Next Article in Journal
Warning Models for Landslide and Channelized Debris Flow under Climate Change Conditions in Taiwan
Next Article in Special Issue
Long-, Medium-, and Short-Term Nested Optimized-Scheduling Model for Cascade Hydropower Plants: Development and Practical Application
Previous Article in Journal
Subsurface Flow Phytoremediation Using Barley Plants for Water Recovery from Kerosene-Contaminated Water: Effect of Kerosene Concentration and Removal Kinetics
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Development of Method for Assessing Water Footprint Sustainability

1
State Key Laboratory of Hydraulic Engineering Simulation and Safety, Tianjin University, Tianjin 300072, China
2
Comprehensive Development and Management Center, Ministry of Water Resources of China, Beijing 100053, China
3
Bureau of Comprehensive Development, Ministry of Water Resources of China, Beijing 100053, China
4
Daliushu Water Project Preparing Center, Water Resources Department of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, Yinchuan 750002, China
5
Department of Chemical and Biological Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3, Canada
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(5), 694; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050694
Submission received: 12 January 2022 / Revised: 18 February 2022 / Accepted: 19 February 2022 / Published: 22 February 2022

Abstract

:
Large scale production of water-intensive industrial products can intensify water scarcity, resulting in potential unsustainable water use at local and regional scales. This study proposes a methodological framework for assessing the WF sustainability of multiple interdependent products in a system, and one of China’s four major large modern coal chemical industry bases is used as a case study. A Mixed-Unit Input-Output (MUIO) model was applied to calculate the blue water footprint (WF) for 19 major coal-based energy and chemicals in the study area, based on which the WF sustainability of production of the products were assessed using different indicators. Technical coefficient matrix and direct water consumption vector of the products were constructed based a database that were built by field research in the study area. Accounting result indicates that the blue WF of the coal-based products range from 2.5 × 10−4 m3/kWh for coal-fired power to 55.25 m3/t for Polytetrahydrofuran. The sustainability assessment reveals that the blue WF of all products produced in the study area are sustainable at both product and regional levels, while over half of them have reached the advanced level. However, the blue WF of a few products with large production capacities has just crossed the sustainable thresholds, posing potential threat to the local environment. This paper concludes with a discussion on the choice of blue WF accounting approach, methods to promote WF sustainability of coal-based products, and suggestions for the WF management in general.

1. Introduction

Water scarcity can cause severe socio-economic consequences from local to global scales [1,2]. The World Economic Forum rated water crises as one of the major global risks over the next decade [3]. Energy and chemical industry is one of the largest water consumers; it demonstrates high water sensitivity because each stage of the entire life cycle of its productions needs water (e.g., mining or extraction, processing and conversion) [4]. The International Energy Agency projected a rise of 60% in global water consumption for primary energy production and power generation through 2040 [5]. In China, the energy and chemical uses have dramatically increased in last decades due to rapid economic expansion. Consequently, China released the Energy Production and Consumption Revolution Strategy (2016–2030), which set up a series of targets for 2030 including the share of non-fossil fuel in the energy mix, and the nation’s energy self-sufficiency rate [6]. However, coal-based energy will continue to form the major part of China’s energy mix over the next decade due to the low cost and the abundance of domestic reserves [6].
There are two major problems exist in China’s fossil energy resources endowment. First, the energy structure of China is characterized by “rich coal, meager oil, and little gas”; the proven reserves are comprised of 94% coal, 5% crude oil, and 0.6% natural gas [7]. China now has become the world’s largest and second largest importer of crude oil and natural gas, respectively [8]. The dependence of imported energy and chemicals poses a great threat to China’s energy and chemicals supplies. Second, the distributions of coal and water resources are severely mismatched across the country’s territory. Nearly 70% of coal production is concentrated in the northern and western provinces, that only account for 6.5% of China’s total water resources, making water a significant vulnerability in the country’s energy and chemical supplies [9]. To cope with these problems, China gave great priority to the development of 14 large coal energy bases and four large modern coal chemical industry bases during its 12th and 13th Five-Year periods (2011–2020). To reduce its dependence on foreign petroleum, China also made great efforts to develop technology to convert abundant coal into clean fuels and value-added chemicals [10]. However, producing coal-based fuel and chemicals in these coal-rich water-limited energy bases has been controversial due to the high water-consuming processes. Large-scale water-intensive industrial production within an industrial base potentially threat the local environment. Thus, life cycle assessments related to water scarcity for the arid industrial bases in China is of great importance to achieve environmental sustainability.
Water footprint (WF) can be used as an indicator of environmental sustainability in water use. The WF concept was first introduced in 2002 by [11]; it functions as a multidimensional indicator of freshwater use (i.e., blue WF and green WF) and pollution status (i.e., gray WF) [11,12,13]. The Water Footprint Network (WFN) community considers WF as a volumetric metric and focuses on the consumptive freshwater use. Simultaneously, the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) community converts WF into an environmental impacted-oriented indicator by a weighting scheme called characterization, which is recommended in ISO document 14046 on WF [14]. Over the past decade, researchers in the two communities have given rise to a debate over so-called better WF accounting approach [15,16,17,18,19,20,21]. Nevertheless, there is no contradiction in fundamental principles of the methods proposed by two sides; information provided by volumetric WF and impacted-oriented WF should be complementary rather than competing [22], and the choice of the two WF accounting depends on the purpose of a study.
Previously, the WFN-WF has been adopted in studies focusing on the optimal water resources allocation and productivity of freshwater use [10,23,24], whereas LCA-based WF accounting using input-output (IO) approach has been used in assessing the potential environmental impact of products [4,25,26,27,28]. The IO framework are extensively used to estimate the WF of industrial sectors at global scale (e.g., [29,30]), national or multiregional scale (e.g., [31,32,33,34,35,36]), and basin scale (e.g., [37,38,39,40]), but rarely used to assess the potential impact of the production of interdependent products at local or sub-local scales, because IO tables are compiled only at national or provincial levels due to cost and resource constraints. This study attempts to fill in this research gap by introducing a methodological framework for assessing the WF sustainability of multiple interdependent products in a system. The Mixed-Unit Input-Output (MUIO) model is adopted in the framework to account WF of the products, and three sustainability assessment indicators are then proposed. A large modern coal chemical industry base in Northwest China is used as a case study. Technical coefficient matrix and direct water consumption vector for the products in the study area were constructed based on a database, which was built by our research team through on-site survey and investigation. Since zero liquid regulation has been enacted in China’s major arid industrial bases, the assessment was conduct at product and regional levels with a focus merely on blue WF.

