Up to what point is loss reduction environmentally friendly?: The LCA of loss reduction scenarios in drinking water networks

Pillot, J.; Catel, Laureline; Renaud, Eddy; Augeard, Bénédicte; Roux, Philippe

doi:10.1016/j.watres.2016.07.025

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While producing water creates environmental impacts, mostly due to the energy consumption [36], water loss reduction actions also generate impacts as a result of the construction works and equipment, amongst other things. As Pillot et al [37] showed, comparing the environmental effects of water loss to water loss reduction efforts coupled with uncertainties can result in quite high environmental levels of leakage. Environmental costs related to the water resources are small, because most areas in Finland have abundant water resources.…”

Section: Limitations Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Leakage Reduction Methods in Water Supply Networks

Ahopelto

Vahala

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Reducing water loss from water supply systems is often regarded as one of the most important ways to improve the resource efficiency of water supply services. However, the costs and impacts of water loss reduction efforts need to be weighed against the benefits to define the optimal water loss target level. To this end, we conducted a cost–benefit analysis of three investment-based leakage reduction methods: district metering, pressure reduction, and pipe renovations. Furthermore, we conducted uncertainty and sensitivity analysis to determine the most relevant data for leakage analysis and policymaking on a national level. The results indicate that water loss management might not be directly cost-beneficial to utilities operating with moderate leakage levels. Neither leakage percentage nor the Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) were suitable for leakage target setting for the Finnish utilities. The costs of investing in district metering or renovations were the most influential factors in the sensitivity analysis, but the results showed that the estimated values were sufficiently accurate for assessing leakage policies.

show abstract

Section: Limitations Of the Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Leakage Reduction Methods in Water Supply Networks

Ahopelto

Vahala

2020

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Second, NEB is less effective when the mitigation activity is not directly mappable to an environmental LCA impact category. For example, Pillot et al [59] evaluate multiple approaches for avoiding the production of one cubic meter of drinking water, a clear, performance-based functional unit. However, because drinking water supply is not a standard impact category in LCA, applying a NEB framework would require disaggregation across several conventional impact-assessment linked categories.…”

Section: Use a Performance-based Functional Unit To Ensure Comparabilmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mitigation Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices from LCA of Energy and Water Infrastructure That Incurs Impacts to Mitigate Harm

Grubert

Stokes-Draut

2020

Energies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Climate change will require societal-scale infrastructural changes. Balancing priorities for water, energy, and climate will demand that approaches to water and energy management deviate from historical practice. Infrastructure designed to mitigate environmental harm, particularly related to climate change, is likely to become increasingly prevalent. Understanding the implications of such infrastructure for environmental quality is thus of interest. Environmental life cycle assessment (LCA) is a common sustainability assessment tool that aims to quantify the total, multicriteria environmental impact caused by a functional unit. Notably, however, LCA quantifies impacts in the form of environmental “costs” of delivering the functional unit. In the case of mitigation infrastructures, LCA results can be confusing because they are generally reported as the harmful impacts of performing mitigation rather than as net impacts that incorporate benefits of successful mitigation. This paper argues for defining mitigation LCA as a subtype of LCA to facilitate better understanding of results and consistency across studies. Our recommendations are informed by existing LCA literature on mitigation infrastructure, focused particularly on stormwater and carbon management. We specifically recommend that analysts: (1) use a performance-based functional unit; (2) be attentive to burden shifting; and (3) assess and define uncertainty, especially related to mitigation performance.

show abstract

“…The volume of the AL was estimated using the Apparent Loss Estimation equation, as elaborated by AL-Washali, Sharma and Kennedy [27]. The volumes of real losses (RL) and water loss were then calculated using Equations (2) and (3). Accordingly, the International Water Association (IWA) standard water balance was established for the Sana'a water supply system for 2009.…”

Section: Nrw Component Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NRW either originates from leakages that occur at mains, storage reservoirs and customer connections, or commercial losses that occur due to customer meter under-registration, errors in data handling and billing or unauthorised use. The impact of NRW is substantial [3,4], as it accounts for considerable water wastage, affects the technical stability of the water supply, deteriorates the quality of water and water services, increases the operating costs and reduces revenues that should sustain and expand access to water. Assessing NRW involves quantifying water losses in a particular system without considering their actual locations [5,6].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monitoring Nonrevenue Water Performance in Intermittent Supply

AL-Washali

Sharma

Al-Nozaily

et al. 2019

Water

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Water utilities should monitor their nonrevenue water (NRW) levels properly to manage water losses and sustain water services. However, monitoring NRW is problematic in an intermittent water supply regime. This is because more supplied water to users imposes higher volumes of NRW, and supplying significantly less water results in an unmet water demand but interestingly less NRW. This study investigates the influence of the amount of water supplied to a distribution system on the reported level of NRW. The volume and indicators of NRW all vary with variations in the system input volume (SIV). This is even more critical for monitoring NRW for systems shifting from intermittent to continuous supply. To enable meaningful monitoring, the NRW volume should be normalised. Addressing that, this research proposes two normalisation approaches: regression analysis and average supply time adjustment. Analysis of the NRW performance indicators showed that regression analysis enables the monitoring of NRW and tracking its progression in an individual system only, but not for a comparison with other systems. For comparing (or benchmarking) a water system to other systems with different supply patterns, the average supply time adjustment should be used. However, this approach presents significant uncertainties when the average supply time is less than eight hours per day.

show abstract

Up to what point is loss reduction environmentally friendly?: The LCA of loss reduction scenarios in drinking water networks

Cited by 28 publications

References 14 publications

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Leakage Reduction Methods in Water Supply Networks

Cost–Benefit Analysis of Leakage Reduction Methods in Water Supply Networks

Mitigation Life Cycle Assessment: Best Practices from LCA of Energy and Water Infrastructure That Incurs Impacts to Mitigate Harm

Monitoring Nonrevenue Water Performance in Intermittent Supply

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About