WaterWired

Desal: No Magic Bullet for New Mexico?

John Fleck alerted me to this article featuring my former University of New Mexico colleague Bruce Thomson about the wisdom of basing future growth in New Mexico on unsustainable water supplies, specifically desalinated groundwater.

Regarding Sandoval County's experimental desalination plant, nearing the end of its pilot operation, Thomson opines: 

Thomson calls the desalination pilot “a very useful project; I congratulate Sandoval County planners for having the foresight to undertake this thing.” He says it’ll help Sandoval and its surrounding counties—Bernalillo, McKinley and Santa Fe—better understand how much brackish water lies in the ancient aquifer beneath them, how much it’ll cost to access that water, and what kinds of treatment methods will be necessary to make it potable.

“It’s one of the cutting-edge projects of this type in the Southwest,” Thomson says. But, he adds, “I don’t think we should allow residential growth that depends on a non-sustainable water supply.”

The plant is pumping deep, brackish groundwater and treating it.

Here are two earlier posts of mine on this topic (17 August 2008 and 13 November 2008) and one reporting on a Thomson Op-Ed.

“When we plan for new residential growth, we need to talk in terms of sustainability, and that sustainability needs to be in perpetuity. It doesn’t need to be 30 or 40 or 100 years; it needs to be forever.” -- Bruce Thomson

Biofuels, Energy, and Water: Reports

I've been remiss in reporting on this all-important issue, so here goes.

Colleague Jane Rowan just forwarded me this 2009 report from Argonne National Laboratory, Consumptive Water Use in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline:

Download Wuetalreport-biofuels-aug10

Here is another ANL report from 2008, Baseline and Projected Water Demand Data for Energy and Competing Water Use Sectors.

Stanley Mabako and Chris Lant at Southern Illinois University-Carbondale published this paper in 2008 in volume 44 of the journal Water Resources Research, 'The water requirements of corn-based ethanol.'

And lastly, here is a paper, 'Water embodied in bioethanol in the United States'.

Also check out the Proceedings of the meeting held by the Ground Water Protection Council in September 2009, Water/Energy Symposium. There are a number of sessions and presentations related not just to biofuels and water, but to energy and water in general. Many of the presentation links are hot so you can see the presentations themselves.

Enjoy!

"Biofuels have been described as filling your gas tank with rainforests." -- Unknown The water requirements of corn-baed ethanol.

GAO Report on Energy-Water Nexus: Federal Water Use Data Improvements &Trends in Power Plant Water Use

The Government Accountability Office has produced a report on the Energy-Water Nexus: Improvements to Federal Water Use Data Would Increase Understanding of Trends in Power Plant Water Use.

That's a mouthful!

Here is the download: Download D1023

Probably good to read at bedtime to ensure a good night's sleep. 

If you're like me and don't want to read the 78-page report, here is the one-pager:

Download D1023high

Enjoy!

"I can promise you that when I go to Sacramento, I will pump up Sacramento." -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

September/October 2009 Southwest Hydrology: CO2 Sequestration

The new issue of Southwest Hydrology features CO2 Sequestration. As always, downloads of the entire issue or individual departments are free.

From the introduction:

The supercritical state of CO2 in the subsurface has fluid-like behavior, thus many aspects of hydrology apply to its sequestration. A good candidate storage site, often identified with the help of multi-phase flow modeling, has sufficient porosity to accommodate the volumes of CO2 being injected and low-permeability caprock to prevent its escape. Monitoring through wells, geophysics, and surface measurements is used to determine if any leakage is occurring. If CO2 does escape, it could reach drinking-water aquifers and impact water quality, or it could migrate to the surface, thereby defeating the purpose of sequestration. Regulations to minimize the risks of CO2 sequestration are in development, and pilot projects to test the process are underway across the country, including in the Southwest.

Featured articles:

Opportunities for Carbon Capture and Geologic Storage, by Richard J. Myhre and Marian Stone

The Hydrology of Geologic Sequestration, Gregory Schnaar and Stephen J. Cullen

Managing the Risks of CO2 Sequestration,  Amy Hardberger and Scott Anderson

Regulating Geologic Sequestration of CO2, Patricia R. Pfeiffer and Bruce J. Kobelski

Frio Brine Pilot: The First U.S. Sequestration Test, Susan D. Hovorka

Exploring Geologic CO2 Storage in Arizona, Dennis H. Shirley, Daniel J. Collins, and John L. Boyer

Departments:

1) On the Ground

2) Government

3) Hydrofacts

4)  R & D

5) The Water Page

6) People & Companies

7) In Print and Online and Business Directory

8) Calendar

Enjoy!

"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act, but a habit." -- Aristotle

Video: World Resources Simulation Center Design Event

Averill Strasser of Water Charity sent me a link to this video on the World Resources Simulation Center design event that took place in San Diego in June 2009. Forty-six experts in GIS mapping and comprehensive thinking were brought together.

The World Resources Simulation Center, proposed by R. Buckminster Fuller, is an immersive visualization facility where policy-makers, business leaders, students and civil society can literally "see" the trends of our multiple, interconnected global issues and simulate options for the future -- so that the most sustainable choices can be made and acted upon more quickly.

This was reminiscent of the Club of Rome's The Limits to Growth experiments of the early 1970s - just incredibly more sophisticated.

When I first started my Twitter I had someone follow me who listed herself as a "comprehensivist". I wonder if she attended this meeting.

"The earth is like a spaceship that didn't come with an operating manual." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Integrated Water-Energy Planning: Paper and Symposium

 

As part of the aformentioned symposium, Cat Shrier sent me a link to a paper that she, Mike Hightower (Sandia National Laboratories) and Nancy Johnson (Office of Fossil Energy, DoE) recently wrote, Integrated Water-Energy Planning. 

Here is the symposium WWW site. View the agenda of the SLC meeting; here is a registration form.

Download 0812flyer

"The sound of water says what I think." -- Chuang Tzu (c. 360 - 275 BCE)

DC Water-Energy Dialogue Report

In recent years much has been discussed, and many meetings held, about the so-called energy-water nexus and the inextricable link and reciprocity between the two entities. The U.S. Department of Energy’s national laboratories have even engaged in a process to develop an energy-water roadmap for the USA.

 

You might want to check out these papers on the energy-water nexus I posted the other day.

To this mix of meetings, symposia, roadmaps, and dialogues, add one more: on the morning before the National Water Policy Event on Tuesday 28 July 2009 the University of Southern California,  The Chronicles Group, and The Metropolitan Water District sponsored a dialogue on the critical issues of the connection between water use and energy, and the value that water efficiency can bring to these issues. A small group (c. 30) spent three hours discussing the issues as a way of sharing information about what we know, and what we are doing to address water, energy and efficiency opportunities.

 

The dialogue was hosted and convened by Dr. Mark Bernstein of the USC Energy Institute. The attendance was limited only because of the size of the conference room at USC’s Washington office on Pennsylvania Avenue. Mark announced this event rather late (mid-July) to take advantage of the presence of the ‘movers and shakers’ attending the National Water Policy Event. Mark’s idea paid off, as the following luminaries attended and contributed: Patricia Mulroy (SNWA): Timothy Brick (MWD), Dr. Gene Whitney (CRS); Lena Fowler (Coconino County - AZ and formerly of the Navajo Nation); Dr. Erik Webb (SNL); Donald Smith (MWH Global); Floyd Wicks (American States Water Company); Jerry Sehlke (Idaho National Laboratory and American Water Resources Association); Dr. Cat Shrier (Watercat Consulting); Dr. Jackie Chan and Averill Strasser (Water Charity); Emily Green (journalist); Betsy Cody (Library of Congress); Dr. John Gasper (Argonne National Laboratory); Mary Ann Dickinson (Alliance for Water Efficiency); and Jim Thebaut (The Chronicles Group and the Running Dry films) all attended and contributed. The group was not necessarily a representative cross-section of either sector, and participants were heavily weighted toward the water side.

Prior to the meeting Mark had distributed his raison d’être for the meeting and guidance as to the issues to be addressed:

There is an increasing recognition among water and energy decision makers that there is a nexus between water and energy and that we need to understand it better. The water industry is one of the most energy intensive industries in the U.S.

 We also understand that as water becomes more difficult to supply, more energy will be needed for the industry.   Given these concerns we would like to share information on the following questions: 

There is a lack of quality information about the energy used in water and vice versa.  That information would be quite valuable for understanding the connections and helping to create planning solutions for water agencies.

What information about the water-energy nexus and alternative approaches to resource management is needed?

What is the value of increasing resource efficiency for water agencies? How can you position yourselves to take advantage of the opportunities created by future climate and energy policy?

What lessons can be learned from experience?

The dialogue was more a free-wheeling roundtable discussion than a structured, agenda-driven dialogue.

N.B. What follows is my recollection of the points that resonated with me. As I was trying to participate and scribble notes for about three hours this is by no means a complete picture of all that was discussed. Mark promised to send out a more complete summary of the meeting. I will post that here when I receive it.

Mark Bernstein initiated the discussion with the provocative statement that water and energy data – the amount of water used to produce energy and vice-versa – are hard to acquire. When this was disputed (but certainly not vehemently) by some participants, Mark emphasized that the data are available, but their quality is suspect. Mary Ann Dickinson said that AWE does not really have data on energy use. Gene Whitney added that the Energy Information Agency has the statutory authority to get data. Erik Webb proffered that there is new money for EIA in the new Senate Energy and Water bill to acquire water-related energy data. Betsy Cody and her colleagues from the Library of Congress noted the LC’s efforts in the water-energy data arena.