2. Methods

2.1. The Blue WF Assessment Framework

The blue WF assessment of a framework is proposed in this section. The overall methodology of the WF assessment is shown in Figure 1. The first phase of the proposed framework is the scope setting, which determines the major industrial products that are considered in the assessment. This phase also includes the analysis of the interdependence among the products. The functional unit of WF for each product should then be decided in this phase. The second phase is data collection in the region where the products are produced, preliminary analysis of the data can be conducted. In the third phase of the framework, the technical coefficient matrix, and the direct water consumption vector for the are constructed based on the data collected. The coefficient matrix is a p-by-p matrix that describes the interdependence between products within the scope of the study determined in phase one, and the direct water consumption vector is a p by 1 vector contains the direct water coefficients for each product. The accounting model then is built in the fourth phase, followed by WF sustainability assessment of the interdependent products at product scale and regional scale.

2.2. Blue WF Accounting Model

The MUIO model is employed to account the blue WF of each coal-based energy and chemical product. The MUIO model is a top-down framework used for environmental life-cycle analysis; it was first introduced by Hawkins et al. [28]. The MUIO model in the form of WF can be expressed in Equation (1) shown below:
n = 1 P W F n = n = 1 P m = 1 P a n m W F n + n = 1 P d w n
where WFn represents the blue WF of the nth product; anm is the technical coefficient, which represents the amount of product m directly consumed for producing unit product n; dwn indicates the direct water use coefficient of product n. P is the total number of major products in the system. anm and dwn are computed using Equation (2):
a n m = j z n m j i x n i ; d w n = i w n i i x n i
where z n m j is the total amount of product m flows from the jth enterprise for the production of product n during a time period; x n i is the total amount of product n produced in the ith enterprise during the same period; w n i is the total freshwater consumed for producing product n in the ith enterprise during the period. Equation (1) can be further expressed in matrix terms as follows:
D W = ( I A ) W F
where W F represents the vector containing blue WF of each products; I denotes an identity matrix; A   and D W represents the technical coefficient matrix and the direct freshwater consumption vector, respectively, which are in the form shown below.
A = [ a 11 a 1 m a 1 p a n 1 a p 1 a n m a p m a n p a n p ]   ; D W = ( d w 1 d w 2 d w n d w p )
WF can then be calculated by the MUIO model as Equation (5):
W F = ( I A ) 1 D W
where ( I A ) 1 is called the Leontief inverse matrix. The indirect water use coefficient vector can be calculated by abstracting DW from WF, shown in Equation (6).
I D W = W F D W
where IDW denotes the vectors containing indirect freshwater water for each product.

2.3. Blue WF Sustainability Assessment

The sustainability assessment of WF of a product is twofold: the blue WF assessment against a reference standard, and the WF assessment against the regional water availability. The former indicator given in Equation (7) can be used to evaluate the overall technology level of existing industrial plants in terms of water, energy and material conservation.
W S S I p = W F p W F p r e f
where W S S I p   denotes the WF sustainability index based on any reference standard; W F p r e f denotes the blue WF of product p under any reference level of technology. In this study, two references are applied: the blue WF of product p using the general standard ( W F p r e f 1 ) and using the best practicable technology (BPT) ( W F p r e f 2 ). The current technology is considered unsustainable if both W S S I p 1   and W S S I p 2   are greater than 1, sustainable if W S S I p 1   is less than 1 while W S S I p 2   is greater than 1, advanced if both WSSIp−1 and W S S I p 2   are not greater than 1 (Table 1).
The second indicator given in Equation (8) takes into account both the technology level and the regional water resources endowment. That is, a product produced at the same technology level is considered as sustainable in water abundant region does not necessarily means that it is also sustainable in regions where water resources are scarce.
W S R I p = W S I · W F p W F p r e f
where W S R I p denotes the WF sustainability index for product p at regional level. WSI is the regional water stress index. Similarly, the current technology is considered unsustainable at regional level if both W S S I p 1 and W S S I p 2 are greater than 1, sustainable if W S R I p 1 is less than 1 while W S S I p 2 is greater than 1, advanced if both W S S I p 2 and W S S I p 2 are not greater than 1 (Table 1). The WSI index is defined by the ratio of total annual freshwater withdrawals to hydrological availability, it was modified by [41] to differentiates watersheds with strongly regulated flows. Later, Ref. [42] computed W S I for China’s provinces and major river basins using ArcGIS 10.0.
Finally, to assess the overall sustainability of production in a industrial base, the weighted sum WF sustainability index for all products at regional level is computed as Equation (9).
W S R I = p = 1 P W S R I p · C A P p · W F p p = 1 P C A P p · W F p
where WSRI denotes the overall WF sustainability index for industrial base at regional level, C A P p denotes the total production capacity of product p in the base. Water footprint sustainability indicators and their abbreviations and measurement units are shown in Table 2.

