[Graeme]

Renewables Can Cut Power Plants’ Water Use 97% by 2050

Investing in renewables and energy efficiency could reduce power plants’ water withdrawals by 97 percent from current levels by 2050 and cut carbon emissions 90 percent from current levels, according to a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists-led Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative (EW3).

Most of the water savings would occur within the next 20 years while the CO2 reductions would happen mostly in the near term.

The study says many near-term options exist to reduce power sector water and climate risks. Options include prioritizing low-carbon, water-smart energy choices, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency; upgrading power plant cooling systems with technologies that ease local water stress; and instituting integrated resource planning that connects energy and water decision making.

The report warns that a “business-as-usual” approach would keep emissions within 5 percent of current levels and water withdrawals would not drop significantly until after 2030. And while utilities’ ongoing shift to natural gas would decrease water use in the coming decades, the study says its ongoing requirements could still harm water-strained areas. This shift to natural gas also would do little to lower the power sector’s carbon emissions.

environmentalleader

[Keith_McClary]

The "Water-Smart Power -- Executive Summary" (PDF) can be downloaded from this page:

http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our- ... power.html

One of the charts Fig. 4, P5 shows a contribution from "biopower", about 10% by 2050. What would that be, and does it require water? (I didn't read the Full Report).

[rollin]

They are right about one thing, every fossil fuel plant built or converted now may lock us into many years of fossil fuel burning. The more we convert to natural gas, the longer it will take to convert to safe renewables.

One major point, the difference between withdrawals and returns is critical. Most water that is withdrawn for a coal or gas plant is returned to the river. This only becomes a factor if the river is very low due to long term drought, since it really does not effect the overall flow of the river by a significant amount. In harsh dry environments, even withdrawals could become a factor and the plant would have to shut down.

I see a number of smaller gas fired generators that appear to have no water cooling at all. The large ones have cooling towers.

Bio-fuels are not water conservative, they need huge amounts of water to grow and large amounts of energy input for fertilizers and farm equipment. Putting the problem elsewhere is not the solution.

I agree that the choices we make now may determine the next 40 or fifty years, unless our descendants become smart and just dump the whole fossil fuel system despite economic loss to a few parties.

[Pops]

Exactly Rollin.

Every one of the Magic Bullets we latch onto that prolongs the delusion of ever expanding energy supply is just that much more good money after bad.

That includes the delusion that renewables are a replacement for FFs.

[Keith_McClary]

This only becomes a factor if the river is very low due to long term drought, since it really does not effect the overall flow of the river by a significant amount. In harsh dry environments, even withdrawals could become a factor and the plant would have to shut down.

The heat is also an ecological issue, fish kill.

I see a number of smaller gas fired generators that appear to have no water cooling at all. The large ones have cooling towers.

Had to look that up:

More than 80 percent of natural gas-fired generation in the United States comes from natural gas combined-cycle (NGCC) power plants. The rest are simple gas combustion turbines (9 percent) or simple steam turbines (9 percent).[1] An NGCC plant first uses a gas combustion turbine to generate electricity, then uses the waste heat to make steam to generate additional electricity in a steam turbine. Because gas combustion turbines require no cooling (having no steam to condense), the overall combined cycle system requires much less water for cooling than traditional steam turbine technologies.
http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_energy/our- ... l-gas.html

I think the "simple gas combustion turbines" are cheaper to build but less efficient - they blow out a lot of hot air.

[eastbay]

That includes the delusion that renewables are a replacement for FFs.

Yes, "delusion" is the perfect word, here.

A perfect example of the madness of renewable energy is the corn scam, with around half of the USA's corn burned in vehicles. Even worse than the hunger and resource depletion brought about by burning corn ethanol is the palm oil scam, which has led to the permanent destruction of the indonesian and Malaysian tropical rainforests.

[Graeme]

Americans continue to use more renewable energy sources

Americans used more natural gas, solar panels and wind turbines and less coal to generate electricity in 2012, according to the most recent U.S. energy charts released by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.


Overall, Americans used 2.2 quadrillion BTU, or quads, less in 2012 than the previous year. (BTU or British Thermal Unit is a unit of measurement for energy; 3,400 BTU is equivalent to about 1 kW-hr).

Once again, wind power saw the highest percentage gains in going from 1.17 quads produced in 2011 up to 1.36 quads in 2012. New wind farms continue to come on line with bigger, more efficient turbines that have been developed in response to government-sponsored incentives to invest in renewable energy.

Solar also jumped from 0.158 quads in 2011 to 0.235 quads in 2012. Extraordinary declines in prices of photovoltaic panels, due to global oversupply, drove this shift.

phys.org