iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Renewable Energy Water Use May Be Higher Than Conventional Methods

First Posted: 03/15/2012 8:32 am Updated: 05/15/2012 5:12 am


(Gerard Wynn is a Reuters market analyst. The views expressed are his own.)

By Gerard Wynn

LONDON, March 15 (Reuters) - Countries struggling to plot a greener energy mix face the extra headache of water scarcity from drought, squeezing their options as they look to cut carbon emissions and source locally.

Energy choices are still wide open, from hydrogen to wind power and clean coal, in electricity generation and road transport.

Yet accounting for water, to allow for climate change and concerns that energy demand compounds water scarcity, forces tradeoffs.

For example, policymakers seeking more secure supplies of liquid transport fuels find that both tar sands and biofuels use more water than conventional gasoline - estimates put corn ethanol at 100 or 1,000 times more.

And in a tradeoff with cutting carbon emissions, the unproven technology of carbon capture and storage could cut CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants by 90 percent, but increase water consumption by the same amount.

Low-carbon geothermal and hydro power can both use far more water than fossil fuels. The exceptions are wind and solar power, which tick all the boxes (local, low carbon and low water).

Meanwhile shale gas can use more freshwater from underground supplies than conventional oil and gas, posing a limit on growth and a risk for groundwater contamination.

Water is a growing concern because most of the rise in energy demand will be in developing countries, notably in Africa which already faces stiff challenges including competition with irrigation for farming and access to safe drinking water.

Meanwhile increasingly erratic rainfall is one of the main climate change impacts already observed, from the Mediterranean to the Indian monsoon, alongside higher temperatures and more frequent heat waves.



ENERGY SOURCE

Water is used for resource extraction (oil, gas, coal, biomass), energy conversion (refining and processing) and power generation.

In primary energy extraction and refining academics agree that biofuels consume by far the most water, roughly followed in descending order by tar sands, conventional crude oil, coal, uranium and natural gas.

Biofuels are especially thirsty, depending on the level of irrigation, because of the water used to grow farm crops such as corn and then refine these into ethanol.

Water scarcity has been a theme at the major World Water Forum in Marseille this week, where the U.N.'s World Water Development Report cited research that biofuels require up to 1,000 times more water than gasoline, per kilometre.

A Harvard University study reported corn ethanol as one to two orders of magnitude (10 to 100 times) more thirsty than alternatives.

Meanwhile, shale gas appears to be in the same range as conventional gas, but poses a threat as exploitation grows.

A report prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy in 2010 ("Water Management Technologies Used by Marcellus Shale Gas Producers") found an average U.S. well used 2.2 million gallons of freshwater, and concluded that for the vast Marcellus field in the east of the country: "If the number of new shale gas wells continues to rise rapidly, water supplies could become a barrier".


POWER

Electricity generation also compounds water use, for example in cooling to remove waste heat and to generate steam to drive a turbine.

A Global Environment Facility report, also published this week, estimated that an average, 1 gigawatt thermal power plant (burning fossil fuels or using nuclear power generation) used the equivalent of 25 Olympic-sized swimming pools a day.

But there are differences: in particular the experimental technology carbon capture and storage (CCS), meant to all but eliminate CO2 emissions from fossil fuel power plants, increases water consumption by 50-90 percent, according to a study by the World Energy Council (WEC).

That's because of cooling in the CO2 capture process itself and because extra energy is needed to run the plant.

After CCS and hydro power (potentially a massive water consumer through evaporation), in descending order come nuclear power and then traditional coal power, advanced coal, gas, solar and wind power, according to the WEC study.

Consumption is an equal concern in developed countries: the east of England was recently declared in drought, an expected climate trend which led the ratings agency Standard and Poor's to warn of higher costs to water and power companies.

Britain's Environment Agency says the electricity generation sector is the second biggest abstracter after public water.


LESSONS

The key concern is that emerging sources of energy worldwide, from tar sands to biofuels and CCS technology, are more water-intensive than traditional fuels, while curbing water use may conflict with cutting carbon.

The U.N. report this week made recommendations including:

1. Improve water data (water consumption estimates for shale gas and tar sands, massive emerging resources, are sometimes contradictory)

2. Integrate water and energy plans and policy, given that mutual dependence can reinforce demand: water is needed to produce energy, and energy to extract water

3. Support fuels which are local, low-carbon and low-water

4. Use reclaimed water (from industry or waste) for energy production wherever possible

5. Invest in water and energy conservation and efficiency (Reporting by Gerard Wynn; editing by Jason Neely)

Also on HuffPost:

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Filed by Jessica Leader  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 45
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
03:25 AM on 03/26/2012
bunch a propaganda
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:53 PM on 03/25/2012
Only wastes should be used for fuels and we have plenty of waste we spend money dumping.

Waste bio char bio fuels are land, carbon and water negative.

WASTE bio fuels are the clean backup for solar and wind.

no sulfur, mercury, radiation and heavy metals, but able to power our aircraft, trucks, and existing fossil generators.

