Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

Carbon, Carbon Everywhere But What About the Water?

By Tom Rooney, SPG Solar
January 11, 2010   |   21 Comments

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

21 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 21
January 11, 2010
great article on the energy water nexis. best i've ever seen.
Comment
2 of 21
January 11, 2010
Thanks for the good article. Water supply is a local rather than global resource. Water use in the western USA is very different from the east. It is basically true that "New Jersey said they had all the water they could ever want and so they did not have to worry about my so called water and energy connection." How about the clean water-energy connection? I bet they spend some money on that.
New York City is not very excited about natural gas drilling in the upstate aquifer. They are sure of one aspect of the water-energy connection. It takes a lot of energy to clean water to a potable condition. Then we drink and consume 3% of that clean water and urinate into the other 97%, treat it again, and dump it back into a convenient river. The gas royalties will not cover the the cost of treating NYC water back to todays standards. NYC officials can not prove that natural gas drilling will harm the aquifer; gas drillers can not prove they will not contaminate the aquifer. Who should prevail?
In Washington State about 60% of our electricity comes from hydropower, mostly from the huge Columbia River(75-225kcfs flow) yet we have major battles over who gets to use the water? It takes about 3 acre-feet(@130000 cubic feet) of irrigation water to produce one acre of alfalfa or other crops in the desert. The same volume held behind Grand Coulee Dam will produce @ 3 MegaWatt-Hours if it passes through the downstream turbines at all dams before dumping into the Pacific ocean. It could alternatively provide partial flow to the fish bypass structures which use 5-15 acre-feet per hour, but only if it is left in the river.
Even here in the desert, water is essentially free. I pay about $100/acre/year for all the water I need. This covers delivery cost but returns nothing directly to the public owners of that water. I can gross $1000/acre with water and 0$/acre without water. Thanks for the gift, fellow citizens.
No image available
Comment
3 of 21
Anonymous
January 12, 2010
The author writes: "Except for wind and photovoltaic solar found on rooftops, most power plants big or small do one basic thing: They boil water."

This is yet another example of where an editor would be valuable. Some other electricity generation schemes that don't boil water include hydroelectric power, open cycle natural gas (the second part of the more efficient, but less responsive, combined cycle approach involves boiling water), tidal power, and wave power generators.
Steven
Comment
4 of 21
January 13, 2010
Decentralized solar energy might be the solution to many of our problems. Mr. Tom Rooney has brilliantly discribed the often-neglected water aspect of energy. He mentioned wind and solar photovoltaic as the only two sources of energy that can be harnessed without consumption of water. I might add other renewable energy sources such as wave, tide and other oceanic sources and even hydroelectric. But decentralization of power sources would be necessary in an efficient economy. Local empowerment would be consistent with the information revolution we are going through. In the "Advent of the Solar Era", I described in the last comment, communion with the sun might be the way for solving all our problems including energy, food and health.

Dr. N. N. Panicker
tatsat@vsnl.com
Comment
5 of 21
January 13, 2010
Great article but yes, shame for forgetting ocean wave and current power plants that turn the energy/water connection into a positive by simply removing kinetic energy and letting the water continue on its merry way.

There are two more troubling parts to this story beyond the water-consumption statistics. First, the use of water evaporation as the cooling part of the power-plant thermodynamic cycle is unnecessary and done for expedience. Can you imagine if we traded in our car radiators for a cooling tower on the hood? Much of this water consumption could be done with closed-loop systems, though the costs would be considered unacceptable by the gleefully externalizing fossil-fuel crowd.

Which leads to the other troubling piece, which is the fact that all the heat these power plants need to shed is wasted energy. It typically represents well over half of the fuel energy consumed. One way or another, this waste heat is dumped into the atmosphere or the ocean, contributing handily to the GW problem.

