esas0804temp_EnergyWaterNexus-stu

esas0804temp_EnergyWaterNexus-stu - The...

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Unformatted text preview: The Energy‐Water
Nexus EARTH
SCIENCE
in ARIZONA
and
the SOUTHWEST Hoover
Dam
and
hydropower
plant, 
Colorado
River,
Arizona‐Nevada The
Energy‐Water
Nexus*:
an
interrelationship
of
increasing
concern. These
 two
 critical
 resources
 are
 inextricably
 and
 reciprocally
 linked—the
 production
 of
 energy requires
 large
 volumes
 of
 water
 while
 the
 treatment
 and
 distribution
 of
 water
 is
 equally dependent
upon
readily
available,
low‐cost
energy.









 US
Department
of
Energy Four
Corners
Power
Plant
(2000
MW
coal‐fired)
and
Morgan
Lake
(artificial
lake
constructed
for
plant
cooling) near
Shiprock,
Navajo
Nation,
New
Mexico *Sometimes
referred
to
as
the
Water‐Energy
Nexus
(particularly
by
hydrologists). The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 2 The
geoscientific
topics
of
energy
resources
and
water
resources
have
traditionally
been taught
in
a
decoupled
manner,
but
energy
and
water
systems
are
inextricably
linked
from the
perspectives
of
environmental
science,
engineering,
economics,
and
politics. US
DOE,
2006 The
energy‐water
nexus
is
an
Earth
systems
problem
with a
significant
anthropospheric
component. The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 3 The
energy‐water
interrelationship
is
quantified
in
two
metrics
that
compare how
much
of
one
is
required
to
produce
a
fixed
amount
of
the
other: Energy
intensity The
quantity
of
energy
(commonly represented
as
power)
consumed
in providing
water:
typically
in
kWh/gal or
MWh/gal Water
intensity The
quantity
of
water
used
to provide
a
quantity
of
power:
typically in
gal/kWh
or
gal/MWh Water
intensity
for different
types of
energy‐resource production
and
storage The
Energy‐Water
Nexus (Woodhouse,
2007,
after
US
DOE,
2006) 4 Most
electricity
is
generated
using
turbines,
which
drive
generators Nuclear Regulatory Commission Energy Information Administration, US DOE www.eia.doe.gov/kids/energyfacts/sources/electricity.html#Generation The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 5 A
thermal
(coal‐fired)
power
plant Pollutants Chemical
energy
to
heat
energy
to
mechanical
energy
to
electrical
energy. “We
don’t
burn
coal
because
it’s
easy‐‐we
burn
it
because
it’s
cheap!” Average
efficiency
~
31
% Waste heat Coal Electricity 1. Cooling tower. 2. Cooling water pump. 3. Transmission line (3-phase). 4. Unit transformer (3-phase). 5. Electric generator (3-phase). 6. Low pressure turbine. 7. Condensate extraction pump. 8. Condensor. 9. Intermediate pressure turbine. 10. Steam governor valve. 11. High pressure turbine. 12. Deaerator. 13. Feed heater. 14. Coal conveyor. 15. Coal hopper. 16. Pulverised fuel mill. 17. Boiler drum. 18. Ash hopper. 19. Superheater. 20. Forced draught fan. 21. Reheater. 22. Air intake. 23. Economiser. 24. Air preheater. 25. Precipitator. 26. Induced draught fan. 27. Chimney stack. The
Energy‐Water
Nexus en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PowerStation2.svg 6 Fossil‐fuel‐fired
turbine‐based
electricity
production
is
thirsty! 1. Cooling tower. 2. Cooling water pump. 3. Transmission line (3-phase). 4. Unit transformer (3-phase). 5. Electric generator (3-phase). 6. Low pressure turbine. 7. Condensate extraction pump. 8. Condensor. 9. Intermediate pressure turbine. 10. Steam governor valve. 11. High pressure turbine. 12. Deaerator. 13. Feed heater. 14. Coal conveyor. 15. Coal hopper. 16. Pulverised fuel mill. 17. Boiler drum. 18. Ash hopper. 19. Superheater. 20. Forced draught fan. 21. Reheater. 22. Air intake. 23. Economiser. 24. Air preheater. 25. Precipitator. 26. Induced draught fan. 27. Chimney stack. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PowerStation2.svg Fuel type Coal Natural Gas Water intensity (gal/MWh) 200 - 610 100 - 514 Domestic
heating
and cooling
require
about 3 MWh
per
household. Kitchen
appliances
use about
0.2-1.2 MWh
each. Home
electronics
devices use
about
0.1-0.3 MWh
each. (Energy
information
Administration, www.EIA.DOE.gov) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus (Lamberton
et
al.,
2010) 7 Other
ways
to
turn
turbines
in
a
power
plant: Nuclear
energy…also
thirsty! Domestic
heating
and cooling
require
about 3 MWh
per
household. Kitchen
appliances
use about
0.2-1.2 MWh
each. Home
electronics
devices use
about
0.1-0.3 MWh
each. (Energy
information
Administration, www.EIA.DOE.gov) Tennessee
Valley
Authority,
www.tva.gov/power/wbndiag.htm Nuclear
energy
(of
uranium
fuel)
to
heat
energy
to
mechanical
energy
to
electrical energy Fuel
type Water
intensity Average
efficiency
~
33
% (gal/MWh) Nuclear The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 400 - 785 8 (Lamberton
et
al.,
2010) Other
ways
to
turn
turbines
in
a
power
plant: Hydroelectric energy Reservoir Dam Gravitational
energy
(of
water)
to mechanical
energy
to
electrical
energy Glen
Canyon
Dam,
AZ‐UT
(U.S.
Geological
Survey) Efficiency
~
90
%
 The
Energy‐Water
Nexus Reynolds
et
al.,
2008,
Exploring
Geology 9 But
hydropower
generation
has
a
surprisingly
high water
intensity! Water
 that
 turns
 turbines
 is
 sent
 on
 for
 other
 uses,
 but
 evaporative
 loss
 from reservoirs
counts
toward
the
water
intensity
of
hydropower
generation: e.g.,
Lake
Powell
and
Lake
Mead
on
Colorado
River,
American
Southwest: 65,000 gal/MWh
(NREL)
to
30,078 gal/MWh
(Pasqualetti
&
Kelley,
2008) Water
intensity
may
be
less
if
other
reservoir
uses
like
flood
control
are
accounted
for. Glen
Canyon
Dam,
Colorado
River,
Arizona
(US
Geological
Survey) Other
ways
to
turn
turbines
in
a
power
plant: Solar
thermal
energy Concentrates
solar
energy
to
heat
a
fluid,
which then
turns
turbines Solar
energy
to
heat
energy
to
mechanical
energy to
electrical
energy Average
efficiencies
~
20
‐
32
% (even
less
if
one
accounts
for
total
area
of solar
mirrors) Solar
Two
solar‐thermal
power
plant,
Daggett,
CA (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Solar_Two_
2003.jpg) Solar
reflectors (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7f/Fresnel_