3. Case Study

3.1. The Ningdong Base

The Ningdong Energy and Chemical Industry Base (Ningdong Base, Ningxia, China) in Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region of China is chosen as a case study. Ningxia is covered in arid and semi-arid climate; the annual average precipitation is 289mm while the annual average evaporation is 1250 mm [43]. Ningdong Base is one of the 14 national major large-scale coal bases and four national major coal-to-chemical industry bases in China, making it an ideal industrial base for the analysis. By the year of 2020, many state-owned and private large enterprises have invested more than 60 coal mining, coal-fired power and advanced coal chemical projects in the base, including the world’s largest single CTL project (Table 3). The annual total capacities of coal mining, coal-fired power generation, and chemical production have reached 90 million tons, 15,660 MW, and 25 million tons, respectively. The massive production of coal, coal-fired power, and coal-based products in Ningdong has intensified the water stress of the province. It is reported that over 250 million cubic meter of freshwater is consumed annually in the base [43].

3.2. Blue WF Accounting for the Products

Prior to WF accounting for the products, the technical coefficient matrix and direct water use a vector for the main products in an industrial base need be constructed. In this study, we conducted field research to collect first-hand data in the Ningdong Base, during which our research team conducted site visits and interviews in many major ongoing coal mines, coal-fired power stations, and coal-to-chemical projects in Ningdong. Because the number of projects for some products are more than one, the weighted averaged values for unit water, energy and raw material consumption based on the production capacity of the projects were computed to represent the overall technical level of the product in the Base. The technical coefficient matrix and direct water use vector for major products in Ningdong is shown in Table 4, in which the unit for electricity consumption is kWh/t (kWh/kWh for power self-consumption) and t/t for material consumption (t/kWh for electricity); the unit for water consumption is m3/t (m3/kWh for electricity).
The blue WF accounting is then conducted using the MUIO model based on the technical coefficient matrix and direct water use vector. The blue WF results are shown in Figure 2. It shows that the blue WF of different coal-based energy and chemicals differ significantly. The standard deviations of the direct water, indirect water, and WF of the products are 5.98, 12.24, and 14.83 m3/t, respectively. In general, the blue WF of products at the downstream are greater than that of the upstream products. The average blue WF of electricity in the study area is 2.51 × 10−4 m3/kWh. The washed coal in the study area has an average blue WF value of 0.126 m3/t. CaC2 and COKE both have relatively small values of WF. The coal-based chemicals at the downstream such as BDO, PVA, and PTMEG require a large quantity of freshwater along their production chain. For example, the blue WF of PTMEG is 55.25 m3/t, which means over 55 tons of freshwater is consumed for producing one single ton of PTMEG. It is worth mentioning that methanol produced using alternative routes can result in significantly different WF values. The blue WF of methanol based on the CTM route (11.65 m3/t) is over 2.75 times greater than that using the CGTM route (4.23 m3/t). Likewise, the blue WF of olefin based on the MTO route is 15.37 m3/t, while it is 18.12 m3/t using the CGTO route.
The analysis for the structure of WF can help to find the major contributor of the total WF, it was therefore analyzed in the study. Figure 3 presents the distribute proportion of direct and indirect WF for each product. The proportion of indirect WF in the total WF covers a wide range, from 0.9% for CGTM to 87.8% for PTMEG. The standard deviation of the proportion of direct WF is 31.62%. Among the products, the direct water consumption of CTL, CTM, CGTM, COKE, MTO, DME, and NH3 accounts for more than 90% of the total WF. Most of the above-mentioned products are secondary products synthesized directly from coal. On the contrary, the tertiary and quaternary products from coal have much smaller percentage for direct water consumption. For example, the direct water stands for 12.2 to 36.78% for VAC, PVA, and PTMEG.

3.3. Validation of the Accounting Model

The WF of the same industrial product based on different production routes can be significantly different. Even with the same production route, the difference in WF can still be remarkable due to different level of water-saving, energy-saving, and material consumption technologies adopted. Thus, validation of the WF accounting model needs be conducted with the same products produced at the same sites. In the current study, the WF accounting model is validated by comparing the blue WF of the coal-based products calculated by the proposed model with the blue WF of the same products produced in Ningdong, which were accounted by a process-based model reported in literature [10]. Figure 4 illustrates the comparison results. It shows that the blue WF of the two models are consistent, with R2 of 0.906, Pearson correlation coefficient (PCC) of 0.952, and normalized root mean squared error (NRMSE) of 0.112 m3/t. The results indicate the good performance of the WF accounting model.

3.4. Blue WF Sustainability Assessment

3.4.1. Standards and Norms

To assess the blue WF sustainability of the coal-based energy and chemicals at two different levels, the product WF under referenced level of technology needs be computed. China has issued a serial of national standards of water intake and energy consumption for power generation and major chemical productions [44,45,46,47,48,49,50,51]. In addition, updated standards and norms have recently been issued by the provincial government [52]. The standards of water and coal consumption for power generation differ with installed unit capacity (Table 5). The norms for water and energy consumption for washed coal and other chemicals are shown in Table 6. The analysis does not include the chemicals of which national or provincial standards are not issued.