I noted that water data are not as available or as good as many believe. Others added that utilities have data on their water use, but on a statewide or national scale, states and the Federal government have data of varying quality. Some states have very good data; many do not. Agricultural water use, the largest single water use in the USA, is also not that well-known. Campana added that the U.S. Geological Survey’s National Water Use Information Program (NWUIP), which produces a report on the estimated water use in the USA every five years, is not well-funded and relies heavily a states’data. A National Academy of Sciences committee (on which I served) recommended in 2002 that NWUIP be better funded so that statistical and other methods could be developed to provide robust estimates of the USA’s water use.

Jerry Sehlke and I also spoke about the importance of hydroelectric power to the Pacific Northwest, and how climate change will affect that and water availability.

Pat Mulroy made some excellent points. Water has a strong public health nexus, whereas energy does not. The energy sector is largely investor-owned, whereas the water sector is dominated by public utilities; each thus has different philosophies. She also stated, and most present concurred, that is “very hard to get water and energy guys together.” Others noted that even utilities in the same sector aren’t necessarily cooperative. She noted it takes energy to produce clean water and that many are unaware of the effects of water quality regulations on water treatment, and that every additional regulation adds cost and increases energy consumption [a copy of Stephen Reiling et al., 2009, Drinking water regulations: estimated cumulative energy use and costs, Journal AWWA, pp 42-53, was distributed].

Conservation was a controversial topic. Much attention has been given to the ‘low-hanging fruit’ that has been harvested, but most at the table acknowledged that conservation is more difficult once that ‘fruit’ has been picked. One view was that conservation does cost consumers money in the sense that reduction is use may precipitate a reduction in the revenue stream, which could trigger rate increases. But another view held that in the long run, conservation may save money as utilities shelve plans for additional treatment plants, reservoirs, etc. There was not universal agreement on this topic, although many agreed that the public seems to think that conservation is easier than it really is and don’t understand that it could cost them money.

The California Public Utilities Commission Water Action Plan (15 December 2005) was held up as something worth perusing.

Cat Shrier promoted another water-energy conference (co-sponsored by NGWA), The Water-Energy Sustainability Symposium, to be held in Salt Lake City, 13-16 September 2009. It will be held in conjunction with the Ground Water Protection Council’s Annual Forum.

Although the meeting was unstructured, the discussion was enlightening and I gleaned much from the participants. I am glad I attended and am grateful to Mark for assembling this group on short notice.

“The problem with the energy-water roadmap is that it will be left in the glove compartment.” -- Unknown, heard at a DoE Energy-Water Nexus meeting in Salt Lake City.

Energy-Water Nexus: Three Papers For Your Reading Pleasure

Yesterday I received an email from Dr. Benjamin K. Sovacool from the National University of  Singapore. Attached to the email were three papers dealing with energy and water. 

Dear colleagues,

Attached are three articles dealing with the U.S. electricity sector and potential water crises that I thought you might find of interest.  The first (Columbia Journal of Environmental Law) outlines the nexus between electricity use and water and proposes that the President issue an Executive Order to respond to electricity-water challenges.  The second (Energy Law Journal) summarizes the nexus and focuses much more on what state and local actors, including electric utilities, can do to lessen their electricity-water needs.  The third (Energy Policy) summarizes the first two studies and provides a detailed explanation behind our methodology.

Please feel free to distribute as you wish.  As the Energy Policy piece explains, our methodology was admittedly crude and we made a number of assumptions that could easily change.  That said, we truly hope the articles promote discussion and debate and contribute to a better understanding of the electricity-water nexus and its potential consequences.

Here are the citations for the three articles and two pdfs:

1) Benjamin K. Sovacool and Kelly E. Sovacool, “Preventing National Electricity-Water Crisis Areas in the United States,” Columbia Journal of Environmental Law 34(2) (Summer, 2009), pp. 333-393.

Download Sovacool-and-Sovacool-Water-Columbia 

2) Benjamin K. Sovacool, “Running on Empty: The Electricity-Water Nexus and the U.S. Electric Utility Sector,” Energy Law Journal 30(1) (April, 2009), pp. 11-51.

Download Sovacool_Running_on_Empty

3) Benjamin K. Sovacool and Kelly E. Sovacool, “Identifying Future Electricity Water Tradeoffs in the United States,” Energy Policy 37(7) (July, 2009), pp. 2763-2773.
Note: This paper is copyright protected so I did not post it  - email Dr. Sovacool for a copy.

Although I have never met Dr. Sovacool and am not an expert in this field, I decided to post these because: 1) it;s an important topic; and 2)  I am in DC to attend the Dialogue on Water-Energy Connection on the morning of 28 July. So these are timely.

Enjoy!

"It is clear that our nation is reliant upon big foreign oil. More and more of our imports come from overseas." -- former President George W. Bush

28 July 2009 in DC: Dialogue on Water-Energy Connection, 9:30 - Noon

Another big water event in DC on 28 July 2009.

In the morning before the National Water Policy event on Tuesday 28 July 2009, The University of Southern California, The Chronicles Group and The Metropolitan Water District invite you to a dialogue on the critical issues of the connection between water use and energy, and the value that water efficiency can bring to these issues.  In this session, a small group will discuss the issues as a way of sharing information about what we know, and what we are doing to address water, energy and efficiency opportunities.

Date: Tuesday 28 July

Time: 9:30 – noon

Please contact Dr. Mark Bernstein (mabernst@usc.edu) by 23 July 2009 for more information (such as the location). Space is limited - first-come, first-served. Walk-ins cannot be accommodated.

 

The Dialogue

There is an increasing recognition among water and energy decision makers that there is a nexus between water and energy and that we need to understand it better. The water industry is one of the most energy intensive industries in the U.S.  We also understand that as water becomes more difficult to supply, more energy will be needed for the industry.   Given these concerns we would like to share information on the following questions: 

There is a lack of quality information about the energy used in water and vice versa.  That information would be quite valuable for understanding the connections and helping to create planning solutions for water agencies.

What information about the water-energy nexus and alternative approaches to resource management is needed?

What is the value of increasing resource efficiency for water agencies? How can you position yourselves to take advantage of the opportunities created by future climate and energy policy?

What lessons can be learned from experience?

I'll see you there. Please be sure to RSVP; if too few people express interest, it may be canceled.

“Real wealth is ideas plus energy." -- R. Buckminster Fuller

Gas, Oil & Water: The New Great Game Continues

On 4 July 2009 I posted about The Forgotten Caucasus: Where Oil and Water (and Gas!) Mix. The post was prompted by Nadya Ivanova's excellent article about that part of the world and the energy-water nexus found therein.

In that article, she quotes me and my belief that my work in the Kura-Araks Basin of the South Caucasus is as much about energy as it is about water. Here are previous posts on the topic: 25 May 2008 and 22 July 2008.

Now, my issue (18 - 24 July 2009) of The Economist arrives with a story about the Euros, Russians, and the struggle for secure natural gas supplies. The following map of extant and proposed gas lines is from the article; it's the best such map I've seen.

 

The two routes through Georgia and Azerbaijan - the BTC pipeline (oil) and the BTE (gas) are shown as cutting through the northwest corner of Armenia. That's incorrect; both pipelines, which follow the same route, go directly into Turkey from Georgia, avoiding Armenia altogether. Neither Azerbaijan nor Turkey would have had it any other way.

The article also has an accompanying video about the proposed Nabucco pipeline. I learned that the name is taken from a Verdi opera about slaves who throw off their chains and gain freedom.

To be continued...

"You cannot escape from destiny." -- Armenian proverb

Review: Robert Glennon's 'Unquenchable'

Robert Glennon, inveterate Boston Red Sox fan that he is, has hit another home run. His first one came in  the form of Water Follies: Groundwater Pumping and the Fate of America's Fresh Waters. But now he has topped that with Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What To Do About It.

Shill alert #1: Before providing my review I must admit that I received a free copy of the book. I am also a huge fan of Glennon's. I've seen his Water Follies talk four times. Two of those times I invited him. I never get tired of hearing him. He is an excellent, entertaining speaker with an encyclopedic knowledge of his subject.  And anyone who begins a chapter (7) with a line from a Doobie Brothers' song  has my vote.

I finished his book six weeks ago and meant to review it then, but my Central American sojourn got in the way. But now, with his appearance on The Daily Show, I figured that this review is bordering on old news.

And how many WaterWonks are cool enough to make Jon Stewart's show? And it's okay that he's a Red Sox fan.

Glennon is not only an eloquent and entertaining speaker but also the same kind of writer. It's a hard book to put down. And he really does believe we are facing a water crisis; it's not just a catchy title. Furthermore, it's an economic crisis as much as an environmental one.

In Part I, The Crisis, Glennon runs through a litany of profligate water use, shortage, and stupidity: the Palm Springs user who had a $33,000 annual water bill; unbridled development in the arid West; cities (e.g., Sacramento) that do not require residential water meters; precipitous declines in the groundwater levels in the High Plains (aka Ogallala) aquifer; Las Vegas; snowmaking at Stone Mountain, GA; flushing our waste and watering our lawns with drinking water; a hotel featuring dual-head showers in the middle of a drought; lowered levels in the Great Lakes, especially the upper lakes; bottled water; effects of dams on fisheries; and more. He even tells the tale of the prisoners at one California prison who waste water by using toilet flushing to communicate with each other and annoy officials.

Glennon recognizes the intimate connection between water and energy, and uses the much-discussed ethanol fiasco as a prime example of how much water it takes to produce a gallon of the stuff. The country rushed headlong into ethanol and is now facing unintended consequences, especially vis-a-vis water use.

