Multi-stakeholder Engagement Along the Water, Energy, Security Nexus Vincent Tidwell Sandia National Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico Stockholm International Water Institute World Water Week Seminar Stockholm, Sweden August 24, 2011 Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.
Project Partners • Sandia National Laboratories – Vincent Tidwell – Barbie Moreland – Howard Passell • Argonne National Laboratory – John Gasper – John Veil – Chris Harto • Electric Power Research Institute – Robert Goldstein • National Renewable Energy Laboratory – Jordan Macknick – Robin Newmark – Daniel Inman – Kathleen Hallett • Idaho National Laboratory – Gerald Sehlke – Randy Lee • Pacific Northwest National Laboratory – Mark Wigmosta – Richard Skaggs – Ruby Leung • University of Texas – Michael Webber – Carey King
Project Objectives • Reduce the water footprint of electric power production in western North America: o Develop tools for quantitative assessment of the energy-water nexus, o Engage stakeholders across the energy- water spectrum, and o Evaluate water implications of alternative interconnection-wide transmission expansion scenarios.
Multi-Stakeholder Process Transmission Planning Water Energy Management Security
Project Domain • Project duration: – 24 months for WECC – 18 months for ERCOT • Planning horizon is to 2030 ERCOT
Transmission Planning Teams
Transmission Planning Process
Scenario Analysis: Examples • High demand • Integration of renewables • High penetration of electric vehicles • High demand side management • Extended drought • Expanded emission controls
Scenario Analysis: Existing Fleet • Plant Characteristics o System upgrades, and o Production, or o Retirement
Scenario Analysis: Fleet Expansion • Plant characteristics o Location, o Fuel type, o Size, and o Production
Thermoelectric Water Use • Water withdrawal and consumption by power plant – Current, and – Future fleet. • Potential policy Changes – Open loop cooling, and – Carbon capture and sequestration
Thermoelectric Water Use Hybrid No Cooling Recirculating Cooling Once-Through Cooling Pond Cooling Dry Cooling Cooling Required
Production and Water Use by million gallon/da million gallon/da MMWh 100 200 0 Coal PC 100 200 300 200 400 600 Gas Steam 0 0 Coal PC Coal PC Gas CC Total Water Consumption by Fuel Type Total Water Withdrawal by Fuel Type Gas Steam Gas Steam Gas Combustion Power Production by Fuel Type Gas CC Gas CC Fuel Type Oil Steam Gas Combustion Gas Combustion Oil CC Oil Steam Oil Steam New Fuel types Oil Combustion Oil CC Oil CC New Fuel types New Fuel types Nuclear New Oil Combustion Oil Combustion Nuclear New Nuclear New Geotherm Geotherm Geotherm Biofuel Biofuel Biofuel Coal IGCC Coal IGCC Coal IGCC Solar CSP Solar CSP Solar CSP Solar PV Solar PV Solar PV Wind New Wind New Wind New Hydro Hydro Hydro Reference Current Reference Current Reference Current
Water Use by Existing Fleet Thermoelectric Thermoelectric Withdrawal in 2010 Consumption in 2010
Water Use by Scenario New Withdrawal 2010-2020 1000 837 800 Million Gallons per Day 600 400 192 154 200 85 -17 -291 0 PC0 PC1 Pc2 PC3 Industrial Municipal -200 -400 New Consumption 2010-2020 400 364 350 Million Gallons per Day 300 250 200 150 111 95 81 100 42.7 40 50 0 PC0 PC1 Pc2 PC3 Industrial Municipal
Assess Water Availability • How “difficult” would it be to acquire new water in a given basin? • How “vulnerable” are existing plants to drought related water supply disruptions? • What limited set of metrics best characterize answers to these questions?
Plant Level Evaluation/Tradeoffs Cooling Options Plant Options Dry-Cooled Wet Cooling Fuel Type and Location Evaluation Ground Metrics Water Surface Water Environment Non-Potable Reliability Source Options Cost
Water Availability Indicators • Water Demand • Water Supply Physical Water Budget • Drought Vulnerability • Institutional Factors Water Budget R n • Value of Water ET P H Q G GW Watershed
Water Availability Indicators: Demand • Focus on withdrawals • Estimate consumption from withdrawals • Disaggregate by: o 8-digit watershed o Sector M&I Agriculture Evaporative Instream o Water source
Water Availability Indicators: Demand • Projected growth o High and o Low cases • Identify state projected growth areas for power production
Water Availability Indicators: Demand
Water Availability Indicators: Supply Interbasin Transfers Mean Gauged Streamflow Annual Low Flow Accessible Non-Potable Sources Non-Tributary Groundwater
Water Availability Indicators: Supply Brackish Water Depth Brackish TDS Levels Brackish Water Treatment
Regional Pattern of Severe Drought Eugene Yan, 2011
Hydroelectric Power at Risk of Drought U.S. Hydropower Production 400 350 Billion Kilowatthours 300 250 200 150 Recent range (±35%) happened with essentially 100 no change in capacity 50 0 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review, 2005
Thermoelectric Power at Risk of Drought Argonne 2010
Thermoelectric Power at Risk of Drought Argonne 2010
Water Availability Indicators: Institutional Factors Unappropriated Water Adjudication Status Indian Water Administrative Control Areas
Water Availability: Environmental Flows Ratio of Mean Stream Flow to Environmental Flow Requirements: 2004 Mean Flow Env. Flow <1 1-1.25 >1.25
Water Availability Indicators: Value of Water • Historic value of leased and sold water rights • Economic value of water • Cost of backstop technology
Water Availability Indicators • No perfect metric • Need to develop consensus metric(s) • Propose to establish a working group EPRI, 2003 USACE, 2009
Withdrawal and Consumption by Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Washington Thermoelectric Thermoelectric Municipal Industrial Livestock Irrigation Municipal Industrial Livestock Mining Irrigation Mining Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Utah Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oregon Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma Oklahoma State North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota WATER CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND STATE WATER Withdrawal BY SECTOR AND STATE New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico New Mexico Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nevada Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Nebraska Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Montana Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Idaho Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado Colorado California California California California California California California California California California California California Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona Arizona 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Million Gallons per Day TOTAL WATER USE MILLION GALLONS PER DAY
Competition for New Water Use Non-Thermoelectric Consumption Thermoelectric Consumption Non-Thermoelectric Consumption Thermoelectric Consumption MGD
Water Availability for Development Basins with Limited Surface Basins with Limited Groundwater Water Availability Availability
Vulnerable Planned Thermoelectric Development ~75% of All New Development
Recommend
More recommend
