ENERGY AND WATER: Power plants require cooling water and getting water where its needed requires power in the American West--highlighting the tight interconnection between energy and water.
Image: Elf/Wikimedia Commons
-
The Best Science Writing Online 2012
Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...
Read More »
California likes to think of itself as being ahead of the curve. So when the state set out to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, regulators did all the right things - stringent tailpipe standards for cars, tighter codes for buildings, higher renewable energy standards for utilities. Then they took one of the most aggressive energy-saving steps of all.
They started a campaign to save water.
The link between energy and water is not always apparent, but the two are as intertwined as the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in a bottle of Evian.
By now, everyone knows you save energy by turning out lights. And you conserve water by taking shorter showers. But it's just as true that saving water may be one of the most effective ways to save energy - and vice versa. "It's a 'buy one, get one free' deal," said Douglas Kenney, a professor at the University of Colorado Law School and the editor of an upcoming book that explores the nexus of water and energy.
In California today, just delivering water accounts for 20 percent of the state's energy consumption. It takes power to gather water, purify water, and distribute water, especially in places like southern California where water is piped hundreds of miles to supply Los Angeles' sprawling demands.
Nationally, energy production sucks more water from freshwater sources than any other sector except agriculture. It takes water to create the power we use to drive our cars, transport our groceries, and run our toaster ovens. Virtually every source of electricity in a typical American home or manufacturing plant - whether it comes from hydroelectricity, coal, natural gas, nuclear, biofuels, or even concentrated solar -- also requires water. Lots of water.
That's a growing problem, because in many places, finding water for energy isn't easy - and it's bound to get tougher as energy demands soar and climate change alters hydrological cycles in already arid regions. The energy sector is the fastest-growing water consumer in the United States, according to a January 2011 Congressional Research Service report.
Nationally, that's a challenge, but regionally it could be a calamity. As the Congressional Research report notes, "much of the growth in the energy sector's water demand is concentrated in regions with already intense competition over water."
***
The connection between energy and water - and the precariousness of that link in the western United States - is exemplified in a gigantic plug of concrete stopping the muddy Colorado River above Las Vegas, otherwise known as Hoover Dam. At the ceremony inaugurating the Depression-era public works project in 1935, then-Interior Secretary Harold Ickes noted proudly, "no better understanding of man cooperating with nature can be found anywhere."
Hoover Dam provided the two key ingredients - water and power - that freed the Southwest and southern California to go on a 75-year growth spurt. Lake Mead now supplies water to more than 22 million people, and it produces more than four billion kilowatts of electricity per year.
But Ickes likely never imagined how quickly man's cooperation with nature would disintegrate in the 21st century. In the American West, a burgeoning population created a double-whammy of surging power demands and dwindling freshwater supplies. The Colorado River, lifeblood of seven western states, is already as overdrawn as the federal treasury. Drought conditions during most of the 21st century have forced water managers to plan for a day when the region's vast system of dams and reservoirs no longer have enough water to store. Already, utilities have to scramble to respond on days when everybody in Phoenix, Las Vegas and Los Angeles wants to crank their air conditioners during the same heat wave.
Sustained drought and insatiable upstream water demand have drained Lake Mead to the point that experts are predicting it may soon be shallow enough to be in deep trouble. Despite near record snowfalls and runoff this year that raised its level from historic lows in January, Lake Mead is still 113 feet below "full pool" - and is filled to less than 50 percent of its capacity.
See what we're tweeting about
12 Comments
Add Comment"In California today, just delivering water accounts for 20 percent of the state's energy consumption."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCount me as skeptical of this claim. I'd like to see the numbers, but I'm guessing they're off by an order of magnitude or two.
Ok -- nice overview, but what's the point (except "use less water")? Why should people? They will not if water is not more expensive (reflecting scarcity, not just delivery cost).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and there are two errors: CA uses 19% of it's ELECTRICITY (not energy) to pump and treat water. Second, Lake Mead "serves 22 million" along with several other water sources.
Finally, you're citation of the Scripps Report (like most) fails to mention their assumption of "demand as usual." Demand can clearly fall (higher prices and/or markets), preventing their simulated disaster.