Tom, I've tried, but I just don't get the "spent swimmer" analogy.
Comment
6 of 21
January 13, 2010
Thanks for the great information.."Water" needs to be part of the conversation
Comment
7 of 21
January 13, 2010
Excellent points. About 30 % of the energy is lost up the boiler stack,and another 30 % is lost to the cooling towers. The balance is electricity. A better way is gasification of fuel. In the case of biomass, or coal, the solid fuel is turned into a fuel gas which is burned in a turbine or IC engine. No heat loss to water boiling is involved. Engines can do up to 50 % efficiency today, so a small gasifier power plant of 1 MW etc can operate at 50 % efficiency, which double the best steam cycle biomass plant efficiency. Add localized heat recovery and you can operate at 95% efficiency, with no line losses or water use etc.The key is plant size, and location. These units are ideal for large building complexes, industiral facilites, prisons, universities, etc. Typically they need at least 1MW of elctricity and can use all the waste heat as part of a CHP system.
Comment
8 of 21
January 13, 2010
This article makes an important connection between water and electrical power generation at the generation stage, but there is another associated impact to water at the extractive energy development stage. As the easy fossil energy sources are depleted, we are finding ourselves going after more difficult, unconventional energy sources more and more. Current coal bed methane technology involves drilling, hydrolically fracturing and finally de-watering the coal seams. Water is impacted at every step of the way. Proposed oil shale development promises to have an even greater impact on water. The bottom line is that you can't drink oil and gas. We had better start documenting the true cost of fossil fuel based energy production from craddle to grave and then pass that cost on to the companies and ultimately the consumers. Renewable energy technologies suddenly look like quite a bargain.
Comment
9 of 21
Thanks for bringing this up - it is a regular component of my complaints about Big Solar in the deserts. Air cooling makes these plants hugely inefficient, so that combined with transmission losses, even if we ignore the dead ecosystems Big Solar creates, we are much better off using point of use solutions within the built environment (rooftop/urban brownfield PV, efficiency, conservation, etc.).

A second water waste created by Big Solar sited in our fragile desert ecosystems, including PV, is frequent mirror/panel rinsing required because the power plants themselves destroy the soil crust and create HUGE dust problems, which then destroy the abilities of the mirrors to reflect and the panels to absorb light. This will lead to daily mirror rinsing (so far, done from diesel trucks!) and billions of gallons of wasted water, most of it being drawn from wells, even though they are claiming they will use "grey water" from local towns. That is incredibly unlikely, considering most desert towns rely on septics, not centralized sewer systems.

In other words, Big Solar was always a bad idea and it continues to be a bad idea. It permanently and totally destroys 10 acres of land/rated MW (of which it produces only roughly 20-30%), and wastes billions of gallons of scarce desert water that all species (and people) rely on to live. We need to start fighting much harder for clean DEMOCRATICALLY OWNED power generation policies like loan programs, generous feed in tariffs, and removal of caps on production for our own homes and businesses, and stop wasting taxpayer land, taxpayer money and ratepayer money on more Chevron profits.
Comment
10 of 21
January 13, 2010
Excellent article, keep ringing those alarm bells Tom. Not nearly enough attention is paid to the water/energy synergy (really more of a negative feedback loop). In California alone, we could save vast amounts of energy (and related GHG emissions) by simply stopping pumping water hundreds of miles from NorCal to SoCal. This also would have a tremendously beneficial effect on the Delta ecosystem, which currently teeters on the brink of collapse.
Comment
11 of 21
January 13, 2010
good one stop killin I like deserts to. Acres and acres of roofs not being put to work and adding to a cities heat sink. At least the water used in thermal is condensed and recycled as opposed to the polluted tailing ponds of the Alberta oil sands
Comment
12 of 21
January 14, 2010
Well done Tom. You are perfectly justified in showing your concern for the water that is being used to produce energy. The most probable reason that no one bothers about the water till date is due to simple reasons that water is still easily available but is getting scarce day by day. The world will wake up only when the scaricity of water will start pinching not only economically but due to shortage as is the case with energy today.
There are ways to minimize the use of water for producing electricity even in presently used methods by producing more water using the energy that is wasted during the normal process producing electricity as well as fossil fuels. It is high time we should start working on these lines so that we don't have to face the situations as we are acing in the case of energy.
A begining has been made in India and some companies as well as government departments have started working on these line for the better future of energy as well as water, the most talked about commodities in the world today.
Comment
13 of 21
January 14, 2010
To stop-killing-our-wilderness and others,

What do you suggest happen when a coal-fired power plant is completing its lifespan? Big Solar is a technology that can compete with power demands on a scale that rooftop solar panels cannot. Storage from Big Solar has baseload generation potential.

