Newsom, supes tangle over S.F. power plant

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 4, 2008 at 1:19 pm

From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Despite San Francisco’s national reputation for environmental initiatives, a 40-year-old fossil-fuel power plant on the city’s eastern shore continues to spew particulates and chemicals into the air while dumping scalding water into the bay.

And the most immediate opportunity for cleaning up the Potrero power plant south of Mission Bay is likely to become even more remote today. The Board of Supervisors is expected to reject a resolution by Mayor Gavin Newsom, who wants the authority to negotiate an agreement to retrofit the plant with its owner, Mirant Corp.

Newsom’s plan is not popular with some supervisors and residents because it represents a rejection of a decades-long effort - one that Newsom and regulators once supported - to replace the Mirant plant with a city-owned, cleaner one that would still run on fossil fuels.

Critics of Newsom’s proposal say there is no proof that a retrofit will reduce emissions to levels expected of modern power plants, such as for the proposed city generators.

More from the San Francisco Chronicle by clicking here.

November 4, 2008 · Filed Under Bay Area, Water & Energy, Water Quality

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Utilities putting new energy into geothermal sources

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 3, 2008 at 6:47 am

From the Los Angeles Times:

Not far from the blinking casinos of this gambler’s paradise lies what could be called the Biggest Little Power Plant in the World.

Tucked into a few dusty acres across from a shopping mall, it uses steam heat from deep within the Earth’s crust to generate electricity. Known as geothermal, the energy is clean, reliable and so abundant that this facility produces more than enough electricity to power every home in Reno, population 221,000.

“There’s no smoke. Very little noise,” said Paul Thomsen, director of policy and business management for Ormat Technologies Inc., which owns the operation. “People don’t even know it’s here.”

Geothermal energy may be the most prolific renewable fuel source that most people have never heard of. Although the supply is virtually limitless, the massive upfront costs required to extract it have long rendered geothermal a novelty. But that’s changing fast as this old-line industry buzzes with activity after decades of stagnation.

More than 80% of the country’s geothermal power lies in California, with 22 geothermal plants operating in the Geysers, 75 miles north of San Francisco, and the Salton Sea with 10 plants; more are planned. The potential of geothermal energy is huge:

Greenhouse gas emissions are minimal in geothermal operations, and the size of the fuel supply defies imagination. There is 50,000 times more heat energy contained in the first six miles of the Earth’s crust than in all the planet’s oil and natural gas resources, according to the environmental organization Earth Policy Institute.

The challenge is extracting it. Geothermal energy production requires three things: heat from the Earth’s core, fractured rock to make it easy to get to and water to transport the heat to the surface.

Traditionally, developers have sought out pockets of hot water and steam hidden underground. Prime areas lie along continental plate boundaries, which is why California is such a hotbed.

Still, these reservoirs can be tricky to pinpoint. They’re also expensive to reach. A geothermal well can cost $5 million or more. The result: The U.S. currently derives less than 0.5% of its electricity from geothermal.

Some say the key to harnessing this energy source on a massive scale lies with a technology known as enhanced geothermal systems, or EGS for short. The idea is to engineer the necessary conditions by pumping water into the Earth’s crust and fracturing the hot rocks below. Heat from the Earth warms the water, whose resulting steam is channeled back to the surface, powering turbines to create electricity. The water is then pumped back underground.

Read more from the Los Angeles Times by clicking here.

November 3, 2008 · Filed Under Salton Sea, Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Low lake levels impact electric generation

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 14, 2008 at 5:56 pm

From the Chico Enterprise-Record:

Low water elevations at Lake Oroville decrease the power generated at the Hyatt Power Plant, but spokespeople say it’s hard to tag a dollar amount on the loss. The power plant located underground near the dam is a pumping and power-generating facility. Operated by the California Department of Water Resources, the plant produces electricity to pump water for the State Water Project.

Maury Miller, superintendent of the DWR operations office in Oroville, said lake levels impact power generation.

There are six generators at the power plant, and two of them are out of service because of the lake level, currently about 677 feet. Oroville has one of the three pumping-generating plants in the State Water Project. Six generators pump water through the Oroville facilities and generate electricity.

“Obviously, there’s an impact because we can’t generate at capacity,” Miller said.

Read more from Chico’s Enterprise Record by clicking here.

October 14, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Energy versus water: solving both crises together - Water is needed to generate energy. Energy is needed to deliver water. Both resources are limiting the other—and both may be running short.

