WSJ: Water Worries Shape Local Energy Decisions

The Wall Street Journal reports that water, or a lack there of, is providing much needed momentum for clean and renewable sources of energy. According to the article, "Environmental groups that oppose coal and nuclear power plants are discovering that water can be a powerful tool to challenge power companies." With water scarcity gripping much of the country, electric companies are being forced to reconsider the use of thermoelectric power plants, which require massive water withdrawals that can threaten our rivers and freshwater resources.

Few people realize that power production accounts for the largest water withdrawals in the country--48% of all water withdrawals in 2000 (39% of freshwater withdrawals). Older power plants can require as much as 40 gallons of water for every kilowatt hour produced. While much of this water is returned to the environment, it is usually at a higher temperature and degraded quality. If we were to count only the water consumed (i.e. not returned to the environment due to evaporation, etc.), power production using our current mix of energy sources still requires an average of 2 gallons of water per kilowatt hour of electricity. Luckily, many renewable sources of energy, including wind and photovoltaic solar power, require almost no water at all to operate.

All this water means that electricity companies operating in water scarce regions are rediscovering the value of energy efficiency and renewable energy sources. For example, as the WSJ explains:

Last month, Tri-State Generation and Transmission Association, a utility that provides power to mostly rural areas, agreed to conduct a major study to see if it might meet growing energy needs through energy efficiency and not a big, new coal-fired power plant, as it had proposed for southeast Colorado.

One reason for the move was a challenge by Environment Colorado, an advocacy organization, about the amount of water a new plant would require.

Changes like these are happening with increasing frequency, particularly in the arid West, as mounting concerns about water begin to shape local energy decisions.

As the WSJ notes, a study by the Department of Energy found that, "A megawatt hour of electricity produced by a wind turbine can save 200 to 600 gallons of water compared with the amount required by a modern gas-fired power plant." And gas-fired plants are among the least water intensive options for traditional power production (nuclear is the worst).

While global warming and the need to reduce carbon emissions is the most common argument given for weening ourselves off coal and other fossil fuels, in many cases, water might prove more compelling. It is difficult to convince a global warming skeptic that carbon emissions need to be reduced, however, that same skeptic might have a well that suddenly ran dry or a favorite fishing hole that no longer supports fish. The water crisis is very immediate and people in the midst of a drought are more likely to worry about their water supplies than long-term climate change.

Some examples of groups successfully fighting water-intensive power production that mentioned by the WSJ include:

• Lassen County. Citing water as a primary concern, residents in northeast California successfully got Sempra Energy to halt its plans for a nearby coal fired power. Since then, dozens of companies have begun considering wind projects in the area, thus far facing little resistance from local landowners.

• A power plant recently put into service by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. in the town of Antioch (in Northern California) has a cooling system that cuts its water intake from 40,000 gallons a minute to 1.6 gallons. In the past, power plants commonly were built with "once-through cooling," in which water was drawn from waterways, used once, and then put back. But the Antioch plant uses a "dry" cooling technique that recirculates water in a closed system, reducing evaporation.

• In 2004, Riverkeeper, along with six states, sued the Environmental Protection Agency over the use of once-through cooling by as many as 500 older power plants in the U.S. The suit charges that the practice violates the Clean Water Act because it harms aquatic life and fails to utilize the best technology available, a requirement of the federal act. The case is currently before the Supreme Court.

• Virginia Power is facing a legal challenge over its right to draw one million gallons of water a minute per reactor from a man-made lake it uses to cool its North Anna nuclear power plant and into which it discharges heated water. The Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League argued that heat is a form of pollution and said the state water board shouldn't have renewed the plant's water permit. Last month, a state court upheld much of the environmental group's case.

As you can see, watershed groups can play a pivotal role in the broader climate change debate by bringing water issues to the forefront. By understanding the water embedded in energy, river groups can bolster their own work as well as that of climate activists by describing the immediate water impacts of carbon-spewing fossil fuels.

To read the complete article, click here.