Large sections of the desert are being consumed for PV farms as well.
Comment
14 of 21
January 14, 2010
Nice article,almost there. See the movie,'BLUE GOLD' by Purple Turtle Productions available from NPR. Most USA clean water is owned by foreign cartels. There only concern is $$$$. I proposed a concept for a National Water Works to a US Senator and he did not even acknowledge my letter. I now surmise that our politicians ARE THE PROBLEM because they invest money with these special interest groups. Without energy you have no water, without water there is no need for energy. Alternative, FUEL LESS, energy is required for water desalination.The water costs are virtually free (minus operating and maintenance costs) . In the USA we build desalination plants that are fossil fuel intensive raising the water production costs by 40% TO 60%. USA is behind countries like Spain and Algeria in desal technology. Tampa,Florida had to hire $11million of Spanish Engineering to get their $158 million plant( 25 million gallons/day(mgd))operational. Algeria's motto is make water and economy will come. What we need in alternative energy is a new model and new thinking that will gain the interests of the Robber Barons whose only focus is $$$. Plus, desal water will return investment in a very short time.At $3.00/thousand gallons , a 25 MGD plant would return approximately $27 million per year. We need to ramp up to a trillion gallons per year if we are to survive as a nation.
Comment
15 of 21
January 15, 2010
if you want to read a cool article, check out this guys entry in the renewable energy project of the year contest...very nice. verynice. solar panels that float on water ....
Comment
16 of 21
January 16, 2010
good you tube on it as well ..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLTNSKdmRS0
Comment
17 of 21
January 17, 2010
Thanks for shedding light on this complex problem. As an aside to stop-killin-our-wilderness regarding "Big Solar" - Concentrating Solar Power and solar thermal plants heat a fluid to spin a turbine and that can evaporate a lot of water quickly if it is not captured and recycled. However, traditional crystalline or thin film PV panels use no water, and a well planned farm can use the shade generated by the panels to distribute/redirect rainwater and encourage the growth of mosses, lichen and other species that need more shade than is available in the desert. If you properly compact the land around the panels and throw down a few nutrients and spores, you can give a foothold to grasses, even mushrooms. In return, the plants absorb reflective light and heat, thereby cooling the panels and making them more efficient come summer. In the arrays I've worked on, we had a permaculturist who examined the soil and hydrology to recommend a sustainable native plant mix that would cool the panels

Some "Big Solar" concentrating plants planned for the Mojave desert have been denied permits due to stress on the water table, so people in CA, UT and NV are aware of the problem. There are long-term design issues with ANYTHING of the scale required to provide power to an entire town or state and most firms will do the responsible thing to design around them if possible. Would you rather have a coal or gas plant go up in the desert? We need to keep investing in wind, tidal and solar technologies that consume no water during production, and using these methods to power desalination plants as well. In the long run, hydrogen fuel cells, whose products are ENERGY and WATER, may make the matter moot in 30 years when we can create water with the same amount of energy that we get in catalytic reaction.
Comment
18 of 21
January 18, 2010
Also see the Jan/Feb issue of Solar Today:
http://www.solartoday-digital.org/solartoday/20100102#pg24
"Water vs Energy: How Solar Power Can Help" by Carey King and Michael Webber. Webber wrote a good long article on this issue for Scientific American a couple of years ago.
Worth noting: a dry-cooling concentrating solar plant can produce power at about 100 gallons per megawatt-hour (that's 0.1 gal per kwh).
Comment
19 of 21
January 19, 2010
@stop-killin-our-wilderness,

