***
Climate change is only going to make the water-energy balance more precarious.
Arid mid-latitude regions like the West are warming nearly twice as fast as the global average, according to the Rocky Mountain Climate Organization. As the West warms, residents will need more energy to cool living spaces and make desert cities like Tucson and Scottsdale inhabitable - and will likely have less water to make enough electricity to do that.
The collision of water, energy and climate change will reverberate through public policy decisions for decades to come, with unintended consequences at each step. Congress effectively encouraged a giant sucking sound from Midwestern aquifers and rivers by creating massive subsidies for corn ethanol. Concentrated solar projects, which have received "fast-track" authority from the Obama administration, may run into water problems before the first watts are generated. Citizen opposition to new coal-fired power plants in places like Nevada and Montana has focused as much on water concerns as greenhouse gas emissions.
Global climate models predict that arid regions of the world will become more arid as a result of rising greenhouse gas emissions. According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program's report, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, a one percent decrease in precipitation leads to a two to three percent drop in stream flow. Every percentage point that stream flows drop means a three percent decline in electricity generation. The report's conclusion is as obvious as it is ominous: "Water and energy are tightly interconnected."
Some energy sources, like rooftop photovoltaics and most wind power, are not water hogs, but experts say they are not likely to fill the nation's growing power needs by themselves. Conservation - both of water and of energy, are undeniably going to be part of any future plan, as are technological improvements in wastewater treatment and reclamation. "People are beginning to understand that if you save water, you save energy," says Sandia National Laboratory's Hightower.
They also need to also understand that if they save energy, they'll save water as well. Which, in the long run, may be an even more important thing to conserve.
Daniel Glick, a former Newsweek correspondent, is co-founder of the Story Group (http://thestorygroup.org/) with photographer Ted Wood. DailyClimate.org is a nonprofit news service covering climate change.
On the web:
Congressional Research Service report on water consumption (pdf)
California's 2009 Water Plan Update (pdf)
USGS report on water and energy (pdf)
Western Resource Advocates report on shale water rights in Colorado (pdf)
Peter Gleick, Meena Palaniappan PNAS paper
Rocky Mountain Climate Organization report (pdf)
US Global Change Research Program report
This article originally appeared at The Daily Climate, the climate change news source published by Environmental Health Sciences, a nonprofit media company.
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.