of cutting energy use and carbon emissions? The key question is – in considering one without the other how are they going to make progress and really capitalise on the commercial market opportunities opening up? To sum up, as a supplier we occupy a place at the beginning of the process. However, it seems clear that only by having integrated strategies in place across the whole value chain – both within the individual WaSCs and on a cross-border basis - will Ofwat see the step change in bioresources trading it is looking to the market to deliver. For further information contact Mike Willis at email mike.willis@huber.co.uk or phone on +44 7887 897322 This in the first of a series of articles from technology specialists HUBER in the run-up to publication of the outcome of Ofwat’s Bioresources Market Review in 2021 and the interview was carried out and written by Elaine Coles from Waterbriefing.[...]