As always, a very good comment, but I still wish you wouldn't be so quick to lump photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal plants into the "Big Solar" bucket as soon as the plants exceed a certain size (which you never specify, by the way -- what is a "big" PV-plant on your scale?). PV plants don't destroy soil crust. The experience in Germany (which I'm aware has no deserts) is that on brownfield sites where *nothing* was growing, the installation of a fixed-tilted PV array actually rehabilitates the soil. The ground is not sealed (just aluminum or steel posts rammed in to the ground and easily removed at the end of the system life) so it still takes in rainfall, airflow, and ambient warmth. The area still gets sunlight (between the rows of panels) but also shade throughout the day, allowing the local plants to germenate and get a foothold. In addition, local critters tend to take shelter under the modules from time to time, bringing seeds and droppings (aka fertilizer). This works so well that customers must be reminded to include grass cutting (to avoid shading the modules) into their maintenance costs no matter how the soil looked and acted prior to the project.

So no, PV doesn't kill the soil and doesn't need washing more than say once a week. The reason PV is seen as using lots of water in desert installations is that crystalline modules (the best known type of PV-module) likes sunlight but not heat. Put that kind of module in the desert and it loses up to 25% of it's production ability. The water often streaming over those modules is meant to cool them and keep them in their optimal production range. On the other hand, there are thin-film modules that produce *more* power where it's bright AND hot. These might be OK in non-natural desert (i.e. unwanted desertification) that is also close to existing transmission infrastructure. But the ideal place for big PV is still big roofs. No shortage of those around.
Comment
20 of 21
January 21, 2010
Nice article. With regard to carbon being similar to water, last year at PNNL we decided to treat it as such for our ongoing analyses of buildings energy efficiency. We now quantify generation plant water withdrawal and consumption, along with carbon, SOx, NOx, etc., as external impacts avoided by buildings energy efficiency activities. Our conclusion in a recent analysis was that by 2030, energy efficiency activities undertaken by DOE's Building Technologies Program will avoid a volume of water consumption that would otherwise require the expenditure of nearly $1 billion to avoid through other means (such as low-flow toilets, Energy Star clothes washers, etc.).

I also think the incandescent lamp example is a good one. On a related note, I recently looked at the water savings provided by CFLs, in comparison to that provided by low-flow toilets and Energy Star clothes washers. On a savings per dollar of equipment cost basis, the CFLs do not fare too badly in comparison, despite saving water only indirectly (i.e. at the power plant). More detail can be seen at:
https://blog.pnl.gov/StructuredThinking/index.php/2009/12/save-water-cfl/
Comment
21 of 21
January 22, 2010
An area that confused/concerned me in this piece is the data provided in the below excerpt. The author states that coal and oil plants need about a gallon or two per kWh. If that's the case, then what type of plant and cooling technology is being used in South Dakota that could possibly involve consumption of 72 gallons/kWh? These numbers generally don't match up with what I've seen or used. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the sources. The value of 72 gal./kWh particularly curious, even for withdrawal, let alone consumption. Consumption numbers for power plant cooling should all be under 1 gal/kWh, regardless of generation or cooling technology used. Hmmm, but perhaps these numbers include water used in extracting the fuels, as well in the cooling of power plants?

Excerpt:
Different types of power plants require different amounts of water. The Department of Energy says coal and oil plants need about a gallon or two per kilowatt-hour (kWh). Hydro plants in the Northwest, for example, need 18 gallons for the same amount of energy. Power plants in Arizona use 7 gallons per kWh. In South Dakota, the Department of Energy says the average is 72 gallons of water per kWh. In California, its 4.5 gallons of water per kWh.

These numbers are all about water that is consumed — not just withdrawn. In California, 49 percent of all the water withdrawn in the state is used for energy.
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Advertise With Us

POWER-GEN Africa OTTI - Ostbayerisches Techn. Transfer Institute AltaTerra Research Richardson RFPD, Inc. AllEarth Renewables Upsolar Nextek Power Systems, Inc.
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters