Water and energy are inextricably linked. Water is needed for energy production, and energy is needed for the extraction, conveyance, treatment, and distribution of water. Water requirements for electricity generation vary significantly, depending on the primary energy source, conversion technologies, and cooling technologies. Therefore, to meet future demands, integrated planning between both the energy and water sectors is essential. This analysis provides a tool that supports integrated planning by quantifying the water requirements for electricity generation from both renewable and non-renewable sources. Using California as a case study, we assessed the freshwater requirements for current and future electricity generation under several different energy portfolios. Our analysis demonstrated the potentially positive effects of investment in certain renewable resources such as solar photovoltaics, wind power, and waste-based bioenergy. Similarly, dry cooling technologies, if employed in thermoelectric power plants, can greatly diminish the electricity sector's impact on freshwater resources. Conversely, increased reliance on dedicated energy crops may have extraordinary impacts on freshwater resources. Thus, meeting a “renewable energy portfolio” goal or standard requires careful analysis of the freshwater implications of various primary energy sources and their associated conversion processes. A portfolio with reduced water use and carbon emissions could produce a number of environmental benefits. The corresponding increase in electricity costs may result in increasing energy efficiency, potentially with some trade-off with regards to consumer well-being. Converting California's coastal power plants from seawater-cooled to wet recirculating or dry cooled could actually result in a very minor increase in overall freshwater withdrawals. If reclaimed water is used for cooling these plants, this may actually reduce pressure for freshwater withdrawals overall. While the analysis focused on California, the trends are valid for freshwater limited or stressed regions around the world, and may serve to make better decisions when planning energy and water infrastructure.
AdamsMCMooreJBjornstadSMcCullochJ and BuckC. 2005. Fluid-Mineral Equilibria and Injection in EGS — Effect of Injecting Groundwater. Proceedings, Thirtieth Workshop on Geothermal Reservoir Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, Jan 31–Feb 2, 2005, SGP-TR-176. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://pangea.stanford.edu/ERE/pdf/IGAstandard/SGW/2005/adams.pdf.
2.
AWEA.2008. Wind Energy FAQ: How Much Water Do Wind Turbines Use Compared with Conventional Power Plants?American Wind Energy Association, Washington, DC2005, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.awea.org/faq/water.html.
3.
BaumE, and ChaissonJ. 2003. The last straw: Water use by power plants in the arid west. Clean Air Task Force, 18 Tremont Street, Suite 530, Boston, MA 02108, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.catf.us/publications/view/18.
4.
Berndes, 2002. Bioenergy and water – the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change12:253–271.
5.
BerndesGAzarCKabergerT and AbrahamsonD. 2001. The feasibility of large-scale lignocellulose-based bioenergy production. Biomass & Bioenergy, 20(5):371–383.
6.
CADOGGR. 2005. Geothermal Operations Annual Report. California Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, Sacramento, CA 95814–3530.
7.
California Energy Commission. 2005. 2005 Integrated Energy Policy Report; Commission Final Report, adopted November 21, 2005, Publication # CEC-100-2005-007-CMF. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005_energypolicy/index.html.
8.
California Energy Commission. 2007a. California power plants database. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA. Available online at http://www.energy.ca.gov/database/index.html.
9.
California Energy Commission. 2007b. Renewable portfolio standard. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/portfolio/index.html.
10.
ChanMDudaJForbesSRodostaTRvagnetti and McIlvriedH. 2006. Emerging issues for fossil energy and water: Investigation of water issues related to coal mining, coal to liquids, oil shale, and carbon capture and sequestration. US Dept. of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, DOE/NETL-2006/1233. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.netl.doe.gov/technologies/oil-gas/publications/AP/IssuesforFEandWater.pdf.
11.
ChaudhryS.2005. Utility strategies for shifting peak demand period water & energy use. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA.
12.
DennenBLarsonDLeeCLeeJTellinghuisenS. 2007. California's Energy-Water Nexus: Water Use in Electricity Generation. MESM Thesis, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management, University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, 93106, USA.
