Monthly Archives: March 2013

Addressing energy-water challenges

The US’s energy infrastructure depends tremendously upon water supply. Unfortunately, the future of water supply is uncertain and most states expect water shortages over the next decade, as shown in Figure 315. Water supply issues have already prevented many new energy infrastructures from being developed; In 2005 a proposed coal-fired plan on Lake Michigan was abandoned because environmental groups protested potential effects of the facility’s cooling-water-intake structures on the lake’s aquatic life16 and in 2002 Idaho opposed two proposed power plants because of impact on local aquifer17. The 2001 drought in the Northwest significantly reduced hydroelectric power production, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs in the energy- intensive aluminum industry18.

FIGURE 3: Taken from the General Accounting Office’s website

Water resources must be balanced between the agriculture, industrial, and domestics sectors. With climate change increasing uncertainty in water supplies, we must find effective ways to address the US’s future water needs.

The current methods ofretrieving water require excessive amounts of energy. Water storage or the“conjunctive” use of groundwater and surface water requires a lot of energy to treat andinject water and then to pump it out when it is needed19. Desalination, the conversationof salt water into drinking water, has energy requirements similar to those oftransporting water long distances20. Sustainable alternatives such as tax credits forhigh-efficiency toilets, low-flow showerheads, and water-conserving washers must be implemented.

Currently the government provides subsidies for solar panels and other renewable energies, however there is no established credit system for water-conserving mechanisms. Reducing water consumption saves energy needed for water supply and treatment as well as for heating water and thus reduces the requirements for water for the energy sector21. In addition to coordinated energy-water conservation, the US needs to make water and energy resource planning a collaboration on a federal, regional, and state level as well as with industry and other stakeholders. Currently, energy planning and water planning are done separately22. This practice will not be sustainable as demands for both water and energy grow and supplies deplete. Both water and energy sources must be employed to their full potential. The lack of integrated energy and water planning and management has already negatively impacted energy production, leading to many rejected power plant proposals in the fastest growing regions of the country. Also, recent droughts and emerging limitations of water resources have many states, including Texas, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Tennessee, struggling to provide water for many other sectors, not including the energy sector23. Regional resource planning groups could ensure collaboration between stakeholders, water management, and energy planning. These groups are needed to ensure proper allocation of limited water resources for all needs, including energy development.

Building power plants next to water treatment facilities or more brackish water resources could mitigate some freshwater needs. Also, waste heat from plants could be used in desalination or water treatment cycles. Biogas from wastewater treatment plants could be used to generate power24. The technologies for some of these processes are currently costly and underdeveloped however in order to optimize long- term economic growth and energy and water sustainability we will need to implement new methods of energy and water production.

Conclusion

Now that the US is becoming increasingly aware of the strong connection between water and energy it must adapt its policies in a way that maximizes the efficiency of the production and consumption of both limited resources. Population trends reflect that both demand for energy and water will rise in the upcoming years. New sources of surface water have not been discovered in the last 20 years and most methods of fostering energy still require significant amounts of water25. To ensure that our nation will be able to continue its development and maintain its economic prestige action needs to be taken to address impending energy-water challenges. There are several policies that the United States could implement to mitigate the energy-water crisis. Three such policies are coordinated energy-water conservation, increased collaboration between energy planning companies and water planning companies, and a synergistic approach to energy and water production. A combination of all or any of these three strategies could help to enhance water security and sustainability as well as energy security and sustainability.

STRUGGLING WITH CITATIONS GRR.

I am doing my issue brief on the energy-water nexus and how you need one in order to foster the other. I think it may be a little bit boring and scientific, but hey  I guess that’s my future. I have written some of it. I still need to write how supplying energy requires water and an introduction and conclusion (that addresses how to go about energy-water production in the future…the policy portion). Here is what I already have, though.

Energy and water are two essential interdependent, resources

In today’s economy, energy sources and water sources are extensively intertwined. Energy generation activities impact the availability of water and the availability of water impacts energy availability2. Over the past couple years the importance and interdependence of these resources has become increasingly evident. Figure 1 below depicts many of the relations between water and energy. Low water levels in certain regions have limited these areas from harvesting energy. And the energy requirements for retrieving water have risen significantly as the water level in aquifers declines3. The implementation of many renewable sources of energy has been restricted by limited water supply4.

In 2009, Solar Millennium, a German developer, announced plans to build two large solar plants in Amargosa Valley, Nevada. The project would have harnessed energy as well as thousands of jobs in a struggling city. However, after the company announced that it planned on using 1.3 billion gallons of the desert area’s water a year, the area’s residents became divided. Some residents hoped to make money by selling water rights, while others were concerned about the project’s effects on the community and environment. After much dispute, the project was called off. The Amargosa Valley’s energy-water issue is just one of many cases where energy production has been restricted by water supply5.

