Community | August 29, 2008 | 32 comments

U.S. power plants consume 136 billion gallons of fresh water every day

source: http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/community-news/power-plant-water-withdrawals...

Image
love_is_my_religion
Here in California, we are told that the snow packs on our mountain tops are shrinking. There's less and less fresh water to share between our growing populations, farmers, ranchers and wildlife. Water is life.

This UPI article (U.S. Wants to Cut Power Plant Water Usage, July 18, 2007) alerted me to the problem concerning the oil fired, natural gas, coal and nuclear power plants. They all use copious amounts of our nation's fresh water resource.

Here is an excerpt:

WASHINGTON, U.S. Department of Energy officials said thermoelectric power plants using coal, oil, natural gas and nuclear sources require significant amounts of water for cooling and are a major competitor for water resources. A 2000 study found electric power plants were the second largest U.S. user of fresh water, withdrawing 136 billion gallons of fresh water daily. Only agriculture used more water.

Energy Department officials said the goal is to achieve a "50 percent" reduction in power plant fresh water usage by 2015.

Solar electric roof shingles and solar electric panels use "no" water in the generation of clean renewable electricity. They have no moving parts, make no noise, cause no chemical reaction, require virtually no maintenance and are guaranteed on average for 25 years.

When one factors in the true cost of generating electricity including the use of water as well as the production of greenhouse gases and other toxic emissions, solar electricity leads the field with clean, low cost, renewable energy.

Governor Schwarzenegger has recently told us that due to climate destabilization, forest fires aren't just seasonal anymore, they're year round. This will add new competition for our already strained precious water resources.

California as well as many other states can improve their flexibility to cope with an uncertain water future while practicing environmental stewardship.

– Harvey Sherback
  1. groups:
    Community,   Green,   Earth and Science,   Current News US
  2. tags:
    News,  Green,  Earth and Science,  Environment,  11 more
  3.     
    |

32 comments // U.S. power plants consume 136 billion gallons of fresh water every day

  • plusaf
  • SDLN
  • Bennyfical
    • 0
      Bennyfical  

    • Do not be quick to complain about the consumption levels. Remember these machines that use up all that water are used to help generate power for us to use.

      There may be more efficient ways of producing power but our current technique works well in the sense that most if not all people in the States have eletricity, water, and other power sources.

      Before jumping on the "this isn't eco-friendly" band wagon one must think about how they are benefited. Sure we don't get paid for using all this water like big business's do, but we get great services, clean water, and eletricty

    • 3 years ago
  • Bovey
    • 0
      Bovey  

    • We are quickly approaching a point where clean, renewable energy sources are economically viable when compared to the current alternatives on a level playing field. One of the problems of course is that we are NOT on a level playing field when the Gas and Oil industries receiving Billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies. As long as we continue to allow the Gas and Oil interests to infect the White House and the halls of Congress, clean renewable energy sources will continue to face an uphill battle, and the US will sadly continue to lag behind much of the industrial world in modernizing our energy infrastructure.

      After having read his most recent book, and watching many of his speeches, I am still not convinced that Barak Obama is the great agent of change that he presents himself as, but I do believe that he will reform American energy policy, and for the future of our Nation, the future of our Planet, and the future of my Children, he will most likely get my vote in November because of it.

      One thing is for certain, an Exxon-McCain administration will do little to reform US energy policy.

      "We need an energy bill that encourages consumption."
      -George W. Bush

    • 3 years ago
  • plusaf
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • plusaf:

      I don't think anything in my post suggested that the amount of water was "skyrocketing". I was just astounded by how much water thermoelectric power uses. When I first read the number "136 billion gallons", I'm thinking that it sounds like a lot, but I really had no way to gauge how much it really was. Finding that it's 1/3 of all the water used in this country helped put that number into perspective.

      I think it's great, however, that the amount of power produced has increased at 4 times the rate water consumption has increased. Thanks for sharing that information. The more efficient the better, in my mind. I must point out that the time period for the 2-3% increase of water (1985-2000) is not the same as the time period for the 20% increase in energy production (1995-2006), although the respective time periods do overlap for a 5 year period (1995-2000).

      The reason I find this story interesting is because one of our biggest issues of today, energy, seems to be directly influencing what will be one of our greatest challenges of tomorrow, water shortages.
      "By 2025 more than half the nations in the world will face freshwater stress or shortages and by 2050 as much as 75 percent of the world’s population could face freshwater scarcity."
      http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/nature.html
      That increased efficiency that you pointed out and alternative methods of creating energy (green technologies, air-cooled thermoelectric, etc.) that don't consume such massive amounts of water might be the difference between survival and disaster for us in the decades to come.

    • 3 years ago
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • plusaf:

      "are you saying that their [and our] future power needs will suffer because they'll need even MORE of their already-scarce water to supply the power?"

      plusaf, possibly. I DON'T mean that the efficiency you pointed out before will decrease. What I'm saying is that, as the population continues to increase, more water will be used to supply us with everything we need (food, drinking, energy, etc.).

      Here's the problem as I see it:
      That report predicts 75% of the world will face water scarcity in 2050.

      By 2050, the US Census Bureau predicts the US population will have grown to 439 million people.
      (http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html; either the pdf or csv file titled "Projections of the Population and Components of Change for the United States: 2010 to 2050").

      More people means more energy, food, and drinking water must be produced.

      To complicate things even more, however, the western US is projected to see a decrease in the amount of water available due to climate change.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/28/science/earth/28climate.html

      So, basically, the future will have more people, an increased demand for water, but less water available. So some reduction in water use needs to take place for the basic purpose of survival. We can't really get around using water for things like irrigation or for drinking water (unless we go the route of Brawndo like in Idiocracy lol). However, with technology that is available, we don't have to use as much fresh water as we do for other enterprises, such as energy.

      That Sandia article I cited in a previous post mentions that "[i]n the United States, wastewater reuse is growing by 15 percent per year" and that "waste water, sea water or brackish groundwater could be used by electric power plants for cooling and processing instead of freshwater; switching to renewable energy technologies that do not need water for cooling, such as wind and solar electric; and introducing technologies to condense evaporation from cooling towers and capture and reuse the water."
      http://www.sandia.gov/news/resources/releases/2008/nature.html

      I'm not sure how it's all going to play out, but it seems to me like this is a problem we can overcome. Of course, I'm just trying to learn about this stuff myself. :) Hopefully we'll actually start working on these problems so we don't face such a dire future, though.

    • 3 years ago
  • endofcon
    • 0
      endofcon  

    • Water is required to run the STEAM turbine.
      No steam = no electricity.
      I'm suprised how many of us have neglected to remember the first law of thermodynamics.

    • 3 years ago
  • allIknowis
  • scm23
  • endofcon
  • Kati_kat
    • 0
      Kati_kat  

    • I'd like to think this is as simple as "an oil man in the white house" but I fear its much more than that...

      It is a culture that feels entitled to instant gratification, and refuses to admit it is a member of the planet, not domineer of it...

      Some of us get it, but until the rest of us do, we will not enact policies as a whole to steer our nation away from this destructive path. Even Obama isn't willing to go that far.

      It is so deeply ingrained in our existence that I believe we need a cultural revolution to step out of the old and toward the sustainable.

    • 3 years ago
  • love_is_my_religion
    • 0
      love_is_my_religion  
    • Kati_kat:

      Yup a revolution sure would be good.

      The Essential Dalai Lama (His Important Teachings), points out that all the external revolutions will not suffice; we need a spiritual revolution.

      The revolution begins within.

    • 3 years ago
  • Kati_kat
  • gracesteban
    • 0
      gracesteban  

    • People should be well informed about problems like this so they can start pressuring the government to act.

      If Americans will just depend alone to the government to vanguard the safety of America's natural resources, rest assured there wouldn't be left for the children of their children in the future.

    • 3 years ago
  • hybirdd
  • Mista_G
  • fiat_lux088
    • 0
      fiat_lux088  

    • It's a shame, we have the technology to decrease the amount of oil, and this case water usage. Its just larger corporations are holding them back.

    • 3 years ago
  • fiat_lux088
  • sublimeuniverse
  • SDLN
    • 0
      SDLN  
    • Image

    • I looked this up for some perspective and thought I'd share what I found.

      According to a report by the USGS in 2004, "[e]stimates of water use in the United States indicate that about 408 billion gallons per day (one thousand million gallons per day, abbreviated Bgal/d) were withdrawn for all uses during [the year] 2000."

      136 is exactly 1/3 of 408. Thermoelectric power plants use 1/3 of our water every day.

      BTW, apparently these reports are issued quinquennially (or every 5 years). 2005's report is "in progress".
      http://water.usgs.gov/watuse/

    • 3 years ago
  • love_is_my_religion
  • mattbrawn
  • sillei
  • love_is_my_religion
  • HiImGuss
  • stephenthomson
  • allIknowis
    • 0
      allIknowis  
    • stephenthomson:

      That's so tired an excuse. Oil is only used for about 1.5% of electric generation. Sure we should be using other sources of generation, but it is such a tired excuse "oil man in the whitehouse" over and over again. Carter was a nuclear scientist, under his watch the 3 mile island accident happened, i suppose it was because we had "a nuke man in the whitehouse".

    • 3 years ago
  • justright
  • justright
    • 0
      justright  

    • Germany produces huge amounts of solar panels, and as a result the price for them in their country has dropped by over 50%. Why cant we produce more and make them cheaper?

    • 3 years ago
  • allIknowis
    • 0
      allIknowis  
    • justright:

      The piece i saw on PBS about Germany's solar, is basically guarantee the minimum price of electricity. the land owner can use that to secure a loan to install a small or medium sized solar station on their farm. The pig farmer they showed, spent about $2 million and after all bills paid, cleared about $60k/year. In addition to his normal farming operation, only took up a few acres of land. As of the time the story was filmed the market price of electricity had stayed high enough the Government hadn't had to pay any subsidy. win win

    • 3 years ago
  • stephenthomson
more from Community:
from the community

top videos