Water Loss Control Using Pressure Management: Life-cycle\nEnergy and Air Emission Effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pressure\nmanagement is one cost-effective and efficient strategy\nfor controlling water distribution losses. This paper evaluates the\nlife-cycle energy use and emissions for pressure management zones\nin Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and Halifax, Nova Scotia. It compares\nwater savings using fixed-outlet and flow-modulated pressure control\nto performance without pressure control, considering the embedded\nelectricity and chemical consumption in the lost water, manufacture\nof pipe and fittings to repair breaks caused by excess pressure, and\npressure management. The resulting energy and emissions savings are\nsignificant. The Philadelphia and Halifax utilities both avoid approximately\n130 million liters in water losses annually using flow-modulated pressure\nmanagement. The conserved energy was 780 GJ and 1900 GJ while avoided\ngreenhouse gas emissions were 50 Mg and 170 Mg a year by Philadelphia\nand Halifax, respectively. The life-cycle financial and environmental\nperformance of pressure management systems compares favorably to the\ntraditional demand management strategy of installing low-flow toilets.\nThe energy savings may also translate to cost-effective greenhouse\ngas emission reductions depending on the energy mix used, an important\nadvantage in areas where water and energy are constrained and/or expensive\nand greenhouse gas emissions are regulated as in California, for example.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.053 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".