Modeling residential water, energy, GHG emissions and cost in California. IWater, Energy and Climate Conference, Mexico City, May 23rd, 2014

MODELING RESIDENTIALWATER, ENERGY, GHG EMISSIONS and COSTS

IN CALIFORNIA

WEC 2014 CONFERENCE MEXICO CITY, MAY 23rd 2014

ALVAR ESCRIVA-BOU [email protected]

@alesbou

notjustwater.wordpress.com

MOTIVATION

• In California, 19% of all

electricity and 30% of all natural gas is used to extract, move, treat and heat water (CEC 2005).

• Residential end-uses:

5.4% of all electricity and 15.1% of all natural gas used in the state.

OBJECTIVES

• Model to obtain waterend-uses, water-related

energy, GHG emissions

and costs for Californiahouseholds.

• Implement and analyze

potential conservation strategies.

INTRODUCTION1


PREVIOUS STUDIES

• Fidar et al. (2010) → Water-related energy and CO2

emissions at household level based on average end-use values (UK).

• Kenway et al. (2011, 2013) → Water and energy end-use model and CO2 emissions based in one standard house (Australia)

• Abdallah and Rosenberg (2013) → End-Use model accounting for heterogeneity (United States).

INTRODUCTION1


CONTRIBUTIONS2

• VARIABILITY in location


CONTRIBUTIONS2



• HETEROGENEITY in consumption

Household characteristics User’s behaviorsExternal conditions

CONTRIBUTIONS2



• HETEROGENEITY in consumption

• Water and energy RATE STRUCTURES

METHODOLOGY3


• Data-driven:• “California Single-Family Water Use Efficiency Study”

(DeOreo, 2011).

• “Residential Energy Consumption Survey” (DOE, 2009).

• Build representative houses:• Monte Carlo simulations.

• Probability distributions for parameters affecting water and energy use.

METHODOLOGY3

• Water End-Use Model → Using “California Single-Family Water Use Efficiency Study” (DeOreo, 2011).

• Energy Model → Using “Residential Energy Consumption Survey” (DOE, 2009).

• GHG Emissions → Using Emission Factors from California Climate Action Registry (CCAR) and US Energy Information Administration.

• Simulate Conservation Strategies.

Water End-Use Model

Water Costs

Energy End-Use Model

Energy Costs

GHG Emissions

Conservation Strategies


WATER END-USE MODEL4


Residential Water Use =

WATER END-USE MODEL4

𝑄𝑠ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 =#𝑆𝑡𝑑 𝑆ℎ𝑤 ∙ 𝑄𝑆𝑡𝑑 + (#𝐿𝑜𝑤𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤𝑆ℎ𝑤) ∙ (𝑄𝐿𝐹𝑆ℎ𝑤)

#𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟𝑠

∙ 𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔ℎ𝑡 ∙ (𝑆ℎ𝑜𝑤𝑒𝑟 𝐹𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑒𝑛𝑐𝑦) ∙ (#𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠)

𝑄𝑜𝑢𝑡𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑟 =

𝐸𝑇 ∙ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝐿𝑎𝑤𝑛 ∙ 𝑘𝑐𝐿𝑎𝑤𝑛+ 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝐺𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 ∙ 𝑘𝑐𝐺𝑎𝑟𝑑𝑒𝑛 + 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑙 ∙ 𝑘𝑐𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑙

∙ 𝐴𝑝𝑝𝑙𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜


Household characteristics

Users’ behaviors

External conditions

MONTECARLO SIMULATIONS FOR WATER5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250

GPD

CDF Toilet Model vs. Real Data in Davis

Modeled

Metered

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 50 100 150 200 250

GPD

CDF Shower Model vs. Real Data in Davis

Modeled

Metered


MONTECARLO SIMULATIONS FOR WATER5

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800

GPD

CDF Indoor Model vs. Real Data in Davis

Modeled

Metered

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

GPD

CDF Outdoor Model vs. Real Data in Davis

Modeled

Metered


• From End-Water Uses → Hot water, using hot water prob. distributions per end-use (EBMUD, 2002).

• Energy Calculation – WHAM (Lutz et al., 1999):

𝑄𝑖𝑛

=𝑣𝑜𝑙 ∙ 𝑑𝑒𝑛 ∙ 𝐶𝑝 ∙ (𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 − 𝑇𝑖𝑛)

𝜂𝑟𝑒∙ 1 −

𝑈𝐴 ∙ 𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 − 𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏

𝑃𝑜𝑛

+24 ∙ 𝑈𝐴 ∙ (𝑇𝑡𝑎𝑛𝑘 − 𝑇𝑎𝑚𝑏)

ENERGY MODEL6


Household characteristics

Users’ behaviors

External conditions

MONTECARLO SIMULATIONS FOR ENERGY7


MONTECARLO SIMULATIONS FOR ENERGY7


• Electric emission factors obtained from California Climate Action Registry, and Natural Gas emission factors from US Energy Information Administration:

GHG EMISSIONS8


Power UtilityElectricity

(kg CO2/kWh)

Natural Gas

(kg CO2/therm)

PG&E 0.24 5.31

San Francisco City and County 0.30 5.31

San Diego Gas & Electric 0.32 5.31

Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 0.58 5.31

Southern California Edison 0.30 5.31

SOME RESULTS


9

Water

SOME RESULTS


9

Energy and CO2

SOME RESULTS


9

Costs

SOME RESULTS


9

Simulations

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

10


• Differences in “willingness to adopt” conservation strategies

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

10



• Targeting

< 25%

> 75%

< 2

5%

> 7

5%

x2.0

x2.4

x2.3

POLICY IMPLICATIONS

10



• Targeting

• Planning scales: Efficiency for whom?

• Managing water and water-related energy jointly is a way to reduce significantly greenhouse emissions in California

TAKE HOME MESSAGES

11

• Stimulate customers to save water adding the water-related energy costs.

• Consideration of heterogeneity and variability is essential to define policies.




THANK YOU!!!


ALVAR ESCRIVA-BOU [email protected]

@alesbou


Science

Modeling residential water, energy, GHG emissions and cost in California. IWater, Energy and Climate Conference, Mexico City, May 23rd, 2014