Pierre Bull's Blog: Nuclear Weapons, Waste and Energy

At the Confluence of Water Use and Energy Production

2009-09-30T21:55:58Z

On my commute on the NYC subway this morning (which by the way I discovered is decreasing in carbon intensity), I came across this New York Times story, "Alternative Energy Projects Stumble on a Need for Water" by Todd Woody that described the problem of water resource scarcity in driving potential new development of concentrating solar power (CSP). CSP technologies show much promise as a relative low cost renewable energy resource that can tap into the very sunny American Desert Southwest.

One of the key takeaways from the article is on water scarcity shaping new technology development:

Conflicts over water could shape the future of many energy technologies. The most water-efficient renewable technologies are not necessarily the most economical, but water shortages could give them a competitive edge.

The article goes on to give dimension to the size of the CSP market under consideration and the amount of water that some projects will require:

In California alone, plans are under way for 35 large-scale solar projects that, in bright sunshine, would generate 12,000 megawatts of electricity, equal to the output of about 10 nuclear power plants. ...

Their water use would vary widely. BrightSource Energy's dry-cooled Ivanpah project in Southern California would consume an estimated 25 million gallons a year, mainly to wash mirrors. But a wet-cooled solar trough power plant barely half Ivanpah's size proposed by the Spanish developer Abengoa Solar would draw 705 million gallons of water in an area of the Mojave Desert that receives scant rainfall. [I have included more numbers on these projects below.]

Our sentiments on this issue are captured well by one of our closest policy advisors quoted in the piece:

Daniel M. Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, predicted that as intensive renewable energy development spreads, water issues will follow.

"When we start getting 20 percent, 30 percent or 40 percent of our power from renewables," Mr. Kammen said, "water will be a key issue."

However, contrary to the implicit "newness" of the water-energy issue conveyed by this NY Times article, water quantity and quality issues have long been at the center of all the various fuels and associated technologies of our energy supply (and making energy efficiency and conservation all the much more valuable).

Broadening the perspective of comparing water use for energy production, the Virginia Tech University Virginia Water Resources Research Center recently did a report giving an "apples to apples" comparison of water quantity required to produce energy from various energy sources (see figure below). Conventional fossil fuel require anywhere from 5 to 8 times as much water per million BTU of energy produced. Nukes come in even higher, ranging from 10 to 20 times as much water required to produce a million BTU than CSP (termed "solar thermoelectric" in the table below).

How do the proposed projects in the NY Times article compare? From my rough calculations,

BrightSource Energy's Ivanpah project will have 440 MW capacity and using 25 million gallons/year; (assuming a 25% utilization rate) the water 'efficiency' comes out to 76 Gallons per MMBtu.

Abengoa's Mojave project at 280 MW capacity will plan to use 705 million gallons of water/year; (Assuming a 25% utilization rate) the 'water efficiency' comes out to 3,369 Gallons per MMBtu.

Lastly, on the topic of scale in looking at water use and energy prodcution, my colleagues from our Nuclear Program would like you to keep in mind:

"Nearly two out of every three gallons of freshwater withdrawals in the Southeast are sent to electric power plants to meet cooling water demands. About a gallon of water is consumed for each kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity produced." Reported by our advocacy partners at the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE).
Union of Concerned Scientists reported on the water quantity and water quality impacts from the 104 existing nuclear power facilities throughout the U.S.
"How the Nuclear Power Industry destroys endangered marine wildlife and ocean habitat to save money"

The confluence of water and energy resources issues will continue to be very important to us as we look to develop non global warming-polluting, renewable energy technologies. But it is also important not to lose sight of the 'big picture' that some energy resources use significantly more water per unit of energy produced than others.

Energy Visionary Speaks

2009-02-12T16:41:15Z

Earlier this week, Amory Lovins, Chief Scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, and described by the New York Times Freakonomics Blog co-editor, Stephen J. Dubner, as the "energy maven's energy maven," posted a guest blog titled, "Does a Big Economy Need Big Power Plants?"