13.
EbertF and BüttnerH (1996). Recent investigations with nozzle scrubbers. Powder Technology86 (1996), pp. 31–36.
14.
EPRI. 2002a. Water & Sustainability (Volume 4): U.S. Electricity consumption for water supply & treatment – the next half century. TR 1006787. Electric Power Research Institute, 3420 Hillview Rd., Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA.
15.
EPRI. 2002b. Water & Sustainability (Volume 3): U.S. Water consumption for power production – the next half century. TR 1006786. Electric Power Research Institute, 3420 Hillview Rd., Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA.
16.
EPRI. 2002c. Comparison of alternate cooling technologies for California power plants: Economic, environmental, and other tradeoffs. Electric Power Research Institute, 3420 Hillview Rd., Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA.
17.
EvansRRoePJoyJ. 2003. Water Use and Sustainable Development in Coal Mining – A Case Study from Central Queensland. Proceedings of Minerals Council of Australia's Sustainable Development 03 Conference, held in Brisbane in November 2003. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.csrm.uq.edu.au/docs/MCA_SOTA.pdf.
FrippM and WiserR. 2006. Analyzing the Effects of Temporal Wind Patterns on the Value of Wind-Generated Electricity at Different Sites in California and the Northwest. Report LBNL-60152. Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley CA 94720, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/EMS/reports/60152.pdf.
21.
GleickPH. 1992. Environmental consequences of hydroelectric development – the role of facility size and type. Energy, 178, 735–747.
22.
GleickPH. 1993. Water in crisis: A guide to the world's fresh water resources. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN13: 9780195076288. pp 504.
23.
GleickPH. 1994. Water and energy. Annual Review of Energy and the Environment, 19, 267–299.
24.
HagedoornS.2006. Methodology for a sustainability analysis of geothermal power plants. MS thesis. Copernicus Institute, Dept. of Science, Technology and Society, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands, February 2006, 152 pp. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energyscience.uu.nl/documents/NWS-E-2006-13.pdf.
HoffmanAR2004. The connection: Energy and water security. Energy Security Journal, August 13, 2004. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.iags.org/archive.htm.
27.
HouseLW. 2006. Water Supply Related Electricity Demand in California. Contract No. 500-03-026. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CA_WaterSupply_Electricity.pdf.
KitzK.2002. Low-cost Separation of Contaminant-Rich Turbine and Condenser Condensate for Operating and Capital Cost Savings. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 269:769–774.
KnoxLA and MooreMC. 1990Geo East Mesa Geothermal Project Pumped, Double F'lash Technology. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 1411: 1029–1036
33.
KozubalE and KutscherC. 2003. Analysis of a Water-Cooled Condenser in Series with an Air-Cooled Condenser for a Proposed I-MW Geothermal Power Plant. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 2710: 587–591.
34.
LiuHNobleJSWuJ and ZunigaR. 1998. Economics of coal log pipeline for transporting coal. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 32(5):377–391 doi:10.1016/S0965-8564(97)00040-2
35.
LiuH.2002. Coal log fuel pipeline transportation system. U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Industrial Technologies, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Washington, DC 20585. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy00osti/26740.pdf.
36.
LofmanD.PetersenM., & BowerA.2002. Water, energy and environment nexus: The California experience. International Journal of Water Resources Development, 18(1):73–85.
37.
MaulbetschJS and DiFilippoMN. 2006. Cost and Value of Water Use at Combined Cycle Power Plants. Publication # CEC-500-2006-034. California Energy Commission, PIER Energy-Related Environmental Research, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/final_project_reports/CEC-500-2006-034.html.
38.
Meridian Corp.1989. Energy System Emissions and Materials Requirements. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, DC. pp. 23.
39.
MortensenKP. 1996. State of the Art Cooling Tower Technology in Geothermal Power Applications. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 20(Sep/Oct):771–780.
40.
