MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2026406774 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v2n1p36

Carbon Dioxide Emission Savings Potential of Household Water Use Reduction in the UK

2009· article· en· W2026406774 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M.J. Hackett, N. F. Gray

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater-Energy-Food Nexus Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCarbon dioxideEnvironmental scienceElectricityWater useTap waterCarbon dioxide equivalentEnvironmental engineeringCarbon footprintGreenhouse gasVolume (thermodynamics)Energy conservationWater consumptionMains electricityNatural resource economicsWaste managementChemistryEconomicsEngineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The relationship between household water use and energy consumption was examined to establish whether the conservation of water within a domestic environment offers significant potential for saving energy, thereby reducing household carbon dioxide emissions. Average UK water usage is 55,121 L ca-1yr-1. The supply of this volume of water and its subsequent treatment by the water companies is equivalent to just 38.6 kg CO2 ca-1 yr-1, although this is not currently included in the primary footprint. So water consumption per se does not significantly effect CO2 emissions. However, the heating water within the household using electricity requires 5,036 kWh ca-1yr-1, equivalent to a further 2,830 t CO2 ca-1yr-1 with 57% of energy associated with use of heated tap water. Using gas instead of electricity to heat water can reduce emissions by 63%, equivalent to an average reduction of 4.36 t CO2 yr-1 for a standard household (2.4 occupants). Water efficient appliances and the careful use of heated water in the home could reduce average household water use from 151 to 73 L ca-1d-1 as well as the volume of water required to be heated thereby reducing related emissions by 58% or 1,662 kg CO2 ca-1yr-1, where electricity is used. Maximum CO2 emission reduction is achieved by the use of solar collectors using gas as standby heating fuel. This, coupled with simple water conservation measures, emits as little as 130 kg CO2 ca-1yr-1 a potential saving of 2.7 t CO2 ca-1yr-1.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.071
Threshold uncertainty score0.141

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.192
Teacher spread0.182 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations30
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicWater-Energy-Food Nexus StudiesFrench-language works237,207