Journal
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY
Volume 47, Issue 19, Pages 10771-10780Publisher
AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/es4006256
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- National Science Foundation (NSF) [CBET-0853512]
- California Energy Commission [500-02-004]
Ask authors/readers for more resources
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.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available