↓ Skip to main content

City-scale analysis of water-related energy identifies more cost-effective solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Water Research, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (71st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
3 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
City-scale analysis of water-related energy identifies more cost-effective solutions
Published in
Water Research, February 2017
DOI 10.1016/j.watres.2016.11.059
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ka Leung Lam, Steven J. Kenway, Paul A. Lant

Abstract

Energy and greenhouse gas management in urban water systems typically focus on optimising within the direct system boundary of water utilities that covers the centralised water supply and wastewater treatment systems, despite a greater energy influence by the water end use. This work develops a cost curve of water-related energy management options from a city perspective for a hypothetical Australian city. It is compared with that from the water utility perspective. The curves are based on 18 water-related energy management options that have been implemented or evaluated in Australia. In the studied scenario, the cost-effective energy saving potential from a city perspective (292 GWh/year) is far more significant than that from a utility perspective (65 GWh/year). In some cases, for similar capital cost, if regional water planners invested in end use options instead of utility options, a greater energy saving potential at a greater cost-effectiveness could be achieved in urban water systems. For example, upgrading a wastewater treatment plant for biogas recovery at a capital cost of $27.2 million would save 31 GWh/year with a marginal cost saving of $63/MWh, while solar hot water system rebates at a cost of $28.6 million would save 67 GWh/year with a marginal cost saving of $111/MWh. Options related to hot water use such as water-efficient shower heads, water-efficient clothes washers and solar hot water system rebates are among the most cost-effective city-scale opportunities. This study demonstrates the use of cost curves to compare both utility and end use options in a consistent framework. It also illustrates that focusing solely on managing the energy use within the utility would miss substantial non-utility water-related energy saving opportunities. There is a need to broaden the conventional scope of cost curve analysis to include water-related energy and greenhouse gas at the water end use, and to value their management from a city perspective. This would create opportunities where the same capital investment could achieve far greater energy savings and greenhouse gas emissions abatement.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Slovenia 1 3%
Denmark 1 3%
Unknown 32 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 24%
Researcher 8 24%
Student > Master 7 21%
Professor > Associate Professor 3 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 12 35%
Environmental Science 9 26%
Unspecified 7 21%
Energy 1 3%
Decision Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 December 2016.
All research outputs
#7,084,049
of 12,342,530 outputs
Outputs from Water Research
#3,460
of 5,755 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#160,519
of 347,427 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Water Research
#50
of 177 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,342,530 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 42nd percentile – i.e., 42% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,755 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 347,427 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 177 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.