Search

In recent years, cities in some water stressed regions have explored alternative water sources such as seawater desalination and potable water recycling in spite of concerns over increasing energy consumption. In this study, we evaluate the current and future life-cycle energy impacts of four alternative water supply strategies introduced during a decade-long drought in South East Queensland (SEQ), Australia. These strategies were: seawater desalination, indirect potable water recycling, network integration, and rainwater tanks. Our work highlights the energy burden of alternative water supply strategies which added approximately 24% life-cycle energy use to the existing supply system (with surface water sources) in SEQ even for a current post-drought low utilisation status. Over half of this additional life-cycle energy use was from the centralised alternative supply strategies. Rainwater tanks contributed an estimated 3% to regional water supply, but added over 10% life-cycle energy use to the existing system. In the future scenario analysis, we compare the life-cycle energy use between "Normal", "Dry", "High water demand" and "Design capacity" scenarios. In the "Normal" scenario, a long-term low utilisation of the desalination system and the water recycling system has greatly reduced the energy burden of these centralised strategies to only 13%. In contrast, higher utilisation in the unlikely "Dry" and "Design capacity" scenarios add 86% and 140% to life-cycle energy use of the existing system respectively. In the "High water demand" scenario, a 20% increase in per capita water use over 20 years "consumes" more energy than is used by the four alternative strategies in the "Normal" scenario. This research provides insight for developing more realistic long-term scenarios to evaluate and compare life-cycle energy impacts of drought-adaptation infrastructure and regional decentralised water sources. Scenario building for life-cycle assessments of water supply systems should consider i) climate variability and, therefore, infrastructure utilisation rate, ii) potential under-utilisation for both installed centralised and decentralised sources, and iii) the potential energy penalty for operating infrastructure well below its design capacity (e.g., the operational energy intensity of the desalination system is three times higher at low utilisation rates). This study illustrates that evaluating the life-cycle energy use and intensity of these type of supply sources without considering their realistic long-term operating scenario(s) can potentially distort and overemphasise their energy implications. To other water stressed regions, this work shows that managing long-term water demand is also important, in addition to acknowledging the energy-intensive nature of some alternative water sources., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The water-energy nexus is of growing interest for researchers and policy makers because the two critical resources are interdependent. Their provision and consumption contribute to climate change through the release of greenhouse gases (GHGs). This research considers the potential for conserving both energy and water resources by measuring the life-cycle economic efficiency of greenhouse gas reductions through the water loss control technologies of pressure management and leak management. These costs are compared to other GHG abatement technologies: lighting, building insulation, electricity generation, and passenger transportation. Each cost is calculated using a bottom-up approach where regional and temporal variations for three different California water utilities are applied to all alternatives. The costs and abatement potential for each technology are displayed on an environmental abatement cost curve. The results reveal that water loss control can reduce GHGs at lower cost than other technologies and well below California's expected carbon trading price floor. One utility with an energy-intensive water supply could abate 135,000 Mg of GHGs between 2014 and 2035 and save--rather than spend--more than $130/Mg using the water loss control strategies evaluated. Water loss control technologies therefore should be considered in GHG abatement portfolios for utilities and policy makers.

Pressure management is one cost-effective and efficient strategy for controlling water distribution losses. This paper evaluates the life-cycle energy use and emissions for pressure management zones in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Halifax, Nova Scotia. It compares water savings using fixed-outlet and flow-modulated pressure control to performance without pressure control, considering the embedded electricity and chemical consumption in the lost water, manufacture of pipe and fittings to repair breaks caused by excess pressure, and pressure management. The resulting energy and emissions savings are significant. The Philadelphia and Halifax utilities both avoid approximately 130 million liters in water losses annually using flow-modulated pressure management. The conserved energy was 780 GJ and 1900 GJ while avoided greenhouse gas emissions were 50 Mg and 170 Mg a year by Philadelphia and Halifax, respectively. The life-cycle financial and environmental performance of pressure management systems compares favorably to the traditional demand management strategy of installing low-flow toilets. The energy savings may also translate to cost-effective greenhouse gas emission reductions depending on the energy mix used, an important advantage in areas where water and energy are constrained and/or expensive and greenhouse gas emissions are regulated as in California, for example.

In the modern global economy, water and energy are fundamentally connected. Water already plays a major role in electricity generation and, with biofuels and electricity poised to gain a significant share of the transportation fuel market, water will become significantly more important for transportation energy as well. This research provides insight into the potential changes in water use resulting from increased biofuel or electricity production for transportation energy, as well as the greenhouse gas and freshwater implications. It is shown that when characterizing the water impact of transportation energy, incorporating indirect water use and defensible allocation techniques have a major impact on the final results, with anywhere between an 82% increase and a 250% decrease in the water footprint if evaporative losses from hydroelectric power are excluded. The greenhouse gas impact results indicate that placing cellulosic biorefineries in areas where water must be supplied using alternative means, such as desalination, wastewater recycling, or importation can increase the fuel's total greenhouse gas footprint by up to 47%. The results also show that the production of ethanol and petroleum fuels burden already overpumped aquifers, whereas electricity production is far less dependent on groundwater.

Life-cycle air emission effects of supplying water are explored using a hybrid life-cycle assessment For the typically sized U.S. utility analyzed, recycled water is preferable to desalination and comparable to importation. Seawater desalination has an energy and air emission footprint that is 1.5-2.4 times larger than that of imported water. However, some desalination modes fare better; brackish groundwater is 53-66% as environmentally intensive as seawater desalination. The annual water needs (326 m3) of a typical Californian that is met with imported water requires 5.8 GJ of energy and creates 360 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions. With seawater desalination, energy use would increase to 14 GJ and 800 kg of CO2 equivalent emissions. Meeting the water demand of California with desalination would consume 52% of the state's electricity. Supply options were reassessed using alternative electricity mixes, including the average mix of the United States and several renewable sources. Desalination using solar thermal energy has lower greenhouse gas emissions than that of imported and recycled water (using California's electricity mix), but using the U.S. mix increases the environmental footprint by 1.5 times. A comparison with a more energy-intensive international scenario shows that CO2 equivalent emissions for desalination in Dubai are 1.6 times larger than in California. The methods, decision support tool (WEST), and results of this study should persuade decision makers to make informed water policy choices by including energy consumption and material use effects in the decision-making process.

The exploration of life-cycle energy use and environmental effects from U.S. water infrastructure has been limited in spite of the strong connection between energy and water use. This research presents a methodology for quantifying the life-cycle energy consumption and associated air emissions from water supply, treatment, and distribution. A decision-support tool, the Water-Energy Sustainability Tool (WEST), has been developed to aid such analysis. WEST calculates the environmental effects of material production, including the supply chain, material delivery and transportation, construction and maintenance equipment use, energy production, and sludge disposal. Deterministic and probabilistic results for a California case study utility are provided to show the tool's capabilities. Results indicate that producing a million liters of water consumes 5.4 GJ and produces 390 kg of CO2-equivalent greenhouse gases. Energy production is the most significant activity (50%), but material production, especially for treatment chemicals, is also important (37%). This case study is contrasted with two previously published case study utilities, and the reasons for the range of results are analyzed. The results demonstrate that estimating water supply's energy needs and emissions without a life-cycle lens can underestimate the total effects significantly. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]