Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion

[kristopher]

Water Consumption of Energy Resource Extraction, Processing, and Conversion

Discussion Paper 2010-15, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard Kennedy School

SUMMARY

Water as a Factor in the Energy Supply Chain

Water and energy are closely linked. The water industry is energy-intensive, consuming electricity for desalination, pumping, and treatment of wastewater. The energy industry is also water-intensive, which is the focus of this report. Water is used for resource extraction (oil, gas, coal, biomass etc.), energy conversion (refining and processing), transportation and power generation. Energy accounts for 27% of all water consumed in the United States outside the agricultural sector (Electric Power Research Institute 2008). Water, like energy, is a commodity but with very different characteristics. Water is almost always local where energy tends to be more of a global sector, linked to fungible commodities.

...

The most comprehensive review of water consumption and energy production is a December 2006 report to Congress by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), titled "Energy Demands on Water Resources" (U.S. Department of Energy 2006). The DOE report was the starting point for this research effort...

Absolute water consumption for energy production has been increasing in the United States, a trend that may continue if reliance on water-intensive fuels continues. Charts ES-1 and ES-2 summarize water consumption for fuel extraction and processing, and electricity production, respectively.

Thermoelectric power plant cooling accounts for between 3 and 4% of all U.S. water consumption, and has been increasing its share of total water use. ...

Biofuels are by far the most water-intensive source of fuel ...

The recent shale gas transformation of the U.S. natural gas industry ...

Increased reliance on nuclear power, which has the highest water consumption of the thermoelectric technologies, and the potential for wide-scale CCS deployment, could also significantly increase water consumption (Chart ES-2). In contrast, some of the renewable energy technologies, in particular wind and solar photovoltaic, which have practically no water consumption (Chart ES-2), could contribute to reducing water consumption for the energy sector.

Finally, it is worth emphasizing that the wide range of water intensity estimates for the different processes investigated shows that, for each process, there are typically alternative technologies, which could reduce water consumption, albeit at a higher cost, with lower efficiency and/or reduced reliability.

Download full open access report here: http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20479/water_consumption_of_energy_resource_extraction_processing_and_conversion.html
http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/20479/water_consumption_of_energy_resource_extraction_processing_and_conversion.html

[piratebay]

1. And as I'm sure you are aware Kristopher

The largest, most efficient nuclear power plant in this country is 20 miles west of Phoenix in the MIDDLE OF A FREAKING DESERT and is entirely cooled by reclaimed and recycled water posing no danger to any river, stream, lake or ocean.

You can look it up, I'm turning out the light and going to bed.

[XemaSab]

4. Welcome to DU

You'll get along just fine here. :D

[kristopher]

6. I'd suggest you download and read the report.

[NNadir]

10. I suggest that you learn the second law of thermodynamics, but you never do.

Maybe you don't know how your pals in the coal industry operate plants.

That's hardly a surprise.

[Confusious]

2. Every coal plant replaced by a nuclear power plant

Will use about the same amount of water. They both use water to turn a turbine to generate power.

[joshcryer]

3. Both coal and nuclear must be cooled by similar technologies.

Both can use massive cooling towers which reduce the amount of water needed, both can use cooling ponds.

[kristopher]

7. Another one who hasn't bothered to read the report from...

Harvard's Belfer Center at the Kennedy School of Governement.

[joshcryer]

9. Nothing I said disagrees with the report.

Both coal and nuclear have similar water consumption according to the report. Nuclear is marginally higher than coal on average.

[enough]

5. k&r (nt)

[pscot]

8. +1

[txlibdem]

11. Why we need nuclear AND solar AND wind AND geothermal AND tidal energy sources

We need all of the non-carbon energy sources we can get.

I'm not giving an opinion about the water use issue, but even assuming it was correct I'll still be 100% convinced that nuclear power has to be part of our energy future. Do not enter the battlefield with only half your weapons, soldier!

[kristopher]

12. Why nuclear?

What is the justification for diverting funds from more effective solutions to one that is slower to deliver and more expensive?

Why?

[txlibdem]

13. For base power generating capacity

I believe that 40% nuclear and 60% solar/wind/geothermal/tidal energy generation is the proper mix for a carbon-free America.

If I had the ability to force the truth out of you, I'd ask you to tally up the total cost of 1 GWe of Nuclear power versus 1 GWe of solar power available 24/7/365, or versus 1 GWe of wind power available 24/7/365. Geothermal has the ability to provide base power as well but is limited to a few geographical locations in the USA due to increased risk of earthquakes in the vicinity of the plant.

[kristopher]

14. "base power"?

Are you talking about "baseload"?

Baseload is an economic artifact of the current system of large-scale, centralized thermal generation (lsctg). It is NOT an intrinsic or necessary element to getting power to the end users.

To meet peak demand with a system built around large-scale, centralized thermal generation (lscgt) you must overbuild capacity.

That results in under-utilization of individual plants during all non-peak hours.

That results in a drive by utilities to 1) promote consumption and 2) shift demand to nonpeak hours.

In the past ALL utilities were paid on a "cost plus" basis. They got about 6% over whatever they spent to provide power.

