Search

In recent years, cities in some water stressed regions have explored alternative water sources such as seawater desalination and potable water recycling in spite of concerns over increasing energy consumption. In this study, we evaluate the current and future life-cycle energy impacts of four alternative water supply strategies introduced during a decade-long drought in South East Queensland (SEQ), Australia. These strategies were: seawater desalination, indirect potable water recycling, network integration, and rainwater tanks. Our work highlights the energy burden of alternative water supply strategies which added approximately 24% life-cycle energy use to the existing supply system (with surface water sources) in SEQ even for a current post-drought low utilisation status. Over half of this additional life-cycle energy use was from the centralised alternative supply strategies. Rainwater tanks contributed an estimated 3% to regional water supply, but added over 10% life-cycle energy use to the existing system. In the future scenario analysis, we compare the life-cycle energy use between "Normal", "Dry", "High water demand" and "Design capacity" scenarios. In the "Normal" scenario, a long-term low utilisation of the desalination system and the water recycling system has greatly reduced the energy burden of these centralised strategies to only 13%. In contrast, higher utilisation in the unlikely "Dry" and "Design capacity" scenarios add 86% and 140% to life-cycle energy use of the existing system respectively. In the "High water demand" scenario, a 20% increase in per capita water use over 20 years "consumes" more energy than is used by the four alternative strategies in the "Normal" scenario. This research provides insight for developing more realistic long-term scenarios to evaluate and compare life-cycle energy impacts of drought-adaptation infrastructure and regional decentralised water sources. Scenario building for life-cycle assessments of water supply systems should consider i) climate variability and, therefore, infrastructure utilisation rate, ii) potential under-utilisation for both installed centralised and decentralised sources, and iii) the potential energy penalty for operating infrastructure well below its design capacity (e.g., the operational energy intensity of the desalination system is three times higher at low utilisation rates). This study illustrates that evaluating the life-cycle energy use and intensity of these type of supply sources without considering their realistic long-term operating scenario(s) can potentially distort and overemphasise their energy implications. To other water stressed regions, this work shows that managing long-term water demand is also important, in addition to acknowledging the energy-intensive nature of some alternative water sources.

Recent years have seen an increase in the use of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to inform urban water systems research. The attraction of LCA is its capacity to identify trade-offs across a broad range of environmental issues and a broad range of technologies. However, without some additional perspective on the scale of the results, prioritisation of these concerns will remain difficult. LCA studies at the whole-of-system level are required to identify the diversity of life cycle environmental burdens associated with urban water systems, and the main contributors to these impacts. In this study, environmental impact profiles were generated for two city-scale urban water systems: one typical of many urban centres, with a high reliance on freshwater extraction and the majority of treated wastewater being discharged to the sea; and one that adopts a more diverse range of water supply and wastewater recycling technologies. The profiles were based on measured data for most system components, otherwise best available empirical data from the literature. Impact models were chosen considering the substantial methodological developments that have occurred in recent years. System operations, directly within the sphere of influence of water system managers, play the dominant role in all but one of the 14 life cycle impact categories considered. While energy use is the main cause of changes in the impact profiles when the alternative water supply technologies are included, it is not the only important driver of impacts associated with city-scale urban water systems. Also extremely important are process emissions related to wastewater treatment and dams (notably fugitive gases, wastewater discharges, and biosolids disposal). The results clearly indicate a diverse range of environmental impacts of relevance, extending beyond the traditional concerns of water use and nutrient discharge. Neither energy use, nor greenhouse gas footprints, are likely to be an adequate proxy for representing these additional concerns. However, methodological improvements will be required for certain LCA impact models to support future case study analysis, as will a comprehensive critique of the implications from selecting different impact models.