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on October 7, 2008 at 6:44 am

From the Scientific American:

In June the state of Florida made an unusual announcement: it would sue the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers over the corps’s plan to reduce water flow from reservoirs in Georgia into the Apalachicola River, which runs through Florida from the Georgia-Alabama border. Florida was concerned that the restricted flow would threaten certain endangered species. Alabama also objected, worried about another species: nuclear power plants, which use enormous quantities of water, usually drawn from rivers and lakes, to cool their big reactors. The reduced flow raised the specter that the Farley Nuclear Plant near Dothan, Ala., would need to shut down.

Georgia wanted to keep its water for good reason: a year earlier various rivers dropped so low that the drought-stricken state was within a few weeks of shutting down its own nuclear plants. Conditions had become so dire that by this past January one of the state’s legislators suggested that Georgia move its upper border a mile farther north to annex freshwater resources in Tennessee, pointing to an allegedly faulty border survey from 1818. Throughout 2008 Georgia, Alabama and Florida have continued to battle; the corps, which is tasked by Congress to manage water resources, has been caught in the middle. Drought is only one cause. A rapidly growing population, especially in Atlanta, as well as overdevelopment and a notorious lack of water planning, is running the region’s rivers dry.

Water and energy are the two most fundamental ingredients of modern civilization. Without water, people die. Without energy, we cannot grow food, run computers, or power homes, schools or offices. As the world’s population grows in number and affluence, the demands for both resources are increasing faster than ever.

Read more from the Scientific American by clicking here.

October 7, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

As Texas’s demand for water increases, so does its appetite for power

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 27, 2008 at 5:54 am

From the Austin Statesman-Journal, this story about how Texas is beginning to discuss the connection between energy & water:

For the past few years, the topics of energy conservation and water conservation might have appeared to mix like oil and water, so seldom were the attempts to blend them.

But this year, as discussions of the state’s energy and water demands bounce around the Capitol, environmental groups, academics and some businesses are starting to think about them together in ways that could clear a path for more ambitious conservation programs, change the types of power plants that are built and boost the attention paid to water resources when the state considers new plants.

“It takes energy to move water, and it takes a lot of water to make energy,” said Michael Webber, the associate director at the University of Texas’ Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy. Webber spoke at a policy forum on energy and water this month at the university’s J.J. Pickle Research Center. Cleaning and pumping water for drinking or lawn-watering requires energy, Webber explained, and power plants need water to cool and recapture the steam that drives their engines. Policy wonks have deemed the phenomenon worthy of its own catchphrase — “water-energy nexus” — and in just the past year or two, it has cropped up at conferences and in white papers.

So far, no state has changed up forecasting methods to think of water and power jointly, although California published a report about its water-energy relationship in 2005.

Texas, where the population could double by 2060 and further stress water and energy resources, could be among the first. A draft report released in April by the Texas Water Development Board recommended that state planning agencies work together to plan ways to cope with the energy-water nexus. Future power plants might have to depart from conventional open loop cooling systems, where large quantities of water pass through a plant and are discharged back into a lake or river, to a closed loop system, in which water is recirculated through cooling towers or evaporation ponds.

Cities have to do their part, too, according to the report. “Conserving water and conserving energy are synonymous,” Webber, one of the report’s authors, told a Senate panel in April.

Read more on this story from the Austin Statesman-Journal by clicking here.

May 27, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Coachella Valley Water District to study energy-efficiency efficacy

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 20, 2008 at 7:06 am

From MyDesert.com:

As the hot summer months stress the electrical grid, customers are regularly encouraged to limit their electricity use to non-peak power demand time periods as much as possible.

The Coachella Valley Water District is now involved in a study to quantify the energy saving and other benefits of limiting water use during peak times as well. The district is partnering with the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) and Water and Energy Consulting to conduct the study, which is funded largely through a $400,000 grant from the California Energy Commission.

Energy use associated with water is substantial. Statewide, energy directly associated with water deliveries accounts for 8 percent of all energy consumption. Factor in the amount of energy needed for wastewater disposal and water heating and cooling and the percentage jumps to a fifth of total energy consumption in California.

The 18-month time-of-use study begins this month and continues through fall 2009. As many as 300 Coachella Valley homes and businesses will be asked to participate. Where possible, homes and businesses with water meters featuring automated reading already installed will be used. As needed, additional “smart” meters will be installed to ensure the study is sufficient in scope. The meters enable the customer to determine at exactly what time and how much water is consumed, and quite often for what purpose.

Water conservation is another objective of the study, as is reducing the water district’s energy costs.

Read more from MyDesert.com by clicking here.

May 20, 2008 · Filed Under Conservation, Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Could wind power help save water? Yes!

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on May 20, 2008 at 6:21 am

From CleanTechnica.com:

First, the Department of Energy released a report that confirmed what the wind industry has already claimed: wind could power 20% of the United State’s energy needs by 2030. Even with growing energy demands, our ample wind resources could meet one-fifth of our needs with continued growth and innovation. Other nations, especially Denmark, are already deriving significant fractions of their energy from wind, sometimes with impressive results. The truth is, wind energy is booming even as the specter of the expiring Production Tax Credit moves to the House of Representatives for a vote.

Another large announcement this week came from ex-oilman T. Boone Pickens, who proved (once again) that every thing’s bigger in Texas. He just ordered $2 billion worth of wind turbines from GE to build the world’s largest wind farm.

Texas has already shown that wind isn’t just good for the environment, it’s also good for rural jobs. There’s even a town in Missouri that derives almost all of its energy from wind power, and sells excess energy to other towns. These examples and more disprove many of the wind myths that are still floating around. Wind energy is not a perfect technology, but it holds powerful potential to diversify power generation around the world. The Aral Sea, drainedOne of the statistics that struck me is that wind power could: “reduce water consumption associated with electricity generation by 4 trillion gallons by 2030.”

One point this article fails to make is why wind power could save water, and that is because water and energy production are linked; each is dependent on each other. Power is needed to move water to where it is needed, treat it for drinking water, treat it again as wastewater, and move it to wherever it goes next. Power plants use water for cooling; some articles say that water for power generation is one of the primary uses of water in the United States.

Read more on this story from CleanTechnica.com by clicking here. Read more on the water-energy connection by clicking here. (It’s an 80 page report to Congress by Sandia Labs on the water-energy connection. I recommend reading the executive summary, starting on page 9.)

May 20, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Nuclear power won’t make California green, commentary says

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 27, 2008 at 5:44 am

Since I recently posted an article for nuclear power, I feel obligated to also post a commentary against nuclear power. From the California Progress Report, this commentary from Assemblyman Lloyd Levine:

Here we go again. The issue of renewing the development of nuclear power is rearing its ugly head under the guise of making California the happiest, greenest place on earth. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is pushing this Disney-like scenario and it needs a reality check. Nuclear power simply has no future in California’s new energy era.

If Californians give nuclear power a new lease on life we will be moving in the wrong direction and relying on false promises. Today, even during a housing and economic slump, homeowners and businesses are turning to affordable, safe, clean and dependable energy in record numbers.

The Governor believes nuclear power is the answer to global warming but nothing could be farther from the truth. Nuclear power is dirty, dangerous, too expensive and cannot exist without massive taxpayer subsidies.

A vicious pollution cycle also comes with the nuclear power package. The production process of mining uranium to fuel nuclear plants requires massive diesel powered machinery that grossly pollutes the air. The mined uranium would then have to be shipped to the United States in large, diesel powered ships and reprocessed into nuclear, fuel in pollution producing coke ovens.

In the meantime, uranium resources within the United States are growing scarce and driving up prices. We already import most of the uranium needed to run existing plants. New plants would require even more imported uranium and for much of that we would need to become vulnerable to unstable African dictatorships.

Read the rest of this article from the California Progress Report by clicking here.

March 27, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Nuclear energy is starting to get a second look in California

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 26, 2008 at 4:44 pm

From Inside the Bay Area:

As concerns about greenhouse gases and global warming mount, nuclear energy is getting a second look in California, with supporters ranging from the governor to at least one environmental activist.

“I have changed my mind from being mildly anti-nuclear to mildly pro-nuclear because carbon dioxide is now the most dangerous pollution and it is endangering the natural environment,” said Stewart Brand, who in 1968 created the Whole Earth Catalog, which covered subjects including alternative energy.

“Global warming is affecting the fisheries in northern California and creating drought to the south. Like a number of other environmentalists, I have had to change my tune,” said Brand, who lives on a houseboat in Sausalito.

Indeed, nuclear is an energy alternative that produces fewer greenhouse gases than coal, generates cheap round-the-clock electricity and creates roughly 1 million times the energy released by the burning of oil.

But nuclear faces a number of obstacles. Even as government officials, utilities and universities search for new ways to generate electricity, nuclear energy is about as welcome in California as a former spouse at a wedding.

Utilities are prohibited from building new plants by law in California; Pacific Gas & Electric has no plans for new facilities; four of the state’s six commercial plants have long since closed, and experts say it’ll take some doing just to keep the two remaining reactors going.Despite these obstacles, a small group of determined business representatives, passionate advocates and elected officials are fighting to launch a renaissance of nuclear energy in California — and recent comments by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger suggest that he’s on board.

Read more of this comprehensive story on nuclear power from Inside the Bay Area by clicking here.

March 26, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

New research analysis shows water & energy demands on a collision course

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 20, 2008 at 9:55 am

John Fleck over at Inkstain has written an article on the connection between water and energy; John writes:

The water-energy interface is a problem area. Energy production requires water. Water production requires energy. We don’t have enough of either, which is the makings of a serious problem.

There’s a new report out, written by Mike Hightower and Suzanne Pierce from Sandia Labs. Click here for links to the report, and click here for a link to John Fleck’s article in the Albuquerque Journal.

March 20, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

More on California’s water-energy connection; 20% of state’s energy use goes to processing and pumping of water

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on March 13, 2008 at 9:59 pm

From the Morgan Hill Times:

Water is life. It’s also energy. Recently, I chatted about the water-energy connection with State Assemblyman John Laird, who represents the communities of Coyote Valley, Morgan Hill and San Martin in the South Valley along with the Monterey Bay and Big Sur regions. Laird happens to be one of California’s most knowledgeable experts on the state’s water politics, having made management of our most crucial liquid resource a major part of his public service career over the last 30 plus years.

“One of the biggest uses of energy in California is the extraction, cleaning, pumping and management of waste water,” he said. “Those processes of water are probably the largest single use of electricity in California. Every time you save a gallon of water, you’re actually saving an equivalent of electricity and power.”

The water-energy connection is a big issue in the Golden State. About 20 percent of our total energy use goes to the processing and pumping of water. That’s a big deal because it means managing our water resources efficiently also helps us cut down on our fossil fuel consumption. And everyone can understand that the need to cut down considerably on fossil fuels is growing increasingly important as we face climate change problems as well as the peaking of the world’s “easy oil” supplies.

Read the rest of this story from the Morgan Hill Times by clicking here.

March 13, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Hydroelectric power had its beginnings in San Bernardino

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on January 4, 2008 at 7:46 am

From the San Bernardino Sun:

Hydroelectric power - the method of generating electricity by using moving water to power generators that in turn channel electricity to a grid and from there to customers - is one of several methods for harnessing electricity.

What some may not know is that revolutionary innovations in hydroelectric power had their origins right here in San Bernardino’s East Valley, along the Mill Creek wash in Mentone and deep in the heart of the Santa Ana Canyon, several miles northeast of where the present-day Seven Oaks Dam sits.

“This is where we pioneered hydro power. Here in the Inland Empire,” said Marty Weinberg, chief operator for Southern California Edison’s eastern hydro division.

It started on Sept. 7, 1893, when the Redlands Electric Light and Power Company powered up its Mill Creek No. 1 hydroelectric plant, the first three-phase alternating current hydroelectric plant in the world. In a nutshell, three-phase AC is three circuits of electric power coming from a single source.

Mill Creek No. 1 lit up the city of Redlands and provided electricity to one of its then primary customers: Union Ice Company’s ice house in Mentone. At the time, the area’s booming citrus industry had its oranges shipped all over the country, and large ice blocks were needed to keep the fruit chilled and fresh while in transport.

Back in those days, the power plants required a lot of man-hours to keep them running, and workers lived with their families on site. Some of those children grew up and went to work for Edison themselves. To read the rest of this retrospective article from the San Bernardino Sun, click here.

January 4, 2008 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Is nuclear power making a comeback?

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 3, 2007 at 9:06 am

From the Voice of San Diego:

With the state’s attention focused on combating climate change, lawmakers and some environmentalists are increasingly willing to at least talk about building new nuclear energy plants — a topic once considered taboo.

Three decades after being banned in California, nuclear power has a long way to go before it could play a role in the state’s ambitious plans to reduce greenhouse gases. Legislation passed last year, Assembly Bill 32, set a goal for California to cut greenhouse gases to 1990 levels by 2020. An 80 percent cut is planned by 2050.

With those goals in mind, some say nuclear energy could be one tool to cut emissions. Nuclear plants produce electricity without emitting carbon dioxide.

“The global warming conversation — and particularly AB32 — has given us these concepts in California to start to consider,” says state Sen. Christine Kehoe, who will hold an informational hearing about nuclear power Dec. 10. “We’re not going to meet our greenhouse gas emissions goal unless we start taking some major steps to find cleaner ways to produce the tremendous amount of energy we need.”

Kehoe, D-San Diego, says the reexamination of nuclear is at its earliest stages. But the fact that the discussion is happening at the behest of a lawmaker — and a Democrat at that — in a state with an outright ban on new nuclear plants highlights the technology’s slowly reemerging popularity. Despite the stigma brought by Three Mile Island and the Chernobyl disaster, nuclear power is no longer so taboo.

The article discusses nuclear power from a California perspective, but fails to bring up something that I think is a big point: other countries are much farther ahead in using nuclear power than the U. S.. From a briefing paper on nuclear power use:

Sixteen countries depend on nuclear power for at least a quarter of their electricity. France and Lithuania get around three quarters of their power from nuclear energy, while Belgium, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, South Korea, Sweden, Switzerland, Slovenia and Ukraine get one third or more. Japan, Germany and Finland get more than a quarter of their power from nuclear energy, while the USA gets almost one fifth.

Chuck DeVore made some waves a few months ago when he suggested firing up the third reactor at San Onofre and using it to power desalination plants. It’s not necessarily a bad idea, in Aqua Blog Maven’s most humble opinion.

To read the rest of this article from the Voice of San Diego, click here. To read the rest of the briefing paper, Nuclear Power in the World Today, click here.

December 3, 2007 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Geothermal energy: the ultimate renewable resource

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on December 2, 2007 at 7:54 am

Here’s an interesting article on how geothermal energy and solar power resources are being tapped in the Salton Sea area and other California desert regions. From the San Francisco Chronicle:

Imperial County - Vincent Signorotti’s power plant sits on the edge of the Salton Sea, surrounded by irrigated cropland in the middle of a scorched desert. Beyond the lake, beyond the patch of green fields, the desert seems empty. But it holds all the energy Signorotti’s plant will ever need. Energy that could play a key role in California’s fight against global warming.

The plant runs on hot water, pumped from deep underground and flashed into steam to turn turbines. With 10 generators near the lakeshore, the facility produces enough electricity for 255,000 homes, and the company that owns it wants to expand. Other companies are drilling nearby, hoping to build their own geothermal plants. “We’re very lucky,” said Signorotti, a vice president with CalEnergy Operating Corp., as he considered all the energy beneath his feet. “This is really the crown jewel of undeveloped renewable resources.”

A renewable-energy boom is under way in the Southern California desert. The region’s open, empty spaces have room for big projects - such as vast solar energy farms - that can generate energy on a grand scale while producing few, if any, greenhouse gasses. Dozens of new solar and geothermal generating stations have been proposed, from Lancaster to the Arizona and Mexico borders. They won’t be cheap to build, possibly raising the costs Californians pay for power. But with the state’s utilities scrambling to find more renewable energy, the projects are moving forward.

Few places in the country have better potential. Low-level volcanic activity near the Salton Sea - a large, salty lake in Imperial County - can feed geothermal plants running 24 hours a day, seven days a week. And with its cloudless skies and bone-dry air, the desert has ideal conditions for solar plants. “You’re creating all this power without harming the environment,” said Avi Brenmiller with Solel Solar Systems, which plans to build a giant solar facility in the Mojave with backing from Pacific Gas and Electric Co. “This can be like the next oil supply for California.”

However, the downside is that plants are expensive to build, making renewable energy sometimes cost more than other traditional forms of energy.

A big user of geogthermal resources is, not surprisingly, Iceland, which is working on expanding geothermal energy here in America. To read more the rest of this article from the San Francisco Chronicle, click here.

Here’s an article from “The Street” regarding geothermal energy:

Geothermal power is expensive to tap into (though cheap to maintain) because it involves an exploration and drilling process similar to oil. As with other types of power, sky-high oil prices are making it more attractive. It’s as clean as energy comes, and a well-managed field churns up a steady stream of steam power day in and day out for decades at a time.

It probably won’t lower heat and electricity prices for consumers in the short term, but investments being made in the U.S. now should in the long run drive innovation and broaden competition in our energy market. That can’t be a bad thing for consumers.

Geothermal energy is entirely domestic, making it more reliable than oil or natural gas. And it’s entirely renewable if managed properly, making its prices, if not lower, then at least more predictable.

To read the full text of this article from The Street, click here.

December 2, 2007 · Filed Under Water & Energy

Share Your Thoughts - Post A Comment

Georgia’s power-water connection

Posted by: Aqua Blog Maven on November 20, 2007 at 7:53 am

From the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, a story on the connection between power generation and water use:

As the historic drought worsens and the tri-state water battle escalates, Georgia policymakers are all but ignoring the region’s biggest water guzzler. Electric utilities are the single largest users of the region’s freshwater. A family of four can use three times more water to power their home than they use to drink, bathe and water their lawn.

In Georgia, electric utilities use 68 percent of all surface water, the single largest user in the state, according to 2000 data from the U.S. Geological Survey, the latest year available. “We’ve been working really hard over the years to tell people when they flip that light switch, the water is running,” said Sara Barczak, with the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, an advocacy group.

Yet the link between power generation and water use has been virtually ignored in the debate over how to fairly allocate the region’s water resources and plan for growth.

Here it is, in a nutshell:

Georgia Power’s oldest plants use once-through, or open loop, cooling systems to condense the steam used to generate electricity. The water flows in one end of the plant, condenses steam into water, and then returns to the river out the other end. The quantities of water required are enormous – up to 500 million gallons a day for a medium-sized coal plant. In Georgia, the thirstiest plant uses more than double that.

Coal-fired plants employing once-through cooling use up to 27 gallons of water to generate one kilowatt hour of electricity, according to the federal Department of Energy. Nuclear power plants use more than 31 gallons for the same output.

Georgia Power must report to state environmental officials how much water its plants consume during the heat-exchange process. For plants that use once-through cooling, Georgia Power reports zero or negligible water loss because the water is returned to the river. The reporting, however, fails to account for millions of gallons of water that disappear as vapor once the hot water from the plant returns to the cooler water in the river, a phenomenon known as downstream evaporation. Southern’s Stewart said such losses are minimal. But the Electric Power Research Institute, a Washington research group supported by the nation’s largest power companies, estimates significant water loss, as much as two-thirds the amount evaporated from newer, recirculating systems.

The Energy Department estimates that thermoelectric power generation in the United States could consume more than 9 billion gallons of water a day by 2030, three times the amount consumed in 1995.

Georgia Power’s newer plants no longer use once-through cooling systems because of environmental concerns. The newer plants recirculate cooling water in closed-loop systems, sending hot water from the condenser to be air cooled in tall towers. These reciruclating cooling systems withdraw a fraction of the water used by once-through systems. But recirculating systems lose much more water to evaporation — about a half gallon of water for every kilowatt hour of electricity, according to the energy department. Over time, Georgia Power has been replacing older once-through systems with recirculating ones.

Georgia Power’s Plant Yates, located on the Chattahoochee River in Coweta County, once used about 477 million gallons a day — more than the average daily requirements of metro Atlanta. After switching to cooling towers, its water use dropped to about 32 million gallons a day. But the plant lost 51 percent of that, or about 16 million gallons, to evaporation and “blowdown,” a process that periodically flushes mineral deposits and slurry out of the cooling towers. While roughly 80 percent of the evaporated water returns to the atmosphere as vapor, it doesn’t return to where it was withdrawn. It drifts away, coming down as rain elsewhere.

To read the full text of this article from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, click here.

I wonder how much similar usage is occurring here in California. I know that a great deal of energy is used moving water around the state. California also gets a fair amount of power from hydroelectric sources, such as Hoover Dam. Coastal power stations use ocean water for cooling, and DWP runs coal-fired plants in Utah, so it’s Utah’s water they would be using, not ours.

Here’s a blog post I found a few weeks ago on the subject from The Oil Drum blog - click here. to read. It’s hard to believe that no one has figured out how to use reclaimed or recycled water for this?

November 20, 2007 · Filed Under Water & Energy

1 Comment