Amory's piece has garnered over seventy comments to date, ranging from praise to disgust to other commenters who provided further analysis to asked further questions. As a fellow energy 'enthusiast' I could not resist throwing my own commentary (pasted below) into the mix:

Understandably, Amory, as a scientist and physicist, makes his initial arguments describing the physical enhancements that microgrid planning and technologies would bring to bear: namely a more reliable and efficient electricity grid.

But what makes his argument particularly powerful is his understanding of the 'other' non-physical, non-engineering pieces for future grid development - namely the social/institutional (laws and system planning), business-finance decisions, and economic realities of the day that ultimately drive decisions to invest in, and ultimately enhance, the services delivered by our electric grid. Amory quite accurately captures this institutional-economic reality where he states, "Collapsed capital markets now make giant projects even more unfinanceable, favoring lower-financial-risk granular projects even more."

In addition, in the context of nuclear power 'gigantism' as defined by Amory, I would encourage my fellow energy enthusiasts to read about the Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant disaster. Financial disaster, that is. Perhaps it's not a coincidence that just an hour's drive from Wall Street sits an unused nuclear power facility (it is now decommissioned) that will continue to burden Long Island energy bill payers for decades to come. Apropos to the Amory's concluding statement of experiencing a "whiff of prenostalgia" [to gigantic central station power plants], in 2005 the Long Island Power Authority dedicated two wind turbines that were constructed on the Shoreham Reactor property.

Kind of makes one optimistic to know that the advocacy efforts of NRDC's energy and climate specialists combined with the "energy maven's" read on our energy future, that we can indeed achieve the energy evolution we desperately need starting today for the good of our planet and economy: a clean, reliable, and efficient energy delivery system.

Floridians Take a Critical Next Step Toward Reliable and Clean Electricity

2009-01-16T17:30:52Z

Last Friday, the Florida Public Service Commission (PSC), informed via memo from PSC Staff, unanimously agreed to move forward with a comprehensive Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) rule requiring investor-owned utilities in the State to acquire at least 20% of their electricity supply from renewables by 2020. NRDC and it's Southern Region partner, the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy (SACE), worked to keep the FL PSC Staff and Commissioners well-informed to remain on the correct path. Florida Governor Charlie Crist and his dedicated staff deserve much credit as well, holding firm to the bold and sweeping set of executive orders and introduction of important bills in the FL legislature that began in 2007 and addressed global warming, clean fuels, energy efficiency, and renewable energy development through measures such as this RPS.

But wait!

We're not done just yet. The next step for the RPS rule is to get final ratification in the Florida legislature. I sure hope that the legislature holds to the original intent of the RPS:

366.92 Florida renewable energy policy.--

(1) It is the intent of the Legislature

to promote the development of renewable energy;
protect the economic viability of Florida's existing renewable energy facilities;
diversify the types of fuel used to generate electricity in Florida;
lessen Florida's dependence on natural gas and fuel oil for the production of electricity;
minimize the volatility of fuel costs;
encourage investment within the state;
improve environmental conditions; and,
at the same time, minimize the costs of power supply to electric utilities and their customers.

NRDC has endorsed these principles in FL and advocates for renewables to significantly reduce global warming pollution, adhering to the highest environmental standards and promoting competition for the best suite of technologies to conquer the greatest environment challenge of our time.

Renewables Only, Please

An RPS ought NOT include provisions for non-renewable energy production. One particular political heavyweight, Florida Power & Light, elected to broaden the definition of Florida’s renewable portfolio standard to include nuclear energy under the creative name “Clean Energy Portfolio Standard.” While nuclear power may contribute very little to global warming pollution, serious issues still remain on several fronts:

Nuclear waste disposal
Astronomical upfront capital costs
Long lead times (construction takes 10-15 years)
Significant safety and health risks
Water quality concerns

Further details on these issues surrounding nuclear power are discussed in the recently completed “Keystone Report”: Nuclear Power Joint Fact-Finding.

Let’s hope the Florida legislature stays consistent with its original intentions to benefit all Floridians and stay on a firm path to a truly renewable, reliable, and clean energy future.