Glennon also invokes the hi-tech industry and its dependence upon water. We know that prodigious amounts of ultra-pure water are needed to manufacture chips. Intel is a very good example of a company that is heavily invested in water purification, use, and reuse, because water is money. [Shill alert #2: my wife is an Intel manager and I used to serve on Intel's community advisory board in Albuquerque.] But how many of us knew that Google requires a lot of water, too? They don't make chips, but they require huge server farms, and they need lots of cooling water. Granted, cooling is pretty much a nonconsumptive use, but it does require a source and it will raise the temperature of the water. 

The second part of the book is Real and Surreal Solutions. He discusses traditional water conservation programs, and cites successful efforts in Tucson, Albuquerque, and San Antonio. He mentions water harvesting as something that should be promoted, although he avoids mentioning the illegality of that practice in some states. Graywater use is encouraged, but he notes that restrictive plumbing codes can discourage installation and encourage 'bootleg' systems. Reclaimed wastewater is an option that needs to be explored more fully. It is in this part that he discusses Intel's water use in the chapter aptly titled 'Moore's Law'.

This part also has a chapter on 'Water Alchemists' - the name Glennon uses to describe those who propose solutions such as towing icebergs, constructing mammoth pipelines, obtaining water from the Great Lakes or James Bay, etc. 

Part III of the book deals with A New Approach and promulgates Glennon's vision: price signals, water marketing, radical toilets, environmental transfers, water privatization, farming's future, etc. I especially enjoyed 'Take the Money and Run' and the tale of the Imperial Irrigation District (IID) and the Palo Verde Irrigation District (PVID) in southern California.

The last chapter is his blueprint for reform. Here is the short version:

1. Using price signals
2. Creating market incentives
3. Reexamining how we dispose of human wastes
4. Requiring developers to pay their own way
5. Reconsidering the location of wastewater plants
6. Separating storm water from sewer water
7. Creating dual-pipe infrastructure for potable and reclaimed water
8. Abandoning business as usual (more dams, diversions, wells)
9. Recognizing the link between water and energy
10. Appreciating the critical role paid by water in the economy
11. Removing the barriers to water transfers while providing for government oversight of them
12. Creating incentives for homeowners and others to harvest water
13. Stimulating alternative waste disposal technologies
14. Metering water use
15. Securing water for the environment
16. Encouraging creative conservation

Glennon is a defender of the right to water, and advocates a lifeline strategy so that the poor are not shut out. He is not opposed to privatization, as long as there are the proper controls. He promotes markets, but he has a heart.

He warns that we need to get our act together. We already have a crisis; we must ensure that it does not become a catastrophe. It will be a major effort to find the will and money to modernize our water and wastewater infrastructure. Federal agencies have conflicting mandates with little coordination among themselves.  States are squabbling over water.

We have become accustomed to wasting a precious resource by allowing unrestrained growth and consumption to drive our policy decisions without regard to water availability. We can solve our water problems; we have the tools, but it is going to be difficult.

His epilogue is titled, "The Salton Sea"; need I say more? 

If you use water, you need to read this book. It's akin to Cadillac Desert.

[Robert acquitted himself well on The Daily Show; view his interview. You can also view the Q&A used to prep him. Here is a link to Shaun McKinnon's Waterblogged, where you can access an interview with Glennon on KJZZ.]

"You can't always get what you want, but if you try sometimes, well, you just might find you get what you need." -- The Rolling Stones

Report: Renewable Energy on Tribal Lands

Okay, this ain't about water, but don't forget the energy-water nexus.

Here's a report you may find interesting: Renewable Energy on Tribal Lands, by Trevor Erberich and Peter Meisen of the Global Energy Network Institute (GENI). 

The requisite blurb that Peter sent in an email:

Historically, Native Americans have been concentrated to sun-baked and
wind-swept lands considered to have marginal  value.  Now, with the
improvements in renewable technologies, these Tribal lands have vast and
extremely valuable natural resources that Native American Tribes can
develop. 

The potential of these resources is enormous.  With current wind
technology the Tribal Reservations in the Great Plains could potentially
supply over one-fifth of the United States' total electrical energy
needs.  Additionally, Tribes in the southwest desert have an almost
unlimited supply of solar power, and have the potential to power both
homes and buildings on the reservations and provide the Tribes with a
valuable export commodity - clean electricity.

High-voltage transmission enables wind and solar farms on reservations
to be sold to neighboring utilities and make a profit.  The wind and sun
are there every day -- an untapped resource that can be harvested for
personal use by the Tribe and derive income by selling the excess.

This kind of development raises the living standards for all  members.
Renewable energy provides jobs, a source of rural electrification, and
capital that the Tribe can then reinvest into other projects to benefit
their members. The development of renewable energy on Tribal lands gives Tribes valuable experience in managing a large project which can then be used in other projects that require Tribal cooperation over many years.

Here is our Executive Summary on the development of Renewable Energy on  Tribal Lands and the issues surrounding this complex topic.

Hey! Maybe we could use this energy bounty to pump water from the Mississippi River to Las Vegas!

"Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children." -- Native American proverb

OSU Graduate Student: Micro-Hydro Feasibility Using Low-Flow Springs

Check out this brief (36 seconds) video introducing Jennifer Holderman, the first joint JD/MS in Water Resources Science student, who is researching the feasibility of generating electricity from low-flow springs in the Oregon Cascades.

Jennifer is a JD student at the University of Oregon School of Law.

Jennifer’s research is made possible by a gift from Mrs. Esther Rada to the Water Resources Management Research Fund at OSU. The fund is used for the study of water and watershed activities and the pursuit of solutions to the water and related environmental problems of Oregon, the Pacific Northwest, and the world.

IWW Associate Director  Todd Jarvis is advising Jennifer, and says:

This project was originally suggested to me by the Rada family as a research project for a graduate student. The Institute for Water and Watersheds and the Water Resources Graduate Program were delighted to assign a student to complete the feasibility study as a research project because it fit perfectly within OSU’s Signature Areas of Distinction, as outlined in the university’s strategic plan of Advancing the Science of Sustainable Earth Ecosystems. The project also fits well within the Oregon Built Environment & Sustainable Technologies Center (Oregon BEST) program, which researches ways to transform green building and renewable energy research into on-the-ground products, services, and jobs that power Oregon’s green economy. And the Energy Trust of Oregon is also actively researching micro-hydro site suitability using Geographic Information Systems (GIS); we anticipate linking the Rada Family’s investment in the student’s research into this program as one means to ground truth their GIS work.

Talk about the energy-water nexus!

"The human body was designed by a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?” – Unknown

Energy-Water Nexus in Texas: Report from UT-Austin and EDF

The Environmental Defense Fund and the Jackson School of Geosciences at the University of Texas-Austin have just released their report, The Energy-Water Nexus in Texas. Thanks to Mary Kelly of the EDF for alerting me to this.

This looks to be a useful report and could perhaps serve as a template for other states.

Here is the blurb from the EDF: 

Energy and water are finite resources that are closely linked — and increasingly strained by rising demand. For example, generating electricity requires large amounts of water for cooling and other functions. And significant electricity is needed to treat and deliver clean water. Yet policy decisions generally don’t consider energy and water use together. [Note: energy can also be produced by flowing water, as is the case in the Pacific Northwest.]

A new report from Environmental Defense Fund, The Energy-Water Nexus in Texas  — produced jointly with the University of Texas — concludes that failing to consider the link between water and energy could further drain these already vulnerable resources. 

With the challenges of climate change looming and Texas' population growing, the state can no longer afford to make decisions in isolation on supplying energy and water to its residents.  Our report's overarching message: Increasing efficiency in both sectors is key to stretching finite supplies and reducing costs to Texans.

To address the problem of strained water and energy resources, EDF's report makes specific recommendations on how to build a framework for more integrated energy-water planning, including:

• Require a study to determine how much water is available for use when siting new fossil-fueled or concentrated solar power plants.
• Require proposed power plants to evaluate cooling technology to minimize water use, while considering effects on power plant efficiency.
• Provide incentives for implementing power plant cooling technologies that are less water-intensive than traditional systems.
• Provide state agency guidance to water suppliers to help quantify energy use and cost savings associated with water conservation.

If Texas maintains or increases its current water use patterns, demand for water could exceed available water supplies, pushing Texas into a water crunch. Fortunately, there’s another way. “Reducing energy use is the fastest, most efficient way to achieve the large-scale water savings Texas needs,” says EDF attorney and report co-author Amy Hardberger.

"The rougher the water becomes, the easier it is for the wind to transfer its energy." -- David Wang

The Bingaman (D-NM) - Murkowski (R-AK) Bill Tackles the Energy-Water Nexus

Ahhh....the energy-water nexus! Haven't we heard that before? Well, it's still here.

Leslie Kryder sent me this information about a bill being introduced by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK),  the ranking Republican.

The bill is S. 531, the Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009, and it seeks to obtain a better understanding of the relationship and interdependence between energy and water.

Here is the blurb that I was sent:

“The bill Sen. Murkowski and I introduced is a necessary first step in the
direction of integrating America’s energy and water policies,” Bingaman
said.  “Developing new policies that integrate energy and water solutions
will become increasingly vital as populations grow, environmental needs
increase and a changing climate continues to affect our nation’s energy
and water resources.”

“Energy and water resources are essential to our nation’s future and
security,” Murkowski said. “This bill provides an opportunity to identify
the major areas we should be focusing on to better understand the
interdependency between water and energy development, as well
mechanisms that could further our investment into technology to more
efficiently use these systems that are so important in our daily lives.”

A tremendous amount of water is used in this country to produce energy.
 Similarly, a tremendous amount of energy is consumed in the delivery and
treatment of water supplies.  With the exception of certain renewable
energy sources, building more power plants and creating new fuels will
impact scarce water resources.  Similarly, increasing demand for water
will drive up energy use.  The linkage between the two is too often overlooked.