That means the more they spent, the more they made.

Large steam turbines like they use in coal or nuclear plants are so long and the winding in the middle is so heavy that when they are shut down, they actually bend.

To restart them takes almost 24 hours since they have to commence with a very slow rate of rotation to give the shaft time to straighten out.

That means that even though they are only using these large plants for peak load they must *run* the plants 24/7.

That cumulative amount of electrical generating capacity that must keep running because IT CANNOT BE ECONOMICALLY SHUT DOWN is what lies at the root of the TERM BASELOAD.

It IS NOT a necessary element of delivering power to end users - it is STRICTLY a by-product of the system of large-scale, centralized thermal generation.


The alternative is a "distributed grid".

If you set up a power system to take yourself off the grid, you are not using "baseload" right?

That is what a distributed grid consists of - individual that have their own systems, who are linked together by a system that can manage small scale power sources.

It works.

As to costs, never before has the nuclear industry achieved a decline in the costs of building their product. They didn't do it in the US in the 70s thru the 90s, and they didn't do it in France.

They STILL haven't done it anywhere.

History has shown clearly that nuclear power is not able to capture any true benefit from mass production.

Renewable energy on the other hand is prefectly suited to capturing the benefits of mass production.

Nuclear prices are RISING. Renawable Prices are declining.





Cooper A Multi-dimensional View of Alternatives



Your stated reason for wanting nuclear power is not valid, and since nuclear takes far more time to rollout than renewables and since it costs so much it cannot be built unless it is backed up by a government are you prepared to alter your judgment?

Remember to assign weight to the proliferation and waste issues.

[txlibdem]

15. Again with the same pretty charts and graphs

The only problem is, they are wrong and are the very reason I believe you are an agent of the coal industry. Your charts and graphs show coal as being more positive than solar. Piffle, I say.

Concentrating Solar Thermal power plants are getting cost competitive with coal power TODAY, not 2020 like your chart shows. The key is size. 500 MWe plants and larger are required to bring costs per kWh down. There is no other answer at this time.

You claim that "baseload" power is shut down at night. That is flat out wrong. Baseload power plants are never shut down except for refueling and occasional maintenance scheduled WELL in advance. Peak power plants (mostly nat gas) are brought on and off line to conform to demand peaks and valleys. Baseload coal plants are throttled back during non-peak demand, nuclear power plants are run at or near capacity a higher percentage of the time. Throttling back the plants reduces efficiency and increases per kWh costs in the long run.

So that is where phase 2 comes in: electric vehicles that are charged mostly during off-peak hours. A big-picture approach to getting off of fossil fuels is needed. We cannot myopically focus on electricity generation and forget transportation and building efficiency (or lack thereof is more like it today).

[NickB79]

16. Why bother to throttle back baseload at all at night?

That excess electricity could be used to chemically synthesize liquid fuels to keep the heavy-transportation industry trucking along, and keep the plants operating at peak efficiency a greater percentage of the time. I believe NNadir once proposed this, with DME (dimethyl ether) as the synthetic fuel of choice.

[kristopher]

18. So your solution to AGW is the use of coal to make syngas?

If you look around you might find out why not.

[NickB79]

24. No, I was suggesting nuclear plants could be used to make syngas during off-peak hours

I should have phrased my previous post better. My apologies.

[kristopher]

17. I understand the problem - you can't read charts and graphs...

Coal is shown as a "positive consumer" meaning it is CHEAP.

It is shown as NEGATIVE SOCIETAL; meaning it has negative externalities that affect society outside of its direct monetized costs.

You also apparently have trouble reading text as I never claimed ""baseload" power is shut down at night".

What I did was give you the information needed to actually understand what baseload really means instead of the very confused picture of it that you embrace. Just a reminder but our energy system (including electricity) has developed over about a century. If you don't know how it grew and what the forces were that shaped it, frankly you arenn't equipped to opine on it with any credibility.

Please reread my previous post and compare it with an outside account of the development of our energy infrastructure. Like I said, I'm an energy policy analyst. What do you think we study?

[joshcryer]

20. So monetary costs are the only consumer indicators?

[txlibdem]

22. Ha ha ha. You're an energy policy analyst? We are SO screwed.

Your ability to analyze your way out of a paper bag is suspect in my opinion. If you're one of the brains behind the nation's energy policy I can clearly see that we are F*KED, royally f*ked where it comes to getting off of fossil fuels before it is too late to avoid catastrophe.

Your simplistic statement that all one has to do is put solar panels on one's roof in order to be "off the grid" and no longer beholden to the vagaries of baseload and/or peak utility energy generation shows a complete lack of understanding of solar power. In your fantasy world, what happens to your electricity supply after the sun goes down? Are you assuming that all families in America will install a battery backup sizable enough to provide for their needs throughout the night (and therefore install a much larger solar array so said batteries can be charged during the day in addition to providing for your home's energy usage at the same time). Not to mention that such a system would cost up to $50,000 to $60,000. That is not a realistic goal but it is a very good pipe dream.

