scholarly journals Calculating constant-reliability water supply unit costs

Water Policy ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary Wolff
Keyword(s):  
Surface Water ◽  
Water Supply ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Financial Analysis ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Demand Management ◽  
Unit Cost ◽  
Decision Criterion ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
Reliability Characteristics

Water planners facing a choice between water “supply” options (including conservation) customarily use the average unit cost of each option as a decision criterion. This approach is misleading and potentially costly when comparing options with very different reliability characteristics. For example, surface water, desalinated seawater or recycled wastewater and some outdoor demand management programs have very different yield patterns. This paper presents a method for calculating constant-reliability unit costs that adapts some concepts and mathematics from financial portfolio theory. Comparison on a constant-reliability basis can significantly change the relative attractiveness of options. In particular, surface water, usually a low cost option, is more expensive after its variability has been accounted for. Further, options that are uncorrelated or inversely correlated with existing supply sources—such as outdoor water conservation—will be more attractive than they initially appear. This insight, which implies options should be evaluated and chosen as packages rather than individually, opens up a new dimension of yield and financial analysis for water planners.

R&D INVESTMENTS AS PREBARGAINING STRATEGIES

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (03) ◽  
pp. 1450003 ◽  
Author(s):  
WILFRIED PAUWELS ◽  
PETER M. KORT ◽  
EVE VANHAECHT
Keyword(s):  
Nash Equilibrium ◽  
Low Cost ◽  
Unit Cost ◽  
The Other ◽  
Nash Bargaining ◽  
Unit Costs ◽  
Bargaining Outcome ◽  
Nash Bargaining Game ◽  
Output Market ◽  
The Difference

This paper analyzes a semicollusive, differentiated duopoly. Firms first compete in cost reducing R&D and then cooperate on the output market. The sharing of the joint profit on the output market is modeled as a Nash bargaining game. We study an asymmetric setting in which one firm has a lower unit cost of production than the other firm, before any R&D expenditures. If firms do not agree on how to share their joint profit, they play a noncooperative Nash equilibrium. Assuming linear demand functions, we show that the Nash bargaining outcome is independent of whether firms play a Cournot or a Bertrand Nash equilibrium, as long as both firms supply positive outputs in these equilibria. If the two products are sufficiently differentiated, there is a unique equilibrium in which both firms supply a positive output, and in which the low cost firm always invests more in R&D than the high cost firm. If the two products are not very differentiated, and if the difference in unit costs between the two firms is not too large, there exist two equilibria. In each of these equilibria only one firm supplies a positive output. This can be the low cost or the high cost firm. In the latter case, the initially high cost firm invests so much in R&D that its unit cost after R&D is lower than that of the other firm. This firm then leapfrogs the other firm. If the two products are very similar and if firms apply Bertrand strategies when disagreeing, there exist equilibria in which only one firm supplies a positive output, while in the noncooperative Nash equilibrium that same firm can prevent the other firm from entering the market. We show that, in the context of the Nash bargaining model, this latter firm still has the power to claim a share of the joint profit.

Designing cost effective water demand management programs in Australia

2002 ◽  
Vol 46 (6-7) ◽  
pp. 225-232 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.B. White ◽  
S.A. Fane
Keyword(s):  
Water Conservation ◽  
Traditional Approach ◽  
Demand Management ◽  
Unit Cost ◽  
Demand Forecasting ◽  
Cost Effective ◽  
Resource Planning ◽  
Conservation Strategies ◽  
Recent Experience ◽  
End Use

This paper describes recent experience with integrated resource planning (IRP) and the application of least cost planning (LCP) for the evaluation of demand management strategies in urban water. Two Australian case studies, Sydney and Northern New South Wales (NSW) are used in illustration. LCP can determine the most cost effective means of providing water services or alternatively the cheapest forms of water conservation. LCP contrasts to a traditional approach of evaluation which looks only at means of increasing supply. Detailed investigation of water usage, known as end-use analysis, is required for LCP. End-use analysis allows both rigorous demand forecasting, and the development and evaluation of conservation strategies. Strategies include education campaigns, increasing water use efficiency and promoting wastewater reuse or rainwater tanks. The optimal mix of conservation strategies and conventional capacity expansion is identified based on levelised unit cost. IRP uses LCP in the iterative process, evaluating and assessing options, investing in selected options, measuring the results, and then re-evaluating options. Key to this process is the design of cost effective demand management programs. IRP however includes a range of parameters beyond least economic cost in the planning process and program designs, including uncertainty, benefit partitioning and implementation considerations.

Water and energy futures for Melbourne: implications of land use, water use, and water supply strategy

2013 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-175 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. J. Kenway ◽  
G. M. Turner ◽  
S. Cook ◽  
T. Baynes
Keyword(s):  
Water Supply ◽  
Water Conservation ◽  
Urban Form ◽  
Energy Demand ◽  
Energy Use ◽  
Demand Management ◽  
Hot Water ◽  
Urban Water ◽  
Energy Futures ◽  
Management Measures

This paper quantifies the effect of three policy levels on the water and energy futures of Melbourne, Australia. During a time of severe water shortages attributed to climate change, water strategies lacked consideration of energy consequences. Modeling, guided by urban metabolism theory, demonstrated that a compact urban form, reduced water consumption by 90 GL/a, compared with a sprawling city, and had greater water conservation impact than simulated demand management measures. Household water conservation, coupled with increased use of solar hot water systems, reduced grid energy use by some 30 PJ/a. Desalination, tripled water supply energy demand, growing to a total of 4.5 PJ/a, by 2045. While the increase is less than 1% of total Melbourne urban energy use, it contributes to a substantial increase in the energy bill for urban water provision. Importantly, the energy impact could be offset through demand management measures. Recommendations for the combined management of water and energy include improving energy characterization of the urban water cycle; impact-evaluation of regional plans; using total urban water and energy balances in analysis to provide context; and developing reporting mechanisms and indicators to help improve baseline data across the water and energy systems.

Global seasonal variability

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chloé Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Surface Water ◽  
Water Supply ◽  
Seasonal Variability

Seasonal variability measures variation in water supply between months of the year. Drought Flood Surface water

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document