The Energy and Water Integration Act of 2009 contains the following:

1) National Academy Energy-Water Study– Requires a study to assess
water use associated with developing fuels in the transportation sector,
and the water consumed in different types of electricity-generation.

2) Power Plant Water and Energy Efficiency– directs DOE to
identify best available technologies and other strategiesmaximize water
and energy efficiency in producing electricity.

3) Reclamation Water Conservation & Energy Savings Study– directs
the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) to evaluate energy use in storing and
delivering water from Reclamation projects, and identify ways to reduce
such use through conservation, improved operations, and renewable
energy integration.

4) BOR Brackish Groundwater Desalination Facility– Organic
legislation to establish research priorities for this existing Facility,
including renewable energy integration with desalination technologies.

5) EIA Energy Use for Water Assessment– a requirement for Energy
Information Administration to continually report on the energy consumed
in water treatment and delivery activities.

6) Energy-Water Roadmap– directs the Secretary of Energy to
develop an Energy-Water Research and Development Roadmap to address
water-related challenges to sustainable energy generation and production.

Here is the statement of Carl O. Bauer, Director of the National Energy Technology Laboratory:

Download Bauer NETL Testimony 031009

Hey, didn't we do the roadmap thing a few years ago? The NAS study is a good idea. We'll see about the other items.

'The trouble with roadmaps is that they're usually left in the glove compartment." -- Unknown

Requiem for a Repository

President Obama's debt to Nevada and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) looks like it has just been paid: it appears that the proposed repository for the USA's commercial nuclear waste, Yucca Mountain, is all but done. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said that storing high-level waste (HLW) at the site is no longer an option. Although the site is not 100% dead, it is on its last legs, although supporters are not ready to concede defeat.

Should Yucca Mountain never open, not many people will shed tears, and that includes me.

Something like $8B has been spent already.

I haven't kept up with the YM Project for many years so I'm not abreast of all the technical issues currently swirling about the site. But I suspect that there is enough uncertainty to render the site unacceptable. In fairness, given the requirement that a site must remain secure for 10,000 years, I doubt if anyone can find an "acceptable' site. Ten thousand years is a tall order for humankind.

I must confess that in my youth (mid to late 1980s) I worked for both the Department of Energy on Nevada Test Site  (NTS) 'weapons stuff' and for the state of Nevada on its Yucca Mountain oversight program while at the Desert Research Institute.  If that wasn't a conflict of interest, I don't know what was, but neither agency minded that I supposedly had split loyalties (I should note that the DoE NTS weapons program was separate from the DoE Yucca Mountain program). In both instances, my tasks consisted of delineating flow in the regional carbonate aquifer that flowed beneath the NTS and Yucca Mountain. In both cases the issue was radionculide migration from either weapons tests or leaking waste canisters.

Permit me an aside here. In a recent article about the Nevada Test Site, someone was quoted as saying that the USA tests nuclear bombs there. That's not true; nuclear 'devices' are tested, not nuclear 'bombs'. As I was so rudely corrected by a physicist at a talk over 30 years ago at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, it's only a 'bomb' when it falls from the sky as a weapon.  That was my first introduction to 'nuclearspeak'.

When the Yucca Mountain site was the sole site selected for characterization in 1987, Nevada had little political clout. Congress and DoE saw no reason not to take advantage of this, and foisted the site on the people of Nevada. Why not? After all, these people lived in a desert, and had 'consented' to let the government explode nuclear bombs - ooops, devices - on its soil for many years. The MX Missile program - remember those nuclear-tipped missiles running around on racetracks to fool the Soviets - had also been slated for good ol' Nevada. So what's a little commercial nuclear waste? Only about 70,000 metric tons. Those guys'll take it. Better Nevada than some place that really counted.

Here is what one of my colleagues (also a former Nevada resident) recently wrote me:

I could never support the position that disposal at Yucca Mountain was the best option.  That latter point was not based on any great understanding of the merits and demerits of the site; rather it was based on what I believed was a national stampede by eastern and southern congressmen and senators to dump their pressing problems onto someone else.  The site chosen could have been anywhere in Nevada and those from the south would have championed it.  It’s just desert, right?  Strom Thurmond championed Yucca Mountain and that was cause enough for suspicion.  

But Nevada's resistance had been underestimated, and as its political clout increased and DoE's missteps hit the press, the site's viability declined. So it now looks like Yucca Mountain won't see the light of day, or the glow of radioactive waste.

Another reason for the resistance to the HLW repository program among some was the fear that if a " successful" repository site was found and opened, it would provide an impetus for more nuclear power plants. I learned that all too well when I gave a talk on HLW waste disposal options before the La Jolla chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) in 1989. After my talk, I was socializing and speaking with a few of the attendees. I made the point that we needed to find a place to store the HLW safely, instead of keeping the stuff on-site at each power plant. Referring to on-site storage, I said, "Is that what you want?" "Yes!" they replied in unison. Duhhh...That's when it struck me that was what they wanted, and they never wanted to find any site, Yucca Mountain or elsewhere.

To illustrate what a mess DOE has made of the USA's search for a HLW repository, let me relate a story. When I got out of graduate school in 1976 I interviewed with the forerunner to the U.S. Department of Energy (I believe it was still called the Atomic Energy Commission) to work on the characterization of nuclear waste repositories, mainly Yucca Mountain. At one point in our conversation the interviewer laughed and said how I would be out of a job in 1988, when the site characterization would end so construction could start for the 1998 opening. Uh-huh.

So what have we learned from all this? From a hydrogeologist's perspective, we learned a heckuva a lot about unsaturated fracture flow and low-permeability rocks. As one of my colleagues said, DoE was hydrogeology's NSF for many years (not that DoE wanted to be). 

We also learned how not to conduct a site characterization, and how not to get the public on board.

Or let's hope we've learned.

If you want to read more, here's one of my posts from December 2007.

"Civilization exists by geological consent, subject to change without notice." -- Will Durant

PacInst: Bottled Water Can Be 2000X More Energy-Intensive Than Tap Water

I got this in an email from the Pacific Institute. I suspect I'll get some comments.

In a newly published article in the February 2009 edition of the peer-reviewed journal Environmental Research Letters the Pacific Institute estimates that the annual consumption of bottled water in the U.S. in 2007 required the equivalent of between 32 and 54 million barrels of oil—roughly one-third of a percent of total U.S. primary energy consumption.

The article, “Energy Implications of Bottled Water” by researchers Peter H. Gleick and Heather Cooley, is the first peer-reviewed analysis of its kind. Gleick and Cooley find bottled water is up to 2000 times more energy-intensive than tap water. Similarly, bottled water that requires long-distance transport is far more energy-intensive than bottled water produced and distributed locally.

“As bottled water use continues to expand around the world, there is growing interest in the environmental, economic, and social implications of that use, including concerns about waste generation, proper use of groundwater, hydrologic effects on local surface and groundwater, economic costs, and more. But a key concern is how much energy is required to produce and use bottled water,” said article co-author Peter Gleick, president of the Pacific Institute. “It turns out the answer is, a lot.”

The authors note that a single estimate of the energy footprint of bottled water is not possible due to differences among water sources, bottling processes, transportation costs, and other factors. Gleick and Cooley calculate the energy requirements for various stages in bottled water production, including the energy to manufacture the plastic bottles, process the water and the bottles, and transport and cool the final product.

Combining the energy intensities for these stages, the analysis finds that producing bottled water requires between 5.6 and 10.2MJ per liter—as much as 2000 times the energy cost of producing tap water. The authors further estimate that to satisfy global demands, the energy equivalent of 50 million barrels of oil per year is used just to produce the bottles, primarily made of PET plastic, almost all of which are currently made from virgin, not recycled, material.

For water transported short distances, the energy requirements of bottled water are dominated by the energy to produce these plastic bottles. Long-distance transport, however, can lead to energy costs comparable to, or even higher than, the energy to produce the bottle. In the article, the authors calculate the energy costs of three different scenarios for a bottle of water consumed in Southern California—a locally produced bottle and bottled water from both France and Fiji transported to the region.

“With the U.S. consumption of bottled water exceeding 33 billion liters a year, and with intensifying efforts to reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, these data should help identify ways to reduce the energy costs of bottled water and may help consumers themselves make more environmentally sustainable choices,” said co-author Heather Cooley, senior research associate at the Pacific Institute.

Here is the article "Energy Implications of Bottled Water".

"No glaciers were harmed in making this water." -- label on Tap'd NY, a brand of bottled NYC tap water

2009 System Dynamics Conference: Special Session on Water, Energy, Agriculture

Colleague and friend Howard Passell of Sandia National Laboratories is convening a special session at the 2009 System Dynamics Conference, 26-30 July, sponsored by the System Dynamics Society. It will be held in Albuquerque, NM.

Sustainability in Water, Energy and Agricultural Resources Management: Collaborative Modeling and Policy Making

Achieving sustainable use of water, energy and agricultural resources over the next few decades may be one of humanity's greatest challenges ever, and may have important consequences for social, economic and political stability at regional and global scales. System dynamics is a technical and philosophical approach well suited to exploring the complex interdependencies among resources and human systems. Collaborative modeling approaches that engaging experts and integrate data and knowledge from across disciplines and sectors are valuable for capturing the complexity that exists across multiple resource and human systems. The resulting models can be powerful tools for informing important decision making at all levels. This special session is aimed at exploring the combination of collaborative system dynamics modeling approaches targeted at water, energy and/or agriculture resources, and the application of those modeling efforts to community planning, policy making, and public outreach. Paper presentations will be coupled with discussions aimed at advancing our strengths and capabilities in this work.

Contact Howard (hdpasse@sandia.gov) if you would like to submit an abstract for this session only.