Utility scale energy production is the only way to bring the cost of renewable energy down in order to be competitive with coal and nuclear. Concentrated solar thermal power plants with integrated storage adequate to allow them to generate a level output of electrical energy all day and all night are needed. Wind farms that contain hundreds of 5 MW (or better) turbines should be the norm, not the exception, and need to integrate some kind of energy storage by mandate as well.

The High Voltage DC transmission grid is needed to bring all that solar from the desert southwest and all that wind from the midwest to the coastal cities where it is needed and will be used. Distributed generation (aka micro generation) is supremely incapable of making even a dent in the dominance of coal power plants. Nuclear power plants, utility scale solar and wind, and geothermal power plants are the only technologies in our arsenal that has even a chance of winning against fossil fuels.

Yet, you back the loser technologies that do not stand a chance. You trash the good technologies that can usurp the dominance of coal and oil. I hope your influence is minimal, or perhaps serves as a reverse psychological effect on what will actually happen vis a vis our energy future. If not, we are screwed.

[kristopher]

25. You can't read a simple 4 quadrant graph and you question my abilities?

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

28. Am I the one who can't read it???

You don't understand that the proximity of a fuel source to the demarcation line between positive and negative has a meaning? Or is proximity not in the vocabulary at Flibbity-Flab University where you got your degree? Or was that a blue light special?

[joshcryer]

19. You make a good point, there are no positive consumer benefits from coal.

The report maker is missing out the externalized costs of coal.

[kristopher]

21. I understand the problem - you can't read charts and graphs either

I understand the problem - you can't read charts and graphs...

Coal is shown as a "positive consumer" meaning it is CHEAP.

It is shown as NEGATIVE SOCIETAL; meaning it has negative externalities that affect society outside of its direct monetized costs.

(Entire report here:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse }

You also apparently have trouble reading text as I never claimed ""baseload" power is shut down at night".

What I did was give you the information needed to actually understand what baseload really means instead of the very confused picture of it that you embrace. Just a reminder but our energy system (including electricity) has developed over about a century. If you don't know how it grew and what the forces were that shaped it, frankly you arenn't equipped to opine on it with any credibility.

Please reread my previous post and compare it with an outside account of the development of our energy infrastructure. Like I said, I'm an energy policy analyst. What do you think we study?

[joshcryer]

29. It's also negative consumer.

You can't separate the two the way the disingenuous author is doing.

[GliderGuider]

26. I have a few quibbles with Cooper's graph

I don't view gas as having a positive societal impact, given the amount of CO2 it releases and the fact that it's such a potent GHG in its own right. It doesn't ppear to me that Cooper has given all the externalities the appropriate weight.

I have a similar reservation about "Fossil w/CCS". The risks of leakage and surreptitious dumping are too high to assign it a positive societal impact - especially in light of my major objections around nuclear power (you knew it was coming, didn't you?)

Nuclear power's societal impact is far too high, given that this seems to be based primarily on perceived risk. IMO if actual risks were used, the societal impact of nuclear power should be less than or equal to that of natural gas. IMO both should be just below the horizontal quadrant divider.

And, nuclear's powers's consumer cost rating is too high. While the cost of electricity is highly variable across regions, the levelized cost of electricity from nuclear power is, according to the EIA below that of wind and similar to that of hydro.

I have no problems with the classification of the other sources, but these four issues, for me, point to the heart of the controversy in this area.

[kristopher]

27. ANOTHER nuke fan that can't be bothered to read materials that conflict with their religion.

If you'd read the paper, you'd know that the size of the circles has a meaning.

It conveys the risk associated with the technology.

Figure ES-4 depicts three critical characteristics of the alternatives available for meeting electricity needs in a carbon-constrained environment. The horizontal axis represents the economic cost. The vertical axis represents the societal cost (with societal cost including environmental, safety, and security concerns). The size of the circles represents the risk. Public policy should exploit the options closest to the origin, as these are the least-cost alternatives. Where the alternatives are equal on economic cost and societal impact, the less risky should be pursued.

Figure ES-4: A Multi-dimensional View of Alternatives (Size of Circles Denotes Risk)


Nuclear reactors are shown straddling the positive/negative line on societal impact. If the uranium production cycle – mining, processing, use and waste disposal – were deemed to have a major societal impact, nuclear reactors would be moved much higher on the societal impact dimension. If one believes that nuclear reactors have a minor impact, reactors would be moved down on the societal impact dimension. In either case, there are numerous options that should be pursued first. Thus, viewed from a multidimensional perspective, including economic, environmental, and risk factors, there are numerous preferable alternatives.

http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

You also KNOW that when you use EIA stats on the cost of nuclear you are cherry-picking data. Those numbers only show a small fraction of the actual amount of money spent to provide that electricity. There are huge sums that have been wiped out by restructuring, more huge sums that have paid by consumers in the form of rate increases to cover stranded costs, even more huge sums that were paid out of public coffers in the form of subsidies and yet more huge sums that have yet to be rolled into the costs as we have to deal with wastes.

Nuclear power is anything but a bargain.

[joshcryer]

30. This only supports Gen IV nuclear.

[Name removed]

23. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.