Whether it is by offering

tax credits for high-efficiency toilets and therebyThe demand for energy is growing. The Energy Information Administration projects energy demand for electricity to increase by 53 percent by 2030. More specifically the EIA projects that the demand for petroleum will rise by 38 percent; coal, 54 percent; natural gas, 20 percent; and renewable energy, 58 percent6. Most regions across the United States already face water shortages, meaning their freshwater withdrawals exceed precipitation. By 2050, the number of people living under water scarcity is expected to reach 4 billion globally7. Given current trends in energy and water use efficiency our energy-water shortages will begin to hinder daily life.

Supplying water requires energy

Providing America’s water needs requires energy for supply, conveyance, treatment, and distribution. About 4 percent of US power generation is used for water supply and treatment and electricity represents 75 percent of the cost of water processing and distribution8. In general, energy usage for water supply is similar region to region. However, the water supply chain can vary in terms of energy requirements depending on water source. Supply and conveyance can be the most energy intensive portion of the water delivery cycle depending on water location. The deeper the ground water, the more energy required to retrieve it. Consequently, energy needs increase in areas

where aquifer levels are declining. Surface water requires little to no energy to retrieve. Logically, the farther the water has to be pumped from the original source, the more energy required for conveyance9.

In contrast to supply and conveyance, ground water requires minimal energy for treatment and distribution whereas surface water normally requires much more energy. Generally, older water requires more energy for treatment rather than relatively young water sources10. Interestingly, according to a study done by the California Energy Commission in 2005, energy consumption associated with the end use of water normally exceeds the energy needs for both supply and treatment of the water. Washing and drying clothes, heating water, and washing dishes accounted for 14 percent of California’s electricity consumption and 31 percent of its natural gas in 200511.

Conversation with Purpose

In modern society, it has become difficult for citizens to sincerely express their personal believes on controversial subjects such as religion and politics. Throughout our deliberation unit, our class was pushed outside our comfort zone and assigned the difficult task of participating in a public forum. Although at times the experience was stressful, we had many fruitful discussions and learned much about each other and ourselves. The nature of our deliberation could be characterized as candid and, for the most part, progressive. At times the discussion seemed a bit forced and often times our knowledge of the subject was on a very superficial level. Overall, though, the deliberation served its purpose of arriving at a well-reasoned solution after considering diverse points of view. All members were exposed to the concept of deliberating and grasped the social process of communicating. Every member came out of the process as a better-informed citizen.

            Our group did a very nice job of meeting the criteria for the social process of deliberation. For the most part, discussion remained balanced and there were no domineering members of the group. It seemed as if all members respected each other’s varying opinions. Also, most members seemed to be actively listening when they were not speaking. In order to ensure mutual comprehension, we maintained a very open environment, in which members were not afraid to ask for clarification. Cameron brought in an article about one of Ireland’s newly established environmental policies and shared it as a real world application of the solution presented within option one. However some members were confused as to how the policy she was describing worked and if would be feasible to implement a similar policies in the States. After she finished talking about the article there was no hesitation in asking her to re-explain the article and the exigence of it. It was only after asking for elucidation that we were able to wholly comprehend Ireland’s policy and its contrast to the US’s current policy.

            Everyone respected all members, even those who didn’t seem to be quite as involved and communicative, equally. For example, Rory was a very active listener but did not speak as much as the average group member. The couple instances were Rory spoke the entire group paid very close attention because we came to learn and respect the fact that he only spoke when he had something very insightful to share. When two members began speaking at the same time they would both stop and one member would say something similar to, “sorry, please continue”, so that the flow of the conversation was reestablished promptly. Overall, our group successfully created an atmosphere ideal for effective deliberation.

            The analytic process of our group’s deliberation was by no means flawless, but achieved its end purpose of making a well-reasoned, sound decision that all parties could agree with. One facet our group could have considerably improved upon was creating a solid information base. Perhaps it was because many of our members were still in THON-induced delirium or we simply did not understand the importance of having a thorough background, but it seemed as if most members did not sufficiently prepare for the discussion. As the discussion proceeded, the group realized that hastily skimming through the National Issues Forum booklet and printing out a related article or two did not provide enough information for effective and progressive deliberation. For the later deliberations it seemed as if each member had prepared more thoroughly and discussions seemed to move at a more acceptable pace, where no time was wasted in discussing superficial, minute details.

            Our group attempted to prioritize the key values at stake, however it seemed as if many members did not have too much of a personal stake and it took a while for us to become vested in the deliberation. At the end of the deliberation Katherine put it very well when she stated something along the lines of, “I came in thinking this issue had no relevance to me and didn’t see the need in deliberating, but now I realize how big of a role sustainability plays in daily life”. The way in which this deliberation was set up already provided us with a wide variety of ways to address the problem. From there our role as a group was to weigh the pros, cons, and trade-offs among solutions. In general, our deliberation did a nice job of recognizing the limitations and advantages of each option. No one seemed illogically set on a certain solution and all members were willing to recognize the flaws of their preferred solution. Sometimes we did not address all stakeholders equally, which we realized during our group reflection. Nonetheless, I believe we balanced all competing claims to make the best decision possible

***not quite sure how to conclude