reflectors_
ausra.jpg) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 11 Renewable
energy
technologies
vary
in
their
water
intensity. (Lamberton
et
al.,
2010;
Woodhouse,
2007) Solar
thermal 300-1000 gal/MWh Photovoltaic
solar,
or
wind Negligible! Arrays
of
solar
cells
atop ASU
parking
garage,
Tempe,
Arizona (uabf.asu.edu/campus_solarization) Crop‐based
biofuels Enormous! 50,000-150,000 gal/MWh Solar
Two
solar‐thermal
power
plant,
Daggett,
California (upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a9/Solar_Two_
2003.jpg) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus (Wikimedia.org) 12 The
energy‐water
nexus
has
manifold
relevance
to
sustainability. • • • • • Population
distribution
and
demand
for
energy
do
not
necessarily
correlate
with
abundance and
availability
of
fresh
water
(consider
the
U.S.
Southwest,
Mountain
West,
Southeast). Energy
production
and
food
production
are
the
two
largest
consumers
of
water,
and
may come
into
direct
competition
in
many
regions. Environmental
regulations
intended
to
protect
water
supplies
and
aquatic
ecosystems
could result
in
higher
costs
or
shortages
of
energy. Energy
accounts
for
as
much
as
80%
of
the
cost
of
treatment
and
delivery
of
water:
more expensive
energy
means
more
expensive
water. Increased
carbon
emissions
from
electricity
production
using
fossil
fuels
may,
through climate
change,
variably
and
unpredictably
change
the
future
availability
of
water
(for energy
production
as
well
as
other
uses). Stella
Power
Station, River
Tyne,
Great
Britain (wikimedia.org) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 13 The
energy‐water
nexus
seizes
our
attention
in
the
American
Southwest (High
Country
News,
2006) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus (McKinnon,
Arizona
Republic,
2008) 14 Southwest‐based
case
studies
on
the
energy‐water
nexus:
I Black
Mesa
coal‐slurry
pipeline,
1970‐2005 Groundwater
was
used
to
transport
coal slurry
273
mi
(439
km)
from
a
mine
on Black
Mesa,
Arizona
to
a
power
plant
on the
Colorado
River
at
Laughlin,
Nevada. About
109
gal
of
water
were
removed each
year
from
the
Navajo
sandstone aquifer
and
not
replaced. The
impact
of
the
operation
was
hotly debated
among
the
mine
operator,
USGS (finding
minimal
drawdown)
and
the
Hopi and
Navajo
Nations
(claiming
loss
of coupled
surface‐water
resources).