"All models are wrong, but some are useful." -- G.E.P. Box

Desalting Deep Brackish Ground Water

Fifteen billion acre-feet of ground water? That is about a 25-year supply for the world at current pumping rates!

That's how much brackish ground water lies beneath New Mexico, according to Sean Olson [thanks to John Fleck for alterting me] in the 29 December 2008 Albuquerque Journal (you will have to view an ad to read his article).  I know a lot of brackish ground water underlies New Mexico but I am a little skeptical of that figure - it seems awfully high.

But the exact number is not relevant to Olson's article,  which basically says that desalting New Mexico's huge supply of brackish ground water will likely cost a lot of money because of the energy required.

Mike Hightower of Sandia National Laboratories, a good guy (even though he attended New Mexico State University) who knows as much about the energy-water nexus as anyone I've ever met. says that it will cost about $3-$5 per 1000 gallons to treat brackish water to drinking-water standards. It costs about $1-$2 per 1000 gallons to treat 'normal' fresh water to the same standards.

Then there's the problem of waste disposal, about which I posted in August 2008.

For more information on the topic: here is Bruce Thomson's Op-Ed about the New Mexico brackish water issue, and another one of my posts on this subject from November 2008. 

Never a dull moment in the Land of Entrapment!

"We know accurately only when we know little; with knowledge doubt increases. " -- Goethe

Dr. Anthony Turton Forms a Dream Team

Colleague Todd Jarvis sent me this information about Dr. Tony Turton, whose suspension by CSIR  and a petition for his reinstatement were noted on this blog last month.

Looks like Tony has landed on his feet.

Former CSIR water researcher Dr. Anthony Turton is busy with a new project, the Dream Team, to tackle the country's water supply problems.

Earlier this week Turton and his former employer, the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), parted ways after a much-publicised disagreement over a paper Turton wrote on the country's water supply.

Turton was prevented from presenting his paper, entitled Three Strategic Water Quality Challenges that Decision-Makers Need to Know About and How the CSIR Should Respond, at a CSIR conference last month.

His paper outlined the critical challenges facing the country's water supply and the negative effect that would have on economic development.

He said the government and other authorities needed to take the country's water supply issues seriously, and advised that people needed to "think differently" about how these issues could be solved.

So what is he doing?

"I have put together a team of people, and we are developing a broad strategy at the moment," he said.

This group, named the Dream Team, comprising foreign venture capitalists, engineers and scientists, said Turton, were putting together a strategy to assist science councils, government and municipalities manage the country's water supply.

"We have two constraints as a developing nation: water and energy. It is clear we cannot do things the way we have been doing them, and need to think differently" he explained.

If the situation remained as it was, he said, water problems would remain a barrier to SA's economic development.

"The team would adopt a multi-disciplinary approach to tackling water issues," he said.

Read Arthi Sanpath's entire story.

"Trouble is only opportunity in work clothes." -- Henry J. Kaiser

Obama's Environmental Test: Wall Street Journal

Colleague Chris Reimer sent me this link to a Wall Street Journal opinion piece by Kimberley A. Strassel.

A teaser from the column:

Two down, one to go.

You might think now that Barack Obama has staffed his economic and security teams, the hard choices are over. But he has one more doozy of a decision to make. And the worry is that his picks for that final, crucial team -- those overseeing energy and environmental policy -- will undo any smart moves the president-elect has made so far.

"The greatest friend of truth is time, her greatest enemy is prejudice, and her constant companion humility. " -- Charles Colton

 

Klamath River Basin: Done Deal or Dam(n) Deal?

Earlier this month I asked the question Peace in the Klamath Basin?, based on the nonbinding agreement to remove the four dams below Upper Klamath Lake. An article by Mateusz Perkowski in the Capital Press (21 November 2008 print edition) seems to answer my question.

The map by Will Koenig (from the USBR's Klamath Basin Area Office) is from the article.

Earlier this year, the Klamath Water Users Association reached an agreement with Native American tribes, environmentalists, and conservationists to end litigation over water rights in the basin. I posted about this last January.

Here are some related materials - posted items about the Klamath situation: the NRC Committee report and related news stories. [Disclosure notice: I was a member of the NRC committee.]

The first few paragraphs of Perkowski's story:

The planned removal of four hydroelectric dams along the Klamath River is a bitter pill to swallow for the basin's agricultural industry.

Some farmers regard the plan as an unpleasant but ultimately necessary remedy that will help heal divisions over the competing water needs of farmers and fish.

Others say dam removal will only inflame the Klamath Basin's ills over the long term.

"Common sense says, 'What are they thinking?'" said Tom Mallams, a hay farmer and president of the Klamath Off-Project Water Users, who opposes dam removal. "It's an absolute disaster, the way they're trying to do this."

Though disassembling power infrastructure is not something farmers in the region like to see, dam removal is a crucial step in resolving the long-standing dispute between farmers, tribes and conservationists, said Steve Kandra, a farmer and board member of the Klamath Water Users Association.

"It's a milepost in the process, and we've still got a way to go," he said. "We keep developing and fine-tuning the system."

But the ag community is not the only group unenthused about the deal.

Craig Tucker, spokesman for the Karuk Tribe, said that tribes have faced opposition to the agreement as well - albeit for the opposite reasons. The Hoopa Valley Tribe, for example, opposes the deal because it believes farmers are given water-use priority.

The deal has adversaries in the environmental camp as well. Groups like Klamath Riverkeeper, Trout Unlimited and American Rivers applauded PacifiCorp's announcement, but Oregon Wild wasn't impressed.

"It's a pretty bow on a package that's intended to pass the Bush administration's priorities into the next administration," said Steve Pedery, conservation director for the group.

In effect, the settlement agreement weakens protections for fish in return for dam removal, he said.

Doesn't sound real optimistic does it? But the article does end on a positive note:

Despite such contentiousness within stakeholder groups, Tucker believes the coalition of farmers, tribes and conservationists is strong enough not to be pulled apart by detractors.

"I think we've staked out a sizable portion of the middle ground," he said.

But remember - the agreement to take out the dams is nonbinding - it's an Agreement In Principle.

My take: no one is going to be entirely happy with any solution in the Klamath Basin. Everyone has to give up something. I think the Klamath Basin is finally on the right track, as long as the AIP holds and the dams come down.

"Beyond mountains there are mountains." -- Haitian proverb

Obama on Water, Climate, and Science: Alberto Palombo's Synthesis Article

This article is by Alberto Palombo, published in Agua Online. Palombo assembled his article with information from Science Debate 2008, Associated Press, and US Water News. For the full content of the responses by the Presidential candidates Obama and McCain, please access ScienceDebate.com2008.

Palombo is an industrial engineer and amateur writer on water issues.  He is a founder of the Inter-American Water Resources Network (IWRN) and consultant of the Brazilian Institute for Studies and Actions on Environmental Health and Water Resources Management (IBEASA).  His opinions are his own and do not reflect the views of IWRN, IBEASA or any of his clients.  E-mail: apalombo@infohydro.com.

After all the euphoria for the past couple of days that resulted from Obama’s presidential election, the 10-cent has fallen in, and the call is on to tackle the pressing issues that face the upcoming Obama’s administration.  Amidst of a global economic crisis with its origins on market speculation, unethical practices on financing real estate, there is another profound crisis to be dealt with, and the United States play a critical role: Global environment and climate change.  Interestingly, President-Elect Obama’s responses established parallels between the financial and environmental crisis, calling for reform and ethical practices.

Before the election, a citizen organization called Science Debate 2008 organized a presidential debate on science. Within weeks, more than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities.  Among other things, these signers submitted over 3,400 questions they want the candidates for President to answer about science and the future of  america, and crafted the top 14 questions the candidates should answer.  The questions were broad enough to allow for wide variations in response, but they were also specific enough to help guide the discussion toward many of the largest and most important unresolved challenges currently facing the United States.

President-Elect Barack Obama's answers related to water and other environmental and climate change issues appear below.  It is also interesting to notice that “water” is among the 100 most cited words by President-Elect Obama.

Obama on the Domestic Water Crisis

According to Science Debate 2008 thirty-nine US states are expected to experience water shortage over the next ten years. President-Elect Obama believes the place to begin water policy is re-shaping the way America uses this precious resource: “prices and policies must be set in ways that give everyone a clear incentive to use water efficiently and avoid waste. Regulations affecting water use in appliances and incentives to shift from irrigated lawns to ‘water smart’ landscapes are examples”.

Obama states the government has an obligation to provide aid in developing water efficiency techniques: “information, training, and, in some cases, economic assistance should be provided to farms and businesses that will need to shift to more efficient water practices.” He adds that he will establish a national plan to help “high-growth regions” with water management.

Also, the President-Elect stepped into a three-decade water war between Alabama, Georgia and Florida, by releasing a statement saying he would make protecting the Apalachicola River and Bay a priority, and calling for a National Research Council study to ensure enough water comes into Florida to meet environmental and commercial fishing needs, and promoting more efficient uses in Georgia and Alabama.

Finally, Obama believes that technology will have a vital role to play in protecting water resources: it is “critical that we undertake a concerted program of research, development, and testing of new technologies that can reduce water use”.

Obama on Climate Change

Climate change is arguably the greatest challenge to humanity in the 21st century.

America’s current administration spent the majority of its time in power denying climate change, and when the administration admitted to the reality of climate change, they refused to take meaningful action to mitigate its affects. President-Elect Obama has made a clear distinction between his perspective on climate change and the current administration’s, saying that he will make climate change a major priority if elected.

“There can no longer be any doubt that human activities are influencing the global climate and we must react quickly and effectively,” he says, “the U.S. must get off the sidelines and take long-overdue action here at home to reduce our own greenhouse gas emissions. We must also take a leadership role in designing technologies that allow us to enjoy a growing, prosperous economy”.