It's not really wide open anymore. Only a very small set of green tech address all the energy concerns:

rooftop pv solar, offshore wind and underwater turbines, efficiency and waste bio char bio fuels.

24/7 forever, carbon land and water negative and already cheaper than nukes, war for oil, of the environmental damage caused by coal and fracking.
El Justiciero
HP mods have NO sense of humor, obviously
02:50 PM on 03/25/2012
growing micro-algae for biofuels, you can use waste water and CO-2 from neighboring industries.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
04:22 PM on 03/20/2012
Why the anti renewable energy headline?

Would you say: Non-renewable energy includes trillion dollar cancerous disaster, and million year wastes?

No,

You would say Nuclear power does.

Big solar thermal uses a lot of water.

It's not the best idea.

Rooftop pv solar using nearly zero water and it's a much better idea.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
vetxcl
04:56 PM on 03/20/2012
Solar Thermal does use more water than solar alone. And so what. It's part of the process. However, it doesn't need to release it nor does it need to scan it for radiation, nor does it need to remove radioactive particles from it, as you likely already know.
If you recognise some basic physical principles, then you also know that matter isn't lost, just changed to another state. Solar thermal does not pollute, whereas nuke e. does.
The saying, all roads lead to Rome, is apt. There are many sustainable E. solutions and naturally some involve more resources than others. Solar thermal has the advantage of energy storage. There is a newer method , using hot salt to store energy. An abundant resource in the US. Also solar thermal does not require the use of potable water. The contention , introduced by the article, is not as relevant as it's presented to be. (Oh no!!! All our water is being taken from us!!) Newer solar panels can and do operate at night. See also; thin film solar, for starter. There's also promising research on window adaptations that can be directly connected to existing power lines , when home or business use E. production is exceeded.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
01:58 PM on 03/21/2012
Sure solar thermal is better than nukes or coal, but water use is a huge and growing problem in the world.

Nighttime storage is really a red herring if you have waste bio fuels for backup, which we need anyway.

Daytime summer peak loads correspond to unstored pv solar.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/blog/post/2011/02/busting-4-myths-about-solar-pv-vs-concentrating-solar-power

http://solar.ehclients.com/images/uploads/industrial_solars_greenhouse_gas_burden.pdf

http://solar.ehclients.com/images/uploads/dist_solar_pv_centerpiece_of_us_solar_policy.pdf
06:24 AM on 03/20/2012
How about a renewable energy source that also CREATES clean water? Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion is here and it's doing just that. OTEC produces base-load, emission free power from the temperature difference in shallow and deep water, and the only byproduct of the system is clean drinking water. Lots more info and the places that are building it today at The On Project.

http://www.theonproject.org/?utm_source=huffpost&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=mscomment
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
11:55 PM on 03/18/2012
Yes, of course, Big Solar and Big Wind are bad. Local, de-centralized solar and wind, affixed to buildings and houses, are the only real way to go. Inseparable, of course, from massive conservation efforts, and other de-centralized items like underground heat pumps.
professor
Correkt the Spelling and Pick on the Moniker
11:52 PM on 03/18/2012
I like how it calls all this dsgusting stuff "alternative fuels."
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
06:03 PM on 03/18/2012
WASTE bio fuels use the least water.

ONLY WASTES should be used for bio fuels.

There is plenty of wastes we now dump, that must be used for energy and fuels to backup solar and wind.

Corn ethanol is a terrible idea and all non waste based bio fuels are as well.

Waste bio char bio fuels and energy are massively carbon negative if you bury the char and use it as fertilizer.

WASTE bio fuels are land negative too, no dumps!

http://www.splainex.com/waste_recycling.htm

http://www.biochar-international.org/technology/production

http://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Renewable-Energy/Revolutionary-New-Process-Turns-Biomass-Waste-into-Fuel-Oil.html

http://www.plancanada.com/biochar_basics.pdf
2$ per watt bio char energy plant. 150 Gt/y waste bio mass, 100 GW electricity

http://buildaroo.com/news/article/biofuel-from-human-waste-project-england/ 15% energy needs!
http://www.biochar-international.org/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/11/biochar-could-offset-12-o_n_678489.html
http://www.treehugger.com/clean-technology/biochar-alone-could-offset-12-of-all-human-greenhouse-gas-emissions-study.html
even better if this is true: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/29/plants-gobbling-up-co2-45-more-than-thought/
instead of 120 petagrams of carbon, the annual global vegetation uptake probably lies between 150 and 175 petagrams of carbon. 

http://energy.aol.com/2011/12/28/biomass-facility-at-savannah-river-set-to-save-doe-nearly-1-bil/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WhatDaBleep
Right is Wrong and Left is Correct
08:30 AM on 03/17/2012
Time to start building water de-salination plants all over the world!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
01:24 AM on 03/17/2012
"Low-carbon geothermal and hydro power can both use far more water than fossil fuels. The exceptions are wind and solar power, which tick all the boxes (local, low carbon and low water)."