3.4.2. Blue WF under General Standard and the BPT

Prior to the computation of WFpref for the energy and chemical products, one should update the technical coefficient matrix and direct water use vector using the data in the general standards and the BPT, to compute the WF under general standard and the BPT, respectively. In the study area, there are 15 coal-fired power stations in operation, which include 31 installed units. The average capacity of the power stations is 1044 MW, whereas the average capacity of installed units is 505 MW. To compute the WFpref of electricity, the values in the norms corresponding to ≥500 MW for water consumption and 600 MW for coal consumption were adopted. Ideally, the WFpref is computed with referenced water, energy and materials consumption. However, only a few products have referenced raw material consumption. For example, the scope of energy consumption standards for CTL and CTM covers both thermal coal and material coal consumption. It should be noted that the energy consumption standards are given based on coal equivalent (7000 kcal/kg), thus one needs to convert the actual energy consumption into coal equivalent. The WFpref versus actual WF of the coal-based energy and chemicals are shown in Figure 5.

3.4.3. Blue WF Sustainability Indicators

The blue WF sustainability assessment indicators at product and regional levels were computed and shown in Figure 6. Result shows that all products manufactured in the Ningdong Base are sustainable at both product and regional levels. At the product level, the technology of 12 products has reached the advanced level, which includes the primary energy of coal and secondary energy of coal-fired electricity. NH3 and PVA are very close to the advanced level, with WSRIp−1 values of 1.075 and 1.016, respectively. CTL and MTO have just crossed the sustainable thresholds, with WSRIp−1 values of 0.921 and 0.928. At the regional level, the technology of most of the products have reached the advanced level in terms of WF, whereas CTL, CTM, and MTO are close to the advanced thresholds. Considering the production capacity of the energy and chemical products, the overall WSRI value of the Ningdong Base is 0.876 based on WF under the BPT. This means that the Ningdong Base is sustainable and advanced in terms of water consumption. It is noteworthy that, methanol produced based on the CGTM route is much smaller than that based on the CTM route. The WSRIp−1 value of the latter is 2.71 times greater than that of the former.

4. Discussion

4.1. Volumetric WF versus Impacted-Oriented WF

The choice of WF accounting approach depends on the goal of a study conducted. The WFN-WF is more preferable for studies in the water resources management, especially in the efficiency, sustainability, and equability of water resources allocation and the productivity of freshwater use [10,23,24]. LCA-based WF, on the other hand, is more appropriate for assessing the potential environmental impact of different products or alternative production processes at different levels, especially when regional water availability is considered [4,25,26,27]. Our study adopted the LCA-based WF to assess the sustainability of different coal-based energy and chemicals at product and regional levels. Results indicate that, as one of the national modern coal chemical industry bases, the wastewater treatment, recycling, and reuse technologies that have widely adopted in the base have offset the intensified water scarcity that would have been caused by the large-scale industrial production. However, further WF reducing measures should be implemented in some major projects in the industrial base; investment in technical improvement in the process unit with lower water, energy requirements is highly encouraged. For example, the CTL project, which is regarded as the “No. 1 Project ” of Ningxia Province, has relatively large product WF comparing to that of other projects in the base. Likewise, there also exist a gap between the average level of WF of the MTO projects in the base and the advanced level. Furthermore, more frequent use of byproducts of upstream can reduce the potential environmental impact of large-scale production. For example, the use of coke oven gas, a main byproduct of COKE, for the methanol production may enhance the environmental sustainability of an industrial base.

4.2. Improve the Sustainability

As one of the nation’s major modern coal chemical industry bases, Ningdong has launched a comprehensive control system for energy and water conservation and environmental protection. We, thus, expected that the water-saving and energy-saving technologies adopted for production of the products in Ningdong are superior compared to their corresponding national average. Obviously, the results of the WF sustainability analysis is consistent with our expectation. According to the on-site data we collected, the average wastewater reuse rate of production of the major products is 34.18%; it is contributed by 15 reclaimed water treatment plants with a total capacity of 3.52 × 105 m3/d in the study area. In addition, three pit water treatment plants in the base with a total capacity of 1.2 × 105 m3/d are also in operation. A question is whether pit water use should be included in the WF accounting. In our analysis, the use of pit water was excluded considering that (1) pit water is mainly interstitial water collected along with mining and cannot be used as water resources without proper treatment; (2) direct discharge of the metal-rich pit water is a great threat to the environment. In the study area, the product WF would be 17.02% to 104.4% greater if the use of reclaimed water and pit water were substituted with freshwater, which would lead to unsustainable production for majority of the products. For example, the WF of COAL and CTL would be 0.245 m3/t and 20.64 m3/t, respectively, if only freshwater were used. Therefore, besides the efficiency improvement of water, energy, and material use, increasing the ratio of nontraditional water use is also an important method to enhance the WF sustainability. In fact, according to a recent water utilization plan in Ningxia [53], the Province proposes to substantially increase the utilization of nontraditional water resources. The plan clearly stated that, by the year of 2025, the utilization rate of reclaimed water and pit water shall reach 50% and 90%, respectively [53].

4.3. Enhance the Life-Cycle Thinking for Water Management

In the recent years, China’s central and local authorities have issued serious of regulations and plans to improve the conservation and utilization of water resources in water scarcity basins [53,54]. A very recent plan released by five China’s ministries set clear goals for the establishment of rigid restraint system of water resources, promoting water conservation, utilization of unconventional water resources, etc. Meanwhile, the Ministry of Water Resources of China lately claimed that a national water quota system has been basically established. This system covers water quotas for 105 products, including 70 industrial products. However, all the hard efforts that have been made were solely in direct water utilization, neglecting the importance of indirect water use along the supply chains. Consequently, the analysis on water consumption can be incomplete. In the case study, the WF of all energy and chemical products produced are sustainable, which would lead to inconsistent results if only direct water consumption were considered. For example, the direct water consumption for PVA in Ningdong is 16.53 m3/t, which exceeds its general standard of 8 m3/t and will be determined as unsustainable. This inconsistency is due to the fact that the relatively-high efficient use of energy and materials in the PVA production process, as well as the efficient water use of the upstream production compensate the inefficient freshwater consumption in the PVA production process. These results further address the necessity of life-cycle thinking (LCT) for water resources management, which seeks to identify water use improvement opportunities at all stages across the life cycle. The LCT can provide a comprehensive approach in support of the overall reduction of environmental impacts in water resources utilization.

4.4. Establishment of National WF Benchmarks

The purpose of WF sustainability studies generally can be grouped into two categories: (1) assessing whether the WF of a product unnecessarily contributes to global, national, regional or local WF of humanity and (2) assessing whether the WF contributes to specific hotspots [55]. The interest of our study lies in the former one, which compares each separate product WF with a benchmark for that product. However, although we have established WF benchmarks, they were merely based on norms of water and coal consumption for power generation, and the standards of water and energy consumption for washed coal and other chemicals. The standards of materials consumption for most of the products were not considered simply because such standards do not exist. The limitation of the current study reveals the necessity of establishment of standardized national or regional WF benchmarks in China, especially for the major products in the water-intensive coal-to-chemical industry. The WF benchmark values can be used as instruments to evaluate the advancement of specific production technology, set criteria for newly invested production capacity, as well as formulate WF reduction targets. Reference [56] introduced a set of global WF benchmarks for over 120 agricultural products, but the literature lacks studies on WF benchmark setting for industrial products. In addition, the result of the current study also suggests that the regionalization and industrial technology consideration are necessary for the establishment of such benchmarks. That is, the level of regional or local water scarcity, and the choice of different industrial routes should also be fully considered in future the analysis.

5. Conclusions

This study attempts to fill in a current research gap by introducing a methodological framework for assessing the blue WF sustainability of multiple interdependent products in a system. The Mixed-Unit Input-Output (MUIO) model is adopted in the framework to account WF of the products, and three sustainability assessment indicators are then proposed. A large modern coal chemical industry base in Northwest China, in which 19 major coal-based energy and chemical products are produced is used as a case study. Technical coefficient matrix and direct water consumption vector for the MUIO model were constructed based on first-hand data collected by on-site field research in the study area, after which WF accounting and sustainability assessment were conducted at product and regional levels. The conclusions drawn from the proposed framework, as well as from the results and discussion of the real-world case are as follows: (1) although the top-down approach is usually applied to investigate the interdependent among industry sectors in terms of water consumption, our method has generalized it to calculate the blue WF of multiple interdependent products. The validation results indicate the good performance of the model. (2) Instead of using the IO tables that are directly compiled at national or provincial levels for regional and global scale WF analysis, the proposed method usually requires on-site data collection and computations, based on which the technical coefficient matrix and direct water consumption vector of the products are constructed. (3) In the case study, the blue WF of the coal-based products differ significantly. The standard deviation of the blue WF of the products in the study area is 14.83 m3/t, to which the indirect water contributes much more than direct water. (4) Generally, lowering the indirect water use is the key to WF reduction for the downstream products whereas lowering direct water use is more important for the upstream product WF reduction. (5) Although the blue WF of all products manufactured in the study area are sustainable at both product and regional levels, further WF reducing measure should be implemented for several major products such as CTL and MTO. (6) To enhance the blue WF sustainability, the ratio of nontraditional water resources to total water use should also be further increased. (7) The LCT should be adopted to provide a comprehensive approach in support of the overall reduction of environmental impacts in water resources utilization in China’s arid coal bases. (8) It is suggested to establish standardized national or regional WF benchmarks for the major products in the water-intensive coal-to-chemical industry.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, Z.X. and J.L.; methodology, Z.X.; software, K.H.; validation, R.W., Y.Q. and T.S.; formal analysis, Z.X.; investigation, Z.X., R.W. and T.S.; resources, J.L. and R.W.; data curation, Y.Q. and T.S.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.X.; writing—review and editing, Z.X., J.L., R.W., Y.Q., T.S. and K.H.; visualization, Z.X.; supervision, J.L.; project administration, J.L.; funding acquisition, Z.X. and R.W. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by BEIJING NATURAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION, Grant No. JQ21029.