The President-Elect pledges to reduce “greenhouse gas emissions by 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050” through a cap-and-trade system, explaining that such a system “draws on the power of the marketplace to reduce emissions in a cost- effective and flexible way.”

Obama further notes that since climate change is a global issue, it requires close cooperation with the international community, including “contributions from all parts of the world—particularly the rest of the world’s major emitters: China, Europe, and India.

Obama plans to create a Global Energy Forum with the G8 and 5 other members: Brazil, China, India, Mexico, and South Africa. He says that such a forum would make up “the largest energy consuming nations from both the developed and developing world” and “would focus exclusively on global energy and environmental issues.”

Obama on Scientific Information and Research

After allegations of abuse by the current administration in its use of scientific information, President-Elect Obama has declared that science must be “uncolored by ideology”. He promised to “restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees.”

Noting how vital scientific research is to solving many of the world’s greatest problems, Obama pledged to “increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade,” adding that “We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our science agencies. And we will invest in the breakthrough research we need to meet our energy challenges and to transform our defense programs.” He specifically cited a large expansion of research programs in agencies such as NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).

Water-Energy Nexus Conference: 17-19 November, West Virginia

This notice just hit my mailbox. It's being convened by my Mid-Atlantic water institute colleagues. Looks good. The fuse is short - 10 November registration deadline.

 

When it rains, it pours. Certainly true here in Corvallis!

 

The Water-Energy Nexus: A Necessary Synergy for the 21st Century -- November 17-19, 2008 -- National Conservation Training Center of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Shepherdstown, West Virginia. 

The Mid-Atlantic water institutes are sponsoring this regional conference to highlight management issues associated with the increasing demand for water and energy.  Session and Panel Topics include:

• Water-Energy Issues in the Mid-Atlantic Region
• Marcellus Shale Drilling & Implications on Water
• Coal Mining Impacts on Water
• Hydroelectric Production
• Water Needs for Biofuel
• Green Building
• Low Impact Development
• And much more

More information, including online registration, is available on the conference website: http://wvwri.nrcce.wvu.edu/conferences/2008/WRRI/.  Information about lodging is available on the site as well.  Registration deadline: November 10, 2008.

For additional information,
Call: Terry Polce, Conference Coordinator at (304) 293-2867 x5450;
E-mail: mailto:2008waterconferenceinfo@mail.wvu.edu ; or
See the Web site: http://wvwri.nrcce.wvu.edu/conferences/2008/WRRI.

Sponsored by the Mid-Atlantic Regional Water Resources Research Institutes (WRRI's) of West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, Washington, D.C., Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, and New York

Energy-Water Nexus and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman

Scientific American has a great article by Michael Webber on the energy-water nexus, a topic that has found great traction in recent years. The two are intextricably linked, and nowhere is that truer than in the Western USA. As Webber says, "We consume massive quantities of water to generate energy and we consume massive quantities of energy to deliver clean water."

We held a Pacific Northwest energy-water summit in Boise in June 2007. Here is the final report.

What with his colleague Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM) retiring, Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) is poised to become a real leader in this area, and a recent editorial in the Santa Fe New Mexican highlights his growing role and the need for energy and water reform.

Bingaman, from the small town of Silver City in southwestern New Mexico, is a Harvard and Stanford Law School graduate who is in his fifth term. He has been a quiet but effective leader in the Senate. He is Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee.

The editorial concludes:

Sen. Bingaman — and Sen. Udall, if he's chosen to replace Pete Domenici [Note: Udall was elected.]— should be in excellent position to adjust America's energy goals from hydrocarbon dependence to longer-term supplies. Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories, longtime beneficiaries of congressional funding, must devote more of their enormous talent to what's known today as alternative energy — but what tomorrow should be routine sources.

This will take planning — and laws backing it up. It'll take money, too — and there's little of it left. Yet failure to act costs our country more every day.

In his gentlemanly manner, Jeff Bingaman has been making that case for years. If he gains the congressional and executive allies America might choose just over a week from now, he can — and must — lead a revolution in resources and energy.

Bingaman might find himself as Energy or Interior Secretary in an Obama administration.

"We will never again permit any foreign nation to have Uncle Sam over a barrel of oil." -- Gerald R. Ford (1974)

DISCOVER: McCain and Obama Answer Five Environment Questions

Ken Reid of AWRA sent this item to me. It's from DISCOVER, where Thomas Kostigen posed five questions on the environment to Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama.

Here's the introduction:

While there’s little doubt the economy will be the defining issue in this election, the candidates’ positions on environmental issues can’t be downplayed (after all, what good are $700 billion bailouts if our coastlines are underwater). With the goal of keeping the environment front and center during this election season, best-selling author and DISCOVER contributor Thomas Kostigen put five questions to the two candidates, on topics including climate change, the dwindling water supply, hazardous waste, alt-energy investments, and the private sector’s role in contributing to the clean-up.

As you may recall, both Obama and McCain recently answered 14 questions on science policy from ScienceDebate 2008. While the Obama camp’s answers concerning climate change and alt-energy investments are largely consistent with what ScienceDebate received, this time he includes more detail, including his plans for allocation of the revenue generated by cap-and-trade auctions as well as his proposal to create a $10 billion venture capital fund to bolster clean technology development.

Similarly, McCain’s responses on energy and global warming echo what he told ScienceDebate, including his pledge to instate permanent alt-energy tax breaks (a promise that Obama makes as well) and a vow to “lead by example” in the “greening of the federal government.”

"Our energy policy amounts to 'no mullah left behind'." -- Thomas Friedman on CNN (28 September 2008)

Hydro-fracking Natural Gas Reservoirs: Water Quantity and Quality Problems?

I know at least one of my readers who will love this post, as it lends creedence to her contention that the energy companies are the biggest threat to the planet's water. In this case...well, who knows?

Yesterday's Christian Science Monitor featured Mark Clayton's story on the rising natural gas production in the USA, due primarily to the extraction of gas from low-permeability shale formations. Shales, sometimes more descriptively called mudstones, are what we hydrogeologists and reservoir engineers call "tight" rocks - fluids cannot flow through them very easily, as opposed to a rock like a sandstone or cavernous limestone.

Clayton's story begins:

After decades of declining US natural-gas production, an advanced drilling system so powerful it fractures rock with high-pressure fluid is opening up vast shale-gas deposits.

Instead of falling, US gas production is rising, with up to 118 years’ worth of “unconventional” natural gas reserves in 21 huge shale basins, an industry study in July reported. Such reserves could make the nation more energy self-sufficient and provide more of a cleaner “bridge fuel” to help meet carbon-reduction goals urged by environmentalists.

Shale gas reserves have a powerful economic lure. Companies, states, and landowners could all reap a windfall in the tens of billions. Some also predict lower heating costs for residential gas users as production increases.

Now, scores of natural gas companies are fanning out from Fort Worth, Texas, where hydraulic fracturing of shale has been done for at least five years, to lease shale lands in 19 states, including Pennsylvania and New York.

So if these tight shales have lots of gas, it is difficult to get the gas out. Reservoir engineers have developed hydraulic fracturing, or "hydro-fracking", to extract the gas. Water is injected into the shale at very high pressure. Sand or some other natural/man-made material ("proppant") is included in the water. The high pressure water fractures the rock, and the proppant serves to prop the fractures "open" after the injection stops. The gas can then flow more easily to the well.

Hydro-fracking is also used for oil, geothermal, and regular water wells to improve yields. Sometimes fluids other than water are used and chemicals are oftenadded to the fracturing fluid. The problem? Large amounts of water are required, and the injected fluids could contaminate water in aquifers or ultimately, surface water bodies.

Clayton's story continues:

But some warn that by expanding “hydraulic fracturing” of shale, America strikes a Faustian bargain: It gains new energy reserves, but it consumes and quite possibly pollutes critical water resources.

“People need to understand that these are not your old-fashioned gas wells,” says Tracy Carluccio, special projects director for Delaware Riverkeeper, a watchdog group worried about a surge in new gas drilling from New York to Pennsylvania and from Ohio to West Virginia. “This technology produces tremendous amounts of polluted water and uses dangerous chemicals in every single well that’s developed.”

Traditional gas wells bore straight into porous stone, using a few thousand gallons of water during drilling. But dense shale has gas locked inside.

Hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking,” and horizontal drilling unlock it.

Each hydraulically fractured horizontal well can require from 2 million to 7 million gallons of fresh water mixed with sand and thousands of gallons of industrial chemicals to make the water penetrate more easily.

An industry viewpoint:

“The wells we drill … are insulated with concrete,” says Chip Minty, a spokesman for Devon Energy, an Oklahoma City-based gas company that pioneered hydraulic fracturing in the Barnett shale formation beneath Fort Worth, Texas. “The purpose is to protect any kind of aquifer or ground water layer. Those processes are controlled by regulatory agencies, and that keeps us safe from any kind of aquifer pollution.”

A pioneer in “best practices,” Devon has also developed a way to purify and reuse frac water. But those techniques are costly and not widely used at present. Whether such practices will be required elsewhere is an open question.

The wells themselves may not leak, but how about the water that gets injected into the shale formation? Where will that go?

The story suggests that New York City's Catskills watershed drinking-water supply, which provides about 90% of the city's 8 million+ customers , could be at risk. The water is so good that it does not require filtration.

And to top it off, we don't really know what is in the injected fluid. Consider this:

Today, chemicals used in fracturing are considered by the companies to be trade secrets. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 exempts companies from being forced by the Clean Water Act, Safe Drinking Water Act, and other federal laws to reveal what chemicals are in their fracturing fluids.

But some say that it’s critical to know what’s being injected deep underground.