Navigant Consulting.2006. Refining Estimates of Water-Related Energy Use in California. Publication CEC-500-2006-118. California Energy Commission, PIER Program Area: Industrial, Agricultural and Water End-Use Energy Efficiency Research, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2006publications/CEC-500-2006-118/CEC-500-2006-118.PDF.
41.
NielsenJInnisSPollockKaas LRhoads-WeaverH and ShutakA. 2002. Renewable Energy Atlas of the West: A Guide to Region's Resource Potential. The Land and Water Fund of the Rockies, 2260 Baseline Road, Suite 200 Boulder, Colorado 80302. ISBN 0-9721568-0-1.
42.
OttingerRLWooleyDRRobinsonNAHodasDRRabbSE. 1990. Environmental Costs of Electricity. Pace University Center for Environmental Legal Studies, Oceana Publications, Inc., White Plains, NY.
43.
PaganRJPrasadPda CostaDiniz JOVan BerkelR.. 2003. Cleaner production applications for coal utilization. Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.c4cs.curtin.edu.au/c4cs/c4cspublicationshome.htm.
44.
Porter, K. and Intermittency Analysis Project Team. 2007. Intermittency Analysis Project. 2007. Publication: CEC-500-2007-081. California Energy Commission, PIER Program Area: Renewable Energy Technologies Research, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-500-2007-081/CEC-500-2007-081.PDF.
45.
SassJ and PriestS. 2002. Geothermal California. Geothermal Resources Council Bulletin, September/October 2002:183–187. ISSN No. 0160–7782. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.geothermal.org/articles/California.pdf.
46.
SimonsGZhangZ and ReddingPT. 2002. Economic and Financial Aspects of Landfill Gas to Energy Project Development in California. Publication # 500-02-041V1. California Energy Commission, PIER Program Area: Renewable Energy Technologies Research, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.energy.ca.gov/reports/2002-09-09_500-02-041V1.PDF.
StarkMABoxWTJr.BeallJJGoyalKP and PingolAS. 2005. The Santa Rosa–Geysers Recharge Project, Geysers Geothermal Field, California. Geothermal Resources Council Transactions, 29:145–150.
49.
StoddardLAbiecunsaJ and O'ConnellR. 2006. Economic, energy, and environmental benefits of concentrating solar power in California. Subcontract Report NREL/SR-550-39291. U.S. Department of Energy, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Golden, CO, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.nrel.gov/csp/pdfs/39291.pdf.
50.
TraskM.2005. Water-energy relationship: In support of the 2005 integrated energy policy report. Publication # CEC-700-2005-011. California Energy Commission, Sacramento, CA, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.fypower.org/pdf/CEC_water-energy.pdf.
51.
USDOE2006. Geothermal technologies program. US Dept. of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/faqs.html.
52.
USDOE/EPRI.1997. Renewable energy technology characterizations. US Department of Energy and Electric Power Research Institute, EPRI Topical Report No.TR-109496, December.
VeilJA. 2007. Use of reclaimed water for power plant cooling. U.S. Department of Energy, Environmental Science Division. Report: ANL/EVS/R-07/3, DOI: 10.2172/919332. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.ipd.anl.gov/anlpubs/2007/10/59940.pdf
55.
WilkinsonRC. 2000. Methodology For Analysis of the Energy Intensity of California's Water Systems, and an Assessment of Multiple Potential Benefits Through Integrated Water-Energy Efficiency Measures. Exploratory Research Project, Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, California Institute for Energy Efficiency.
56.
ZiemkiewiczPDonovanJJDuffyBLeavittBRStilesJVandivortT. 2004. WRI 50: Strategies for Cooling Electric Generating Facilities Utilizing Mine Water: Technical and Economic Feasibility Project. DOE DE-FC26–03NT41908. U.S. Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA 15235, USA. Last retrieved on 01/09/2008 from http://www.osti.gov/bridge/servlets/purl/881251-kIdJ65/881251.PDF.