Data Availability Statement

Our research team conducted site visits and interviews in many major energy and chemical projects in Ningdong, Ningxia in the year of 2019 and 2020, during which the data were collected. The original data that the current study was based on are first-hand; they are only available on request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are extremely grateful to the editor and the anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments and suggestions.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Xu, Z.; Lian, J.; Bin, L.; Hua, K.; Xu, K.; Chan, H.Y. Water Price Prediction for Increasing Market Efficiency Using Random Forest Regression: A Case Study in the Western United States. Water 2019, 11, 228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Brunner, M.I.; Zappa, M.; Stähli, M. Scale matters: Effects of temporal and spatial data resolution on water scarcity assessments. Adv. Water Resour. 2019, 123, 134–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Schwab, K. The Global Competitiveness Report 2019; World Economic Forum: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  4. Ding, N.; Liu, J.; Yang, J.; Lu, B. Water footprints of energy sources in China: Exploring options to improve water efficiency. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 174, 1021–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. IEA. Water Energy Nexus; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  6. NDRC. Energy Production and Consumption Revolution Strategy (2016–2030); National Development and Reform Commission, PRC: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  7. Han, S.; Chen, H.; Long, R.; Cui, X. Peak coal in China: A literature review. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 129, 293–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ji, Q.; Zhang, D. China’s crude oil futures: Introduction and some stylized facts. Financ. Res. Lett. 2019, 28, 376–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Guo, M.; Xu, Y. Coal-to-liquids projects in China under water and carbon constraints. Energy Policy 2018, 117, 58–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Xu, Z.; Lian, J.; Zhang, J.; Bin, L. Investigating and optimizing the water footprint in a typical coal energy and chemical base of China. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 727, 138781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hoekstra, A.; Hung, P.Q. Virtual water trade: A quantification of virtual water flows between nations in relation to international crop trade. Water Sci. Technol. 2002, 49, 203–209. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chapagain, A.K. Water Footprint: State of the Art: What, Why, and How? In Encyclopedia of Sustainable Technologies; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 153–163. [Google Scholar]
  13. Ma, X.; Yang, D.; Shen, X.; Zhai, Y.; Zhang, R.; Hong, J. How much water is required for coal power generation: An analysis of gray and blue water footprints. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 636, 547–557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. ISO 14040:2006(E); Environmental Management—Life Cycle Assessment—Principles and Framework. ISO: Geneva, Switzerland, 2006.
  15. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Gerbens-Leenes, W.; van der Meer, T.H. Reply to Pfister and Hellweg: Water footprint accounting, impact assessment, and life-cycle assessment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, E114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Pfister, S.; Hellweg, S. The water “shoesize” vs. footprint of bioenergy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2009, 106, E93–E94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  17. Ridoutt, B.G.; Huang, J. Environmental relevance--the key to understanding water footprints. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E1424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  18. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Mekonnen, M.M. Reply to Ridoutt and Huang: From water footprint assessment to policy. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E1425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Berger, M.; Finkbeiner, M. Methodological Challenges in Volumetric and Impact-Oriented Water Footprints. J. Ind. Ecol. 2012, 17, 79–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Pfister, S.; Ridoutt, B.G. Water footprint: Pitfalls on common ground. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2014, 48, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Vanham, D.; Mekonnen, M.M. The scarcity-weighted water footprint provides unreliable water sustainability scoring. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 756, 143992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Pfister, S.; Boulay, A.M.; Berger, M.; Hadjikakou, M.; Motoshita, M.; Hess, T.; Ridoutt, B.; Weinzettel, J.; Scherer, L.; Doll, P.; et al. Understanding the LCA and ISO water footprint: A response to Hoekstra (2016) “A critique on the water-scarcity weighted water footprint in LCA”. Ecol. Indic. 2017, 72, 352–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Xu, M.; Li, C.; Wang, X.; Cai, Y.; Yue, W. Optimal water utilization and allocation in industrial sectors based on water footprint accounting in Dalian City, China. J. Clean. Prod. 2018, 176, 1283–1291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ye, Q.; Li, Y.; Zhuo; Zhang, W.; Xiong, W.; Wang, C.; Wang, P. Optimal allocation of physical water resources integrated with virtual water trade in water scarce regions: A case study for Beijing, China. Water Res. 2018, 129, 264–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. D’Ambrosio, E.; Gentile, F.; De Girolamo, A.M. Assessing the sustainability in water use at the basin scale through water footprint indicators. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 244, 118847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wang, F.; Wang, S.; Li, Z.; You, H.; Aviso, K.B.; Tan, R.R.; Jia, X. Water footprint sustainability assessment for the chemical sector at the regional level. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 142, 69–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Zhou, H.; Yang, Q.; Zhu, S.; Song, Y.; Zhang, D. Life cycle comparison of greenhouse gas emissions and water consumption for coal and oil shale to liquid fuels. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2019, 144, 74–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hawkins, T.; Hendrickson, C.; Higgins, C.; Matthews, H.; Suh, S. A Mixed-Unit Input-Output Model for Environmental Life-Cycle Assessment and Material Flow Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2007, 41, 1024–1031. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Lenzen, M.; Moran, D.; Bhaduri, A.; Kanemoto, K.; Bekchanov, M.; Geschke, A.; Foran, B. International trade of scarce water. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 94, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ridoutt, B.G.; Hadjikakou, M.; Nolan, M.; Bryan, B.A. From Water-Use to Water-Scarcity Footprinting in Environmentally Extended Input-Output Analysis. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 52, 6761–6770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Chang, Y.; Huang, Z.; Ries, R.J.; Masanet, E. The embodied air pollutant emissions and water footprints of buildings in China: A quantification using disaggregated input–output life cycle inventory model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 113, 274–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, Z.; Yang, H.; Shi, M. Analyses of water footprint of Beijing in an interregional input–output framework. Ecol. Econ. 2011, 70, 2494–2502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Zhang, C.; Anadon, L.D. Life cycle water use of energy production and its environmental impacts in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 47, 14459–14467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Deng, G.; Ma, Y.; Li, X. Regional water footprint evaluation and trend analysis of China—based on interregional input–output model. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 112, 4674–4682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bogra, S.; Bakshi, B.R.; Mathur, R. A Water-Withdrawal Input-Output Model of the Indian Economy. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2016, 50, 1313–1321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zhang, Y.; Chen, Y.; Huang, M. Water Footprint and Virtual Water Accounting for China Using a Multi-Regional Input-Output Model. Water 2018, 11, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Feng, K.; Siu, Y.L.; Guan, D.; Hubacek, K. Assessing regional virtual water flows and water footprints in the Yellow River Basin, China: A consumption based approach. Appl. Geogr. 2012, 32, 691–701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Li, C.; Xu, M.; Wang, X.; Tan, Q. Spatial analysis of dual-scale water stresses based on water footprint accounting in the Haihe River Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 92, 254–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mao, X.; Yang, Z. Ecological network analysis for virtual water trade system: A case study for the Baiyangdian Basin in Northern China. Ecol. Inf. 2012, 10, 17–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Yin, J.; Wang, H.; Cai, Y. Water Footprint Calculation on the Basis of Input–Output Analysis and a Biproportional Algorithm: A Case Study for the Yellow River Basin, China. Water 2016, 8, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Pfister, S.; Koehler, A.; Hellweg, S. Assessing the Environmental Impact of Freshwater Consumption in LCA. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 4098–4104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Xu, C.C.; Huang, J.; Ridoutt, B.G.; Liu, J.J.; Chen, F. LCA-based product water footprinting and case study. J. Nat. Resour. 2013, 28, 873–880. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. YREC. Report on Water Resources Assessment for NingdongWater Supply; Yellow River Engieering Consulting Co., Ltd.: Zhengzhou, China, 2017. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. GB/T 18916.1-2012Norm of Water Intake—Part 1: Fossil Fire Power Production; SAMR: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese)
  45. The Norm of Energy Consumption per Unit Product for Modern Coal Chemical Industry; SAMR: Beijing, China, 2020. Available online: http://std.samr.gov.cn/gb (accessed on 25 December 2021). (In Chinese)
  46. GB 30528-2014; The Norm of Energy Consumption per Unit Products of Polyvinyl Alcohol. SAMR: Beijing, China, 2014. (In Chinese)
  47. GB 29444-2012; The Norm of the Energy Consumption per Unit Product of Coal Undergrounding Mining. SAMR: Beijing, China, 2012. (In Chinese)
  48. GB 21343-2015; Norm of the Energy Consumption per Unit Product of Calcium Carbide. SAMR: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese)
  49. GB 30529-2014; The Norm of the Energy Consumption per Unit Product of Vinyl Acetate. SAMR: Beijing, China, 2014. (In Chinese)
  50. GB 31535-2015; The Norm of the Energy Consumption per Unit Product of Dimethylether. SAMR: Beijing, China, 2016. (In Chinese)
  51. GB 31824-2015; Norm of the Energy Consumption per Unit Product of 1,4-Butanediol. SAMR: Beijing, China, 2015. (In Chinese)
  52. GNHAR. Notice of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region on the Revision of Industrial Water Quota; Government of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, PRC: Yinchuan, China, 2020. (In Chinese)
  53. DWRN. Implementation Plan of Water Demand Control in Ningxia; Department of Water Resources of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, PRC: Yinchuan, China, 2020. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  54. NDRC. National Water Conservation Action Plan; National Development and Reform Commission, PRC: Beijing, China, 2019. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  55. Hoekstra, A.Y.; Chapagain, A.K.; Mekonnen, M.M.; Aldaya, M.M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual—Setting the Global Standard; Routledge: London, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  56. Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. Water footprint benchmarks for crop production: A first global assessment. Ecol. Indic. 2014, 46, 214–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Figure 1. The general framework for the WF sustainability assessment.
Figure 1. The general framework for the WF sustainability assessment.
Water 14 00694 g001
Figure 2. Blue WF of the coal-based energy and chemicals in the Ningdong Base.
Figure 2. Blue WF of the coal-based energy and chemicals in the Ningdong Base.
Water 14 00694 g002
Figure 3. Blue WF distribution proportion of the coal-based products in the Ningdong Base.