“We’re very concerned about this toxic drilling and hydraulic fracturing,” says Gwen Lachelt, director of the Oil and Gas Accountability Project in Durango, Colo. “We need to know what’s in what they’re putting into the ground.”

You had better believe we need to know; that's a no-brainer, folks!

"I think God's will has to be done in unifying people and companies to get that gas line built, so pray for that." -- Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), 8 June 2008, Wasilla Assembly of God Church

Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Hydropower, and Central Asia's Water

I've been meaning to post some more about the water issues in Central Asia, a place I've visited only twice (both trips to Kazakhstan) but find quite enchanting and mysterious. I'm especially interested in the former Soviet "stans". It took David L. Stern's recent article in the New York Times describing Tajikistan's bid to use hydropower to realize its ambitions to motivate me.

Stern's article is very good, but is necessarily limited - as will my post be. I will give you a taste of some of the difficult issues faced by the countries in the Syr Darya and Amu Darya basins, the two major streams in the region.

Regarding Central Asia, I have already written about water as a foreign policy tool, Lake Balkhash, and Turkmenistan's "lake in the desert" project.

Both these maps are from the University of Texas' Perry-Castañeda map collection. They will give you a good idea of the region and its streams.

 

The aforementioned streams both terminate in the Aral Sea, and the diversion of these rivers for agriculture (food and cotton) during the Soviet area initiated the extreme desiccation of the Aral Sea. Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan use most of the diverted water for irrigation; the latter is the world's #2 cotton exporter.

In a nutshell, Tajikistan wants to develop hydropower on the Vakhsh River, a major tributary of the Amu Darya. 80% of the water in Amu Darya basin is derived from Tajikistan, and 8% from Afghanistan. Uzbekistan, and to some degree, Turkmenistan, are worried that Tajikistan will hold up much of the summer flow behind dams so that it can generate much-needed electricity in the winter. That would cut down on the available irrigation for food and cotton during the summer. Tajikistan says it won't do that. Hmmm....

Another issue is the power itself. Uzbekistan sells power to Tajikistan, and that market would diminish.  But Tajikistan wants to sell its excess power to privide income, and that would have to go through Uzbekistan, meaning the Uzbeks would again have leverage. So Tajikistan wants to partner with Kyrgyzstan, which wants to develop more hydropower and irrigation on the Syr Darya, to which it contributes 74% of the flow, and build a north-south power corridor that would avoid Uzbekistan.  Naturally the Uzbeks are further annoyed by all this. At one point they even threatened military action against Kyrgyzstan over a dam and reservoir on the Syr Darya.

Another unknown in this mix is Afghanistan, which, because of internal turmoil, is not much involved in Central Asian water issues. But should some measure of stability occur, it will want to develop the Amu Darya for irrigation and perhaps hydropower. So the plot will thicken.

Want to know more?

Below is an excellent overview paper on Central Asia water governance by Jeremy Allouche,  that appeared in 2007, no. 4, of Disarmament Forum. The issue was titled, "Central Asia at the Crossroads". Allouche covered far more than what I did here, and provided a lot of the information I presented.

Download central_asia_waterallouche.pdf

Here are also several books I've found helpful:

Central Eurasian Water Crisis, 1998. Iwao Kobori and Michael H. Glantz (editors). United Nations University Press. This book is a bit dated, and also covers the Dead Sea.

Creeping Environmental Problems and Sustainable Development in the Aral Sea Basin, 1999. Michael H. Glantz (ed.) Cambridge. Covers more than just water.

Transboundary Water Resources: A Foundation for Regional Stability in Central Asia, 2008. John E. Moerlins, Mikhail K. Khankhasayev, Steven F. Leitman, Ernazar J. Makhmudov (eds.). Proceedings of a NATO meeting. Yours truly has a paper in the book.

"It is the world's last vacuum." -- Kalman Mizsei, regional director of UNDP, referring to Uzbekistan

T. Boone Gets T-Boned by the Feds

So why is this man smiling? After all, T. Boone Pickens' plan to distribute wind energy and water via a pipeline/transmission line corridor may be on ice - for a brief time, at least.

Seems like the U.S. Department of Justice has blocked changes in Texas law that helped enable Pickens to create the board of the Roberts County Fresh Water Supply District. The board of the district is dominated by Pickens' employees. The DoJ opinion seems to make 3 of the 5 supervisors ineligible. 

The District is important to Pickens' plans because it has access to low interest bonds, and perhaps more importantly, the power of eminent domain.

Here are some excerpts from the story by Elliott Blackburn from the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal (the comments are worthwhile reading):

Rep. Brandon Creighton, R-Conroe, authored changes overwhelmingly approved last session in the House and Senate allowing a property owner in a freshwater district to serve on the board. Previous law required board supervisors be registered, resident voters.

The change allowed three Pickens employees to serve as supervisors of a Roberts County Fresh Water Supply District created over land wholly owned by Pickens. Only two residents on the property voted in a November election to create the district - both work for Pickens.

The Civil Rights Division of the justice department wrote in a letter dated Aug. 21 that Texas failed to prove Creighton's changes did not harm minority voting rights. A department objection, which carries the same weight as an injunction from a federal court, made a law that took effect nearly a year ago unenforceable.

Jay Rosser, a Mesa Water spokesman, said that the district could find new eligible supervisors. What's important is that the creation of the district itself was not challenged, said Rosser, who added that they are pursuing other options, including bypassing the district option altogether.

The story continues:

Residents around the Panhandle and in the proposed path of the pipeline greeted plans over the last year with a mix of anger and awe. Many seemed stunned that such a small district could boast such broad reach.

Landowners who attended meetings held by the district and later by Sens. Robert Duncan and Kel Seliger were wary of the eminent domain powers, authority Mesa officials have played down, and frustrated that there seemed no opportunity to tie into the power lines.

Somehow I doubt this will deter the Pickens steamroller. I suspect Pickens' team anticipated something like this.

And that's why T. Boone is smiling.

"I've always believed that it's important to show a new look periodically. Predictability can lead to failure." --T. Boone Pickens

The Pickens Plan: You Mean It's NOT All About Patriotism?

Dave Michaels wrote this story in last week's Dallas Morning News in which he examines T. Boone Pickens' motives behind his Pickens Plan.

I'm not surprised when I learn that profit is a motive of Pickens; he's a businessman. He may have altruistic feelings, but the man wants to make money for himself and his investors.

Michaels concludes thusly:

•The plan relies on a combination of wind power and natural gas to displace a significant amount of petroleum used for transportation. And Mr. Pickens has a lot of money tied up in wind and natural gas.

•Mr. Pickens' power company, Mesa Power LLP, is planning a $10 billion wind farm in the Texas Panhandle and has already ordered $2 billion worth of turbines.

•Mr. Pickens is majority shareholder of Clean Energy, the largest supplier of natural gas for transportation in America. The company has lost money since 2006 and faces more losses in 2008 as it expands its natural gas fueling infrastructure. Clean Energy has underwritten a California ballot initiative that would boost demand for its product by subsidizing the cost of vehicles that run on natural gas.

Silly me! I thought it was all about patriotism.

“No policy without a calamity.” -- Dutch saying

Water and Energy: Some Loose Ends, Sandia National Laboratories

My recent post on the Virginia Tech energy study generated a lot of interest. I'll tie up some loose ends here.

Geoff Klise, former student who's now at Sandia National Laboratories (SNL) in Albuquerque, commented on SNL's efforts to develop an integrated water-energy model for planning and management purposes. Geoff said it is about a year away.

He also advised me of a report released in February 2008, Energy Demands on Water, Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water. Yep, yours truly missed this one.

And finally, a reminder: I posted about the SNL Mike Hightower-Suzanne Pierce commentary "The energy challenge" in Nature last month; here is the article.

I am not an energy-water nerd, but SNL is doing some of the best work in this area. My hat's off to them. No, I'm not on their payroll.

Virginia Tech Study: Water Required to Produce Various Types of Energy

I heard an interesting statistic the other day. Per mile driven, an all-electric car would consume up to 3x the water and require the withdrawal of 17x the amount of water than would an equivalent gasoline-powered vehicle. And one more: for irrigated corn to produce one gallon of ethanol 2,000 gallons of water would be required.

But I'm digressing before even starting.

A Virginia Tech professor and an undergraduate student have calculated how much water is used to produce 11 types of energy and power generation methods.

Here is the link to the press release and the study itself. I have reproduced the press release below; the two tables are from the report itself.

BLACKSBURG, Va., April 22, 2008 -- It is easy to overlook that most of the energy we consume daily, such as electricity or natural gas, is produced with the help of a dwindling resource – fresh water. Virginia Tech professor Tamim Younos (tyounos@vt.edu) and undergraduate student Rachelle Hill are researching the water-efficiency of some of the most common energy sources and power generating methods.

Younos, associate director at the Virginia Water Resources Research Center based at Virginia Tech and research professor of water resources in the College of Natural Resources and undergraduate researcher Hill, of Round Hill, Va., majoring in environmental science and aquatic resource concentration, in the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, have analyzed 11 types of energy sources, including coal, fuel ethanol, natural gas, and oil; and five power generating methods, including hydroelectric, fossil fuel thermoelectric, and nuclear methods.

Younos said they based their calculations on available governmental reports by using a standard measurement unit, which makes this study unique. “Our unit is gallons of water per British Thermal Unit (BTU),” explained Younos. “We selected BTU as a standard unit because it indicates pure energy as heat and is applicable to all energy production and power generation methods.”

According to the study, the most water-efficient energy sources are natural gas and synthetic fuels produced by coal gasification. The least water-efficient energy sources are fuel ethanol and biodiesel.

In terms of power generation, Younos and Hill have found that geothermal and hydroelectric energy types use the least amount of water, while nuclear plants use the most.

