Save water to save carbon and money: developing abatement costs for expanded greenhouse gas reduction portfolios.

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.

[1]  Michael H. Mazor,et al.  Life Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction From Rigid Thermal Insulation Use in Buildings , 2011 .

[2]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  A perspective on cost-effectiveness of greenhouse gas reduction solutions in water distribution systems , 2014 .

[3]  D. Sedlak,et al.  A changing framework for urban water systems. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[4]  Samer Madanat,et al.  Life-Cycle Costs and Emissions of Pareto-Optimal Residential Roof-Mounted Photovoltaic Systems , 2013 .

[5]  Neeraj Gupta,et al.  A CO2-storage supply curve for North America and its implications for the deployment of carbon dioxide capture and storage systems , 2005 .

[6]  A. Horvath,et al.  Life-Cycle Assessment of Urban Water Provision: Tool and Case Study in California , 2011 .

[7]  Kevin R. Hall,et al.  Closure of "Evaluating Environmental Impact in Water Distribution System Design" , 2009 .

[8]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Water loss control using pressure management: life-cycle energy and air emission effects. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Arpad Horvath,et al.  Life-Cycle Environmental Effects of an Office Building , 2003 .

[10]  Tim Jackson,et al.  Least-cost greenhouse planning : supply curves for global warming abatement , 1991 .

[11]  D. Sperling,et al.  Greenhouse gas mitigation supply curve for the United States for transport versus other sectors , 2009 .

[12]  Sunny C. Jiang,et al.  Taking the “Waste” Out of “Wastewater” for Human Water Security and Ecosystem Sustainability , 2012, Science.

[13]  David Styles,et al.  Energy recovery in the water industry using micro-hydropower: an opportunity to improve sustainability , 2014 .

[14]  B. Kingdom,et al.  The challenge of reducing non-revenue water (NRW) in developing countries - how the private sector can help : a look at performance-based service contracting , 2006 .

[15]  S. Rose,et al.  The Opportunity Cost of Land Use and the Global Potential for Greenhouse Gas Mitigation in Agriculture and Forestry , 2006, GTAP Working Paper.

[16]  A. Horvath,et al.  Energy and air emission effects of water supply. , 2009, Environmental science & technology.

[17]  Georges Zissis,et al.  Comparison of Life Cycle Assessments of LED Light Sources , 2012 .

[18]  Bryan W. Karney,et al.  Life-cycle energy analysis of a water distribution system , 2004 .

[19]  A. Horvath,et al.  Supply-chain environmental effects of wastewater utilities , 2010 .

[20]  Dominic Moran,et al.  Developing greenhouse gas marginal abatement cost curves for agricultural emissions from crops and soils in the UK , 2010 .

[21]  N. Strachan,et al.  Marginal abatement cost (MAC) curves: confronting theory and practice , 2011 .

[22]  Anand R. Gopal,et al.  Life-Cycle Assessment of Electric Power Systems , 2013 .

[23]  Jessika E. Trancik,et al.  Energy technologies evaluated against climate targets using a cost and carbon trade-off curve. , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[24]  A. Horvath,et al.  Energy and Air Emission Implications of a Decentralized Wastewater System , 2012 .

[25]  George Kunkel,et al.  Piloting Proactive, Advanced Leakage Management Technologies , 2011 .

[26]  Claudia Copeland,et al.  Energy-Water Nexus: The Water Sector’s Energy Use , 2014 .

[27]  M Granger Morgan,et al.  Reducing U.S. residential energy use and CO2 emissions: how much, how soon, and at what cost? , 2013, Environmental science & technology.

[28]  M. Chester,et al.  The conservation nexus: valuing interdependent water and energy savings in Arizona. , 2014, Environmental science & technology.

[29]  Neil S. Grigg.  Water Main Breaks: Risk Assessment and Investment Strategies , 2013 .

[30]  R. Reedy,et al.  Drought and the water–energy nexus in Texas , 2013 .

[31]  Daniel M. Kammen,et al.  ASSESSING THE COSTS OF ELECTRICITY , 2004 .

[32]  Alan Meier,et al.  SUPPLY CURVES OF CONSERVED ENERGY FOR CALIFORNIA'S RESIDENTIAL SECTOR , 1982 .

[33]  D. ürge-Vorsatz,et al.  Bottom–up assessment of potentials and costs of CO2 emission mitigation in the buildings sector: insights into the missing elements , 2009 .