Rigid Versus Variable Energy Sources in Water-Pressurized Systems: An Economic and Environmental Analysis

The layouts of most urban water systems are known. A head tank with an appropriate elevation is used to supply water through the network at a pressure equal (or higher) to that set by the relevant standards. Furthermore, equalization, fire and emergency storage are important benefits of tank use, as is the possibility of avoiding peak rate electricity fares. However, at the end of the last century, some tanks were reported to have a negative impact the quality of water, and recommendations were made to limit their volume and revise their geometry. Recently, alternative options have been considered. Equalization can be achieved with pumps with variable-frequency drivers, emergency situations can be avoided with electric oil generators and solar plants can be used to offset other generation types and reduce energy costs. Therefore, this article analyses the performance of tanks as an energy source, and tank and pump supply methods are directly compared; overall, direct supply through pumps is cheaper, more energy efficient and more environmentally convenient. Therefore, in the context of climate change, it seems reasonable to avoid water tanks as energy sources.

Automated summary

The layout of urban water systems often involves a head tank for water supply, but there have been issues with water quality and efficiency. Alternative options such as variable-frequency pumps, electric oil generators, and solar plants are being considered for more energy-saving and environmentally friendly practices. Direct supply through pumps is found to be cheaper, more energy efficient, and more environmentally convenient compared to water tanks, making it a reasonable choice in the context of climate change.