Hill took the study one step further and calculated how many gallons of water are required to burn one 60-watt incandescent light bulb for 12 hours a day, over the course of one year. She found that the bulb would consume between 3,000 and 6,000 gallons of water, depending on how water-efficient the power plant that supplies the electricity is.

Hill added that the results are estimates of the water consumption based on energy produced by fossil fuel thermoelectric plants, which produce most of the Unites State’s power – about 53 percent. “The numbers are even more staggering if you multiply the water consumed by the same light bulb by the approximately 111 million U.S. homes,” said Hill. “The water usage then gets as high as 655 billion gallons of water a year.”

By contrast, burning a compact fluorescent bulb for the same amount of time would save about 2,000 to 4,000 gallons of water per year.

Younos noted that the results of this analysis should be interpreted with a grain of salt. “There are several variables such as geography and climate, technology type and efficiency, and accuracy of measurements that come into play. However, by standardizing the measurement unit, we have been able to obtain a unique snapshot of the water used to produce different kinds of energy.”

This study is part of a multi-college partnership at Virginia Tech led by Younos that proposes a unique approach to managing water and energy resources, called the Decentralized Energy and Water Systems. Another research theme under the scrutiny by the Decentralized Energy and Water Systems scientists is to study rainwater harvesting as an alternative to using water from the public system for non-potable uses and the impact of rainwater harvesting on water and energy conservation and stormwater management.

The partnership’s team members at Virginia Tech include professors Younos, project leader and associate director at the center and research professor of water resources in the Department of Geography; Darrell Bosch, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics; Richard Hirsch, Consortium on Energy Restructuring; Vinod Lohani, Department of Engineering Education; Madeline Schreiber, Department of Geosciences; and Monica Licher doctoral student in environmental design and planning.

Table 1 - Water use efficiency of various energy production technologies

Fuel source	Low range efficiency (gallons/million BTU)	High range efficiency (gallons/million BTU)	Sources
Natural gas	3	N/A	*USDOE 2006; Gleick 1994; EIA 2006a; EIA, 2006b
Synfuel - Coal gasification	11	26	USDOE 2006; Gleick 1994; EIA 2007b
Tar sands	15	38	USDOE 2006; Gleick 1994
Oil shale	20	50	USDOE 2006
Synfuel - Fisher Tropsch	41	60	USDOE 2006
Coal	41	164	*USDOE 2006; Gleick 1994; EIA 2006a; EIA 2007c
Hydrogen	143	243	USDOE 2006
Liquid natural gas	145	N/A	*USDOE 2006; EIA 2005b; EIA 2007a
Petroleum/Oil-electric sector	1,200	2,420	*USDOE, 2006; Gleick 1994
Fuel ethanol	2,510	29,100	USDOE, 2006; USDA 2004
Biodiesel	14,000	75,000	USDOE, 2006; USDA 2004

Table 2 - Water use efficiency of various power generation technologies

Power generation techonologies	Low range efficiency (gallons/million BTU)	High range efficiency (gallons/million BTU)	Sources
Hydroelectric	20	N/A	USDOE 2006; Gleick, 1994; EIA 2007b
Geothermal	130	N/A	*USDOE, 2006; EIA 2006d
Solar thermoelectric	230	270	USDOE 2006; Leitner, 2002; Cohen 1999
Fossil fuel thermoelectric	1,100	2,200	*USDOE, 2006; Hutson et al 2004
Nuclear	2,400	5,800	*USDOE, 2006; EPRI 2002

*Heat Rate Conversions from EIA, 2007d

"I don't know, but someday you'll tax it." -- Michael Faraday, when asked about the uses of his new invention, the electric generator.

Snake-Columbia Basin Energy & Water Summit: Final Report

Last June  a number of organizations - Columbia Basin Trust, Idaho National Laboratory, Idaho Water Resources Research Institute (IWRRI), Center for Advanced Energy Studies (CAES), Institute for Water and Watersheds (IWW) - convened the Snake-Columbia Basin Energy and Water Summit in Boise, ID.

The Snake-Columbia basin encompasses two countries. It produces prodigious amounts of water; the basin area is about the same as the Colorado River basin's, yet the average annual flow, measured at the mouth of the Columbia, is almost 14 times greater.

The Summit was attended by about 90 people from both sides of the border, although most were from the USA. The format consisted of expert presentations to set the stage, then focus groups breakout sessions.

It's been a while in coming, but the Summit's report has finally hit the streets. You can download it at the bottom of this post.

The focus group reports form the core of the report and are designed to assist researchers, managers, planners, policy-makers, and other stakeholders address the water and energy challenges facing the basin.

Five focus groups, covering the following areas,  were constituted:

• Energy use and generation
• Water allocation & use
• Energy and water storage
• Environmental considerations
• Social, economic, political, and regulatory considerations

Download Snake-Columbia-Basin-report_final.pdf

[Disclosure notice: I was one of the organizers and financial supporters of the Summit.]

"A mistake not corrected is another mistake." -- Confucius

'Nature' Special Issue - Water: Under Pressure

Nature, arguably the world's most prestigious science magazine, has devoted its 20 March 2008 issue to "Water: Under Pressure".

Here is a description of the issue and the articles contained therein:

Over a billion people around the world lack access to safe drinking water and over two billion have little or no sanitation. Do we have the resources — and the will — to provide the water to support a booming population? This issue of Nature (see introduction, p. 269 and Editorial, p. 253) tackles the science, economics and politics of the global water crisis. Climate scientists say that unreliable rains and drier summer soils will become more common: Quirin Schiermeier reports on water strategies for a drier world [p. 270]. The pressure is on farmers to get maximum crop yields with minimum water use. As Emma Marris reports [p. 273], the collaboration between plant breeders, agronomists and geneticists to that end has been far from smooth. As the population of India grows, the demand for water keeps rising. Daemon Fairless [p. 278] investigates an ambitious plan to redistribute the country’s water supplies by linking rivers in a vast canal network. Jamie Bartram [Commentary, p. 283] says it is time to improve the global targets for access to water and sanitation to make them relevant to all. In most countries, crop irrigation accounts for most freshwater use — more than drinking water and domestic consumption — but water use in energy production is catching up fast. Mike Hightower and Suzanne Pierce [Commentary, p. 285] describe the measures being developed to economize on water use in the energy sector. The need for research into water purification is pressing. In an extensive Review Article [p. 301], Mark Shannon et al. highlight the developing technologies that — it is hoped — can provide our drinking water in the decades ahead. Water is (almost) everywhere, yet physicists still trade theory and counter theory to explain its structure: Phil Ball explains [Essay p. 291]. And Books & Arts [p. 287] looks at a documentary on water security, and at art inspired by water’s surprising patterns. Here is the start-up page.

The editorial deals with a "fresh approach to water":

Download fresh_approach_to_waternature_editorial.pdf

This is what Nature says about the USA's water situation [emboldening mine]:

Here again, the fundamental challenge is to agree on who is in charge. The two countries doing best in that regard are Israel, where severely limited water supplies have led to a national system in which nearly every drop is recycled; and the Netherlands, where an overabundance of water encroaching from both sea and sky has led to a national strategy to control every aspect of the resource. But these countries are the exceptions, not the rule. More typical is the chaotic situation in the United States, where more than 20 federal agencies deal with some aspect of water — from flooding control to coastal commissions. Water policy is rarely coordinated at a regional or national level, and coherent solutions are almost impossible.

That situation has recently begun to change in the United States, as in the efforts to coordinate water usage in the Colorado River basin. But it has to change everywhere. Unless policy-makers want water resources to be constantly squabbled and fought over, with farmers pitted against city dwellers, upstream users against downstream users, and region against region, every nation needs to think about water strategically.

An excellent issue!

"A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects." -- Robert A. Heinlein

More Ethanol Production = More Gulf of Mexico Hypoxia?

Well, the chickens are coming home to roost.

As I reported last April, the rush to plant more corn to produce more ethanol may have deleterious effects on our efforts to reduce the size of the hypoxic "dead" zone in the Gulf of Mexico.

There is now more than speculation about these effects.

Thanks to John Fleck I came across this post on Simon Donner's Maribo blog. Here is a large part of what Donner says:

The Mississippi dumps a massive amount of nitrogen, largely in the form of the soluble ion nitrate, into the Gulf each spring. It promotes the growth of a lot of algae, which eventually sinks to the bottom and decomposes. This consumes much of the oxygen in the bottom waters, making life tough for bottom-dwelling fish and creatures like shrimp. The Dead Zone has reached over 20,000 km2 in recent years.

The primary source of all that nitrogen is fertilizer applied to corn grown in the Midwest and Central US. Reducing the Dead Zone to less than 5000 km2 in size, as is suggested in US policy, will require up to a 55% decrease in nitrogen levels in the Mississippi.

The new US Energy Policy calls for 36 billion gallons of renewable fuels by the year 2022. Of that, 15 billion can be produced from corn starch. Our study found meeting those would cause a 10-34% increase in nitrogen loading to the Gulf of Mexico.

Meeting the hypoxia reduction goal was already a difficult challenge. If the US pursues this biofuels strategy, it will be impossible to shrink the Dead Zone without radically changing the US food production system. The one option would be to dramatically reduce the non-ethanol uses of corn. Since the majority of corn grain is used as animal feed, a trade-off between using corn to fuel animals and using corn to fuel cars could emerge.

Read the abstract of the article published by Donner and his colleague Christopher Kucharik.

For more reading on the subject: Zachary Sugg sent me this link to a publication from the World Resources Institute (WRI), Thirst for Corn: What 2007 Plantings Could Mean for the Environment, by Liz Marshall.

"If at first you don't succeed, transform your data set." -- Unknown