AAAS seems to think solar is much worse.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/329/5993/786
"The energy problem is also a water problem. Electricity from solar thermal technologies uses 68% more water than electricity from coal. Use power from biomass crops and you'll also use hundreds of liters of water to grow the fuel."

I wonder if solar can use ocean water to spin the steam turbines.
photo
gallon
Those who fail to remember history are, um
12:28 PM on 03/17/2012
This is deliberately misleading by omission.

Solar cells use zero water. Grappler is referring to solar heated turbines, which should use no more water than any other turbine.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
03:00 PM on 03/17/2012
Your statement appears to be made up.

AAAS is probably focused on solar thermal because that is largely (by far) what we are building in the US. And AAAS is correct. Solar plants use way more gallons of water per MWh than coal plants.
Genders
Love, Tolerance, Enlightenment
09:48 PM on 03/18/2012
Solar thermal, not PV. FAIL.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
grappler1987
Heaven is a gift, not a reward
10:31 PM on 03/18/2012
Funny, you think AAAS failed. Might you be a science denier?
11:21 PM on 03/16/2012
As the article states, there are 'tradeoffs' as to the amout of water consumed by nearly every process and technology of producing energy. What needs to be done is to have these engineers with their engineering degrees use some of the grey matter between their ears to calculate the absolute 'ideal' efficiencies of each technology and then calculate what losses can be expected.

When factoring in the amount of dust accumulating on mirrors versus the type of technology and labor and costs involved if the mirrors were cleaned less frequently or cleaned by different methods.

Could we microbially digest corn or other grains and get more energy in the form of gaseous methane than we can by fermenting and distillation into a water based alcohol ? Could we use waste water ? What cost efficiencies would be realized by using solar heat for the distillation processes ? Can heat be recovered and used to aid in the processes ?

We must think of the energy we consume and we must think of it as 'heat energy'. The real problem we face is how efficiently we can tranform this "heat energy' into usable energy. As an example a typical internal combustion car engine is only 20% efficient and the typical steam power plant used by coal or nuclear power plants is only about 33% efficient. In other words 'two thirds of the heat energy of a nuclear power plant is wasted or lost due to conversion efficiencies.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:14 PM on 03/16/2012
Totally inaccurate as to solar other than rooftop solar.

Each wilderness-sited water-cooled CSP plant uses billions of gallons of water a year (tens of millions just for mirror rinsing), and completely destroys the ecosystem and all surrounding ecosystems. Don't take my word for it, read the permitting applications - it's thermo-electric power production in the hottest area of the country, which means way MORE water to cool the fluid. When air-cooled, capacity factor drops so far below rooftop solar, it becomes ridiculous to pursue (not that they aren't still handing Chevron and BP and Goldman Sachs tens of billions of taxpayer dollars to pursue it, because they are).

Big PV is nearly as bad because it causes so much erosion and blowing sand that the panels are always filthy (and can't produce power when dirty) and need to be washed constantly. We don't have those issues with local solar in the built environment.

All solar is NOT created equal - much of it is as bad as what it claims to replace (which is only gas and hydro and IS NEVER COAL). Local solar in the built environment is fantastic, desert solar is awful.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldwolf49
Religion is a tool of the evil.
01:33 AM on 03/16/2012
It is, so lets use the water.....
09:21 PM on 03/15/2012
Hydrogen
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
oldwolf49
Religion is a tool of the evil.
01:33 AM on 03/16/2012
Bingo
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
03:03 AM on 03/16/2012
Made with what? Dirty coal fired electricity. Didn't think it through did ya?

Oh wait, you're gonna use solar, wind, and unicorn farts to make hydrogen, right....
10:39 AM on 03/16/2012
Take a look here

http://news.cnet.com/posts/?keyword=Fuel+Cell+Energy

There are many ways to generate hydrogen that don't use fossil fuels. Solar, wind, and water will work for the grid and hydrogen will be our transport fuel. You can kick and scream all you want but the change is already under way. In fifty years or less our energy platform will have changed completely. Technology moves on regardless of our political and religious positions. To believe that we cannot overcome the technical hurdles that will lead us to a sustainable future is to ignore our history of overcoming such technical barriers. Somehow 747's fly, nuclear submarines prowl under the seas for months at a time, we address each other via satellite on our computers and we have devices in our pockets that can access more information than was dreamed of by the librarians of Alexandria. So relax, north of 60, and enjoy the passing parade. The future is already on the march.
07:58 PM on 03/15/2012
One of the few options to control the depletion of resources is to curb breeding, especially in this country. We may not have the highest population, but we are by far the major consumers of these resources. The only options to keep from becoming endangered species ourselves is to throw everything we have at wind, solar, geothermal and ocean RIGHT NOW! 100 years of 0 population growth (at least) is vital too. And finally, we need to stop dumping a bunch of petroleum based fertilizers on our crops, these eutrification zones in our fisheries are not worth it...I'm looking at you Big Agriculture! Bugs and weeds are beating your attempts to control them, and you can't chemist your way out of it without killing everything on the planet. We will not survive if profitability beats out sustainability in the coming decades