the Water, Energy, Security Nexus Vincent Tidwell Sandia National - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
the water energy security nexus
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

the Water, Energy, Security Nexus Vincent Tidwell Sandia National - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jan 13, 2024 305 likes •705 views

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

slide-1
SLIDE 1
slide-2
SLIDE 2

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.

slide-3
SLIDE 3

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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Project Objectives

  • Reduce the water footprint of electric

power production in western North America:

  • Develop tools for quantitative assessment
  • f the energy-water nexus,
  • Engage stakeholders across the energy-

water spectrum, and

  • Evaluate water implications of alternative

interconnection-wide transmission expansion scenarios.

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Multi-Stakeholder Process

Transmission Planning Energy Security Water Management

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Project Domain

  • Project duration:

– 24 months for WECC – 18 months for ERCOT

  • Planning horizon

is to 2030

ERCOT

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Transmission Planning Teams

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Transmission Planning Process

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Scenario Analysis: Examples

  • High demand
  • Integration of renewables
  • High penetration of electric vehicles
  • High demand side management
  • Extended drought
  • Expanded emission controls
slide-10
SLIDE 10

Scenario Analysis: Existing Fleet

  • Plant

Characteristics

  • System

upgrades, and

  • Production, or
  • Retirement
slide-11
SLIDE 11

Scenario Analysis: Fleet Expansion

  • Plant

characteristics

  • Location,
  • Fuel type,
  • Size, and
  • Production
slide-12
SLIDE 12

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

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Thermoelectric Water Use

Recirculating Cooling Once-Through Cooling Pond Cooling

Dry Cooling

Hybrid Cooling No Cooling Required

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Production and Water Use by Fuel Type

Total Water Withdrawal by Fuel Type

Coal PC Gas Steam Gas CC Gas Combustion Oil Steam Oil CC Oil Combustion Nuclear New Geotherm Biofuel Coal IGCC Solar CSP Solar PV Wind New Hydro 200 400 600 million gallon/da Current Reference

New Fuel types

Total Water Consumption by Fuel Type

Coal PC Gas Steam Gas CC Gas Combustion Oil Steam Oil CC Oil Combustion Nuclear New Geotherm Biofuel Coal IGCC Solar CSP Solar PV Wind New Hydro 100 200 300 million gallon/da Current Reference

New Fuel types

Power Production by Fuel Type

Coal PC Gas Steam Gas CC Gas Combustion Oil Steam Oil CC Oil Combustion Nuclear New Geotherm Biofuel Coal IGCC Solar CSP Solar PV Wind New Hydro 100 200 MMWh Current Reference

New Fuel types

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Water Use by Existing Fleet

Thermoelectric Withdrawal in 2010 Thermoelectric Consumption in 2010

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Water Use by Scenario

85

  • 17

192

  • 291

154 837

  • 400
  • 200

200 400 600 800 1000 PC0 PC1 Pc2 PC3 Industrial Municipal Million Gallons per Day

New Withdrawal 2010-2020

95 81 111 40 42.7 364 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 PC0 PC1 Pc2 PC3 Industrial Municipal Million Gallons per Day

New Consumption 2010-2020

slide-17
SLIDE 17

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?

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Plant Level Evaluation/Tradeoffs

Fuel Type and Location Wet Cooling Dry-Cooled

Cooling Options

Non-Potable

Surface Water

Ground Water

Source Options Plant Options Evaluation Metrics

Reliability Cost Environment

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Water Availability Indicators

  • Water Demand
  • Water Supply
  • Drought Vulnerability
  • Institutional Factors
  • Value of Water

P ET GW Q Rn G H Watershed

Physical Water Budget

Water Budget

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Water Availability Indicators: Demand

  • Focus on withdrawals
  • Estimate consumption

from withdrawals

  • Disaggregate by:
  • 8-digit watershed
  • Sector

 M&I  Agriculture  Evaporative  Instream

  • Water source
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Water Availability Indicators: Demand

  • Projected growth
  • High and
  • Low cases
  • Identify state

projected growth areas for power production

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Water Availability Indicators: Demand

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Water Availability Indicators: Supply

Annual Low Flow Mean Gauged Streamflow Non-Tributary Groundwater Accessible Non-Potable Sources Interbasin Transfers

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Water Availability Indicators: Supply

Brackish TDS Levels Brackish Water Depth Brackish Water Treatment

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Eugene Yan, 2011

Regional Pattern of Severe Drought

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Hydroelectric Power at Risk of Drought

50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Billion Kilowatthours

Recent range (±35%) happened with essentially no change in capacity

U.S. Hydropower Production

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Review, 2005

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Thermoelectric Power at Risk of Drought

Argonne 2010

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Thermoelectric Power at Risk of Drought

Argonne 2010

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Water Availability Indicators: Institutional Factors

Unappropriated Water Adjudication Status Administrative Control Areas Indian Water

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Water Availability: Environmental Flows

<1 1-1.25 >1.25

Mean Flow

  • Env. Flow

Ratio of Mean Stream Flow to Environmental Flow Requirements: 2004

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Water Availability Indicators: Value

  • f Water
  • Historic value of leased

and sold water rights

  • Economic value of

water

  • Cost of backstop

technology

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Water Availability Indicators

  • No perfect metric
  • Need to develop

consensus metric(s)

  • Propose to establish a

working group

EPRI, 2003 USACE, 2009

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Withdrawal and Consumption by State

Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

Municipal Industrial Thermoelectric Mining Livestock Irrigation

Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000

WATER Withdrawal BY SECTOR AND STATE TOTAL WATER USE MILLION GALLONS PER DAY

Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000

Municipal Industrial Thermoelectric Mining Livestock Irrigation

Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000 Arizona California Colorado Idaho Kansas Montana Nebraska Nevada New Mexico North Dakota Oklahoma Oregon South Dakota Texas Utah Washington 10,000 20,000 30,000

WATER CONSUMPTION BY SECTOR AND STATE Million Gallons per Day

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Competition for New Water Use

Non-Thermoelectric Consumption Thermoelectric Consumption

MGD

Non-Thermoelectric Consumption Thermoelectric Consumption

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Water Availability for Development

Basins with Limited Surface Water Availability Basins with Limited Groundwater Availability

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Vulnerable Planned Thermoelectric Development

~75% of All New Development

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Preliminary Key Findings

  • Thermoelectric generation has the potential to drive a

significant increase in water consumption.

  • Water demands for thermoelectric use are relatively small in

relation to agriculture; however, thermoelectric demands are growing while agriculture has remained steady over the past 40 years.

  • A key feature of the projected growth in thermoelectric water

demand is that it corresponds to basins where it will compete with rapid growth in the municipal and industrial sectors. Most

  • f the projected thermoelectric growth is also planned for

basins characterized by limited water availability.

  • The study cases do perform differently with respect to water

withdrawal and consumption suggesting the opportunity to engineer solutions to the water and energy nexus in the West.

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Contact: Vincent Tidwell Sandia National Laboratories PO Box 5800; MS 0735 Albuquerque, NM 87185 (505)844-6025 vctidwe@sandia.gov More Information at:

www.sandia.gov/mission/energy/arra/ energy-water.html