Both sides
presented
data
to
back
their
cases. The
pipeline
was
mothballed
(not abandoned)
in
2005
when
the
power plant
closed
for
environmental
violations. What
if
it
were
to
be
restarted…? (Littin,
1999;
Kraker,
2002;
USGS,
2004;
etc.) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus Black
Mesa:
Hopi
and
Navajo
land 15 Southwest‐based
case
studies
on
the
energy‐water
nexus:
II “Water
flows
uphill
toward
money.” Central
Arizona
Project 335 mi (536 km)
run
and
2500 ft (760 m)
rise Energy
intensity: 5 MWh/gal to Phoenix 10 MWh/gal to Tucson (Lamberton
et
al.,
2010) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus (Central
Arizona
Project,
2010: 16 www.cap‐az.com/about‐cap/system‐map) Southwest‐based
case
studies
on
the
energy‐water
nexus:
II “Water
flows
uphill
toward
money”—Central
Arizona
Project NGS,
Page,
Arizona
(CAP,
n.d.) Central
Arizona
Project
Canal
near
Phoenix Nearly
all
of
the
power
used
to
move water
up
the
CAP
Canal
comes
from
the coal‐fired
Navajo
Generating
Station. The
plant
is
a
major
contributor
to
poor air
quality
at
surrounding
National
Parks such
as
Grand
Canyon. Advanced
NOx
controls
could
enhance
air quality,
but
at
higher
energy
and
water costs.

Clean
air
or
abundant
water…? The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 17 Southwest‐based
case
studies
on
the
energy‐water
nexus:
III Potential
impact
of
future
droughts
on
hydroelectric
power
production Potential
for
future
drought
based
on
current
projections
of
future
greenhouse
gas
emissions (Dai,
UCAR,
2010) Greenhouse
gas
emissions
from
conventional
energy production
are
impacting
climate. Climate
change
research
predicts
that
drylands
such
as
the Southwest
will
become
even
more
arid. Hydropower
production
would
increasingly
compete
with domestic,
commercial,
and
agricultural
demands
on
water supplies. 10%
reduction
in
Colorado
River
streamflow
could
reduce hydropower
productivity
~ 50%
(Owen,
2008). (McKinnon,
Arizona
Republic
cover
story,
12
August
2010) The
Energy‐Water
Nexus How
will—or
should—we
adapt
to
this…? 18 (SAHRA,
2007) Energy
resources
and
water
resources
are
inextricably
linked
from
the perspectives
of
geoscience,
environmental
science,
engineering, economics,
and
politics. This
energywater
nexus
is
receiving
increasing
attention
from
researchers, regulators,
planners,
decision‐makers,
and
the
media. The
energy‐water
nexus
has
manifold
relevance
to
sustainability. When
thinking
about
energy,
follow
the
water
too! The
Energy‐Water
Nexus 19 When
teaching about
energy, follow
the
water
too! Central
Arizona
Project.
(2010).
Central
Arizona
Project
website.

http://www.cap‐az.com/. Kraker,
D.
(2002).

Is
a
coal
mine
pumping
the
Hopi
dry?
High
Country
News,
04
March
2002
issue,
http://www.hcn.org/issues/221/11049. Lamberton,
M.,
Newman,
D.,
Eden,
S.,
&
Gelt,
J.
(2010).

The
water‐energy
nexus.

Arroyo,
2010
issue, http://ag.arizona.edu/azwater/arroyo/Arroyo_2010.pdf. Littin,
G.R.
(1999).
Monitoring
the
effects
of
ground‐water
withdrawals
from
the
N
Aquifer
in
the
Black
Mesa
area,
northeastern
Arizona. US
Geological
Survey
Fact
Sheet
064‐99. McKinnon,
S.
(2008).

Arizona’s
water
and
power
supplies
intertwined.

Arizona
Republic,
07
December
2008
issue. McKinnon,
S.
(2010).
Lake
Mead
at
54‐year
low.

Arizona
Republic,
12
August
2010
issue. Owen,
G.
(2008).

Impacts:
Drought
and
people.
 http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/people/drought. Pasqualetti,
M.J.,
&
Kelley,
S.
(2008).

The
water
costs
of
electricity
in
Arizona:
Executive
summary.

Arizona
Water
Institute. http://www.azwaterinstitute.org/media/Cost%20of%20water%20and%20energy%20in%20az. Sustainability
of
Semi‐Arid
Hydrology
and
Riparian
Areas
(SAHRA).
(2007).

The
water‐energy
nexus.

Southwest
Hydrology,
v.
6,
no.
5. http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V6_N5/ US
Department
of
Energy
(DOE).
(2006).

Energy
demands
on
water
resources:
Report
to
Congress
on
the
interdependency
of
energy and
water.
http://www.sandia.gov/energy‐water/docs/121‐RptToCongress‐EWwEIAcomments‐FINAL.pdf. US
Department
of
Energy
(DOE).
(n.d.).

The
energy‐water
nexus.
http://www.sandia.gov/energy‐water/docs/NEXUS_v4.pdf. US
Geological
Survey
(USGS).
(2004).
Black
Mesa
monitoring
program.
http://az.water.usgs.gov/projects/az028.html. Woodhouse,
B.
(2007).

Energy
demands
on
water
resources:
The
Federal
perspective.

Southwest
Hydrology,
v.
6,
no.
5,
p.
18. http://www.swhydro.arizona.edu/archive/V6_N5/feature2.pdf. The
Energy‐Water
Nexus (SAHRA,
2007) 20 ...
View Full Document

This note was uploaded on 03/01/2011 for the course GLG 394 taught by Professor Semken during the Fall '10 term at ASU.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online