The results of this investigation are to be treated with reserve as the writers have, despite fig 1, failed to fully understand the components of NRW. It fails to include water that has been billed but payment not received which, even in the developed nations usually exceeds 2%. Further, the 10% figure relates to 'leakage' which is only a component of NRW and hence not the same thing. Process losses appear to be ignored. To use the leakage figure as a target for NRW as a whole is simply unrealistic. 20% for NRW in total is probably much better than will ever be achieved.
Published by Peter Styles, Independent - Consultant (retired)
The results of this investigation are to be treated with reserve as the writers have, despite fig 1, failed to fully understand the components of NRW. It fails to include water that has been billed but payment not received which, even in the developed nations usually exceeds 2%. Further, the 10% figure relates to 'leakage' which is only a component of NRW and hence not the same thing. Process losses appear to be ignored. To use the leakage figure as a target for NRW as a whole is simply unrealistic. 20% for NRW in total is probably much better than will ever be achieved.
1 Comment
d with you, he need to specify the various types to water losses and NRW.
The figures of these various components if relatives accurate will be calculated to determined the percentages of Commercial Losses, Technical, and Administrative losses for decision to reduces the Water Loss and NRW.
Published by Awolowo Jones