Figure 3. Blue WF distribution proportion of the coal-based products in the Ningdong Base.
Water 14 00694 g003
Figure 4. Comparison of blue WF of products from the MUIO model verse a process-based model.
Figure 4. Comparison of blue WF of products from the MUIO model verse a process-based model.
Water 14 00694 g004
Figure 5. Actual blue WF versus blue WF under general standard and the BPT in the Ningdong Base.
Figure 5. Actual blue WF versus blue WF under general standard and the BPT in the Ningdong Base.
Water 14 00694 g005
Figure 6. WSSI and WRSI based on general standard and the BPT in the Ningdong Base.
Figure 6. WSSI and WRSI based on general standard and the BPT in the Ningdong Base.
Water 14 00694 g006
Table 1. Water footprint sustainability assessment methods at product and regional levels.
Table 1. Water footprint sustainability assessment methods at product and regional levels.
Assessment LevelIndicator ValuesAssessment Results
Product-levelWSSIp−1 > 1, WSSIp−2 > 1unsustainable
WSSIp−1 ≤ 1, WSSIp−2 > 1sustainable
WSSIp−1 ≤ 1, WSSIp−2 ≤ 1advanced
Regional-levelWSRIp−1 > 1, WSRIp−2 > 1unsustainable
WSRIp−1 ≤ 1, WSRIp−2 > 1sustainable
WSRIp−1 ≤ 1, WSRIp−2 ≤ 1advanced
Table 2. Water footprint sustainability indicators and their abbreviations and measurement units.
Table 2. Water footprint sustainability indicators and their abbreviations and measurement units.
IndicatorsAbbreviationsMeasurement Units
Water footprintWFm3/t or m3/kWh
Blue water footprintBlue WFm3/t or m3/kWh
Water sustainability index at product level based on general standardWSSIp−1unitless
Water sustainability index at product level based on BPTWSSIp−2unitless
Water sustainability index at regional level based on general standardWSRIp−1unitless
Water sustainability index at regional level based on BPTWSRIp−2unitless
Overall sustainability of production in a industrial baseWSRIBaseunitless
Table 3. Statistics of the coal-based energy and chemicals in the Ningdong Base (2020).
Table 3. Statistics of the coal-based energy and chemicals in the Ningdong Base (2020).
ProductAbbreviationNo. of EnterprisesNo. of ProjectsTotal Capacity (104 ton/a)
Washed coalCOAL2139000
Coal-fired electricityELEC101515,660 (MW)
Coal-to-liquidCTL11400
Coal-to-methanolCTM34175
Goal gas to methanolCGTM2245
CokeCOKE23590
Goal gas to olefinCGTO1160
Methanol to olefinMTO35205
Dimethyl etherDME1121
PolyoxymethylenePOM2211
AmmoniaNH32255
UreaUREA1170
Calcium carbideCaC211115
AcetyleneACET1130
1,4-ButanediolBDO1120.8
PolytetrahydrofuranPTMEG119.2
Acetic acidACA1130
Vinyl acetateVAC1140
Polyvinyl alcoholPVA1110
Table 4. The technical coefficient matrix and direct water consumption vector for major products in the Ningdong Base.
Table 4. The technical coefficient matrix and direct water consumption vector for major products in the Ningdong Base.
Technical Coefficient Matrix
ProductsCOALELECCTLCTMCGTMCOKECGTOMTODMEPOMNH3UREACaC2ACETBDOPTMEGACAVACPVA
COAL0 0.0003 2.230 1.926 0 1.175 2.960 5.10 2.12 2.00 1.61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ELEC18.29 0.05 1078.37 363.68 151.95 44.06 848.61 2680.0 80.0 990.0 505.46 78.52 3262.2 206.96 918.49 869.41 91.63 162.15 696.20
CTL0.0001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CTM0 0 0 0 0 0 0.253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.215 0.057 0.538 0 0.873
CGTM0 0 0 0 0 0 0.253 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.215 0.057 0.538 0 0.873
COKE0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.686 0 0 0 0 0 0
CGTO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
MTO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DME0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
POM0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
NH30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.571 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
UREA0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
CaC20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3.813 0 0 0 0 0
ACET0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.282 0 0 0.325 0
BDO0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.490 0 0 0
PTMEG0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
ACA0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.710 0
VAC0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.819
PVA0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Direct water consumption vector
Freshwater0.122 0.00022 9.55 11.13 4.19 1.05 15.91 14.05 7.30 5.76 10.89 2.13 0.81 4.57 18.40 6.74 1.93 2.83 16.53
Table 5. Standard quantity of water and coal consumption for unit rated capacity.
Table 5. Standard quantity of water and coal consumption for unit rated capacity.
Cooling SystemFreshwater Consumption for Install Unit Capacity (m3/MWh)
<300 MW300 MW~500 MW≥600 MW
Circulating3.202.752.40
DC cooling0.790.540.46
Air cooling0.950.630.53
LevelCoal consumption for unit of 600 MW (tce/MWh)
Subcritical SupercriticalUltra-supercritical
Standard0.3190.3060.293
Advanced 0.3130.2980.288
The conversion coefficient to standard coal equivalent is 0.1229 tce/MWh.
Table 6. Standard quantity of water and coal consumption for coal and chemicals.
Table 6. Standard quantity of water and coal consumption for coal and chemicals.
ProductFreshwater Consumption (m3/t)Energy Consumption (tce/t)
GeneralAdvancedGeneralAdvanced
COAL0.340.260.0070.003
CTL1072.5 *2.2 *
CTM1592.2 *1.8 *
CGTM1591.65 *1.3 *
COKE1.41.20.1550.127
MTO15124.53.7
DME11--1.2251.146
POM24--2.8 *2.1 *
NH3 141043
CaC21.1--3.2 *3.05 *
ACET2.1------
BDO23.8--1.50.95
ACA3.2--0.4290.3
VAC8--0.5650.41
PVA10.9--2.752.072
* The ones marked with star indicate that the material coal consumption is also included.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Xu, Z.; Lian, J.; Wang, R.; Qiu, Y.; Song, T.; Hua, K. Development of Method for Assessing Water Footprint Sustainability. Water 2022, 14, 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050694

AMA Style

Xu Z, Lian J, Wang R, Qiu Y, Song T, Hua K. Development of Method for Assessing Water Footprint Sustainability. Water. 2022; 14(5):694. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050694

Chicago/Turabian Style

Xu, Ziyao, Jijian Lian, Ran Wang, Ying Qiu, Tianhua Song, and Kaixun Hua. 2022. "Development of Method for Assessing Water Footprint Sustainability" Water 14, no. 5: 694. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14050694

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop