Global and Regional Evaluation of Energy for Water
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite significant effort to quantify the interdependence of the water and energy sectors, global requirements of energy for water (E4W) are still poorly understood, which may result in biases in projections and consequently in water and energy management and policy. This study estimates water-related energy consumption by water source, sector, and process for 14 global regions from 1973 to 2012. Globally, E4W amounted to 10.2 EJ of primary energy consumption in 2010, accounting for 1.7%-2.7% of total global primary energy consumption, of which 58% pertains to fresh surface water, 30% to fresh groundwater, and 12% to nonfresh water, assuming median energy intensity levels. The sectoral E4W allocation includes municipal (45%), industrial (30%), and agricultural (25%), and main process-level contributions are from source/conveyance (39%), water purification (27%), water distribution (12%), and wastewater treatment (18%). While the United States was the largest E4W consumer from the 1970s until the 2000s, the largest consumers at present are the Middle East, India, and China, driven by rapid growth in desalination, groundwater-based irrigation, and industrial and municipal water use, respectively. The improved understanding of global E4W will enable enhanced consistency of both water and energy representations in integrated assessment models.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".