David at aguanomics (author, end of abundance)
* your (miss my edit mode...)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just another reason to cover every available rooftop with solar cells and develop wind power as much as possible. In the arid parts of the country, they should start imposing a surcharge on water usage so that its scarcity is better reflected in its cost. There's no reason to grow rice in the desert (I've seen it with my own eyes!) or cattle feed the way we do currently if the cost of water is adequately reflected. There's also no reason to waste kilowatt HOURS on inefficient lightbulbs, drafty buildings and electronics that consume too much power when not in use if we're looking at running out of water in some places in about 10 years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne would think the market-driven supply and demand argument would be a 'no brainer'. It's not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI live in a municipality of ~17,000 people. We rely on a watershed of 84 sq. mi. for 90% of our water supply. In addition to the municipal demand there are something like 18 acequias (rural irrigation associations) with senior water rights tapping the system.
Hugely convoluted water rights adjudication cases have gone as far as the US Supreme Court. Every time the city tries to relieve the strain on the surface water supply to accommodate the acequias, local ranchers dependent on ground water scream bloody murder because their wells run dry.
Every time the municipal politicians try to raise water rates to force conservation the citizens go ballistic and vote the offending pols out of office. The whole thing is a great, increasingly dusty, mess.
Who wins in the end? Who else -- lawyers and consultants...
The latest estimate to alleviate the municipal problem? $208 million. For a town of 17,000. Right.
"In California today, just delivering water accounts for 20 percent of the state's energy consumption"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBaloney. How about some actual 'science' from Scientific American. About 92% of the energy used in California is carbon based...most of that in transportation. Of the remaining 8%, 'perhaps' 20% is used delivering water.
That's 2.5% (not 20%) to deliver water...MAX!
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/CEC-700-2005-011/CEC-700-2005-011-SF.PDF
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"...water-related energy use consumes 19 percent of the state’s electricity, 30 percent of its natural gas, and 88 billion gallons of diesel fuel every year – and this demand is growing."
I don't know how much of the state's energy consumption "30% of its natural gas and 88 billion gallons of diesel" represents, but maybe 20% of total energy consumption is not inconceivable...
Please read the clarifications by davidzet and J Hubert. Wow, it's so cool when people actually go out and get facts before spouting off reactionary nonsense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishere are a couple official reports that confirm the quantity of electricity used to move (pumping water over the sierras uses tonnnns of electricity, you'd be ignorant to disagree. Try carrying a bucket of water up a hill if you still don't believe it) and treat water in California as reported in this article reports.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.nrdc.org/water/conservation/edrain/contents.asp
and,
http://www.energy.ca.gov/2007publications/CEC-999-2007-008/CEC-999-2007-008.PDF
“Grapples with climate change" what nonsense! World temperatures have not changed in the last 10 years and all the indications are that, due to a drop in sunspots, we're headed for a cooling period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a friend who is an expert in water supply and leads the Third World Centre for Water Management. He insists that the world is not short of water it's just that it manages it badly. Obviously, California manages it extremely badly. And instead of putting a value on water, it gets into all sorts of convoluted legal and environmental tangles.
And given that man made carbon dioxide can no longer be accused of causing dangerous global warming there is no need to squander billions of dollars on hugely expensive intermittent and ineffective new energy technologies like solar and wind.
The best way to conserve water is with reforestation. Water does not disappear in itself. How we control its use permits wiser distribution of it, especially in arid regions. Climate change, is also linked to global human population growth with its disproportionately growing appetite for cheap transportation. What kind of military superiority is useful if we ignore sunspots, planning, communication and cooperation among the less politically gullible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe statement that "Electric power generation accounts for nearly half of the nations water usage....21 gallons of water to produce 1 Kwhr of electricity...." does not pertain to hydroelectric power generation, specifically where the author was identifying Hoover Dam with the Lake Mead water supply. Water passes through a hydroelectric generating facility, generates electricity, and comes out water on the downstream side. There is no diminishment in the amount of water, nor is there any contamination of the downstream water. Therefore, hydroelectric generation is a win - win situation. You use a renewable resource (water) to generate electricity; you don't consume the water source; you generate electricity with zero emissions,; and you create a reservoir (Lake Mead) which supplies water to numerous states and cities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis was a poorly written article (as witnessed by numerous other comments) that mixed-up various forms of electrical generation with the overall claim that we are running out of water.