Will Drought Cause the Next Blackout?

By MICHAEL E. WEBBER, NYTIMES
Published: July 23, 2012

WE’RE now in the midst of the nation’s most widespread drought in 60 years, stretching across 29 states and threatening farmers, their crops and livestock. But there is another risk as water becomes more scarce. Power plants may be forced to shut down, and oil and gas production may be threatened.

Our energy system depends on water. About half of the nation’s water withdrawals every day are just for cooling power plants. In addition, the oil and gas industries use tens of millions of gallons a day, injecting water into aging oil fields to improve production, and to free natural gas in shale formations through hydraulic fracturing. Those numbers are not large from a national perspective, but they can be significant locally.

All told, we withdraw more water for the energy sector than for agriculture. Unfortunately, this relationship means that water problems become energy problems that are serious enough to warrant high-level attention.

During the 2008 drought in the Southeast, power plants were within days or weeks of shutting down because of limited water supplies. In Texas today, some cities are forbidding the use of municipal water for hydraulic fracturing. The multiyear drought in the West has lowered the snowpack and water levels behind dams, reducing their power output. The United States Energy Information Administration recently issued an alert that the drought was likely to exacerbate challenges to California’s electric power market this summer, with higher risks of reliability problems and scarcity-driven price increases.

And in the Midwest, power plants are competing for water that farmers want for their devastated corn crops.

Unfortunately, trends suggest that this water vulnerability will become more important with time.

Population growth will mean over 100 million more people in the United States over the next four decades who will need energy and water to survive and prosper. Economic growth compounds that trend, as per-capita energy and water consumption tend to increase with affluence. Climate-change models also suggest that droughts and heat waves may be more frequent and severe.

Thankfully, there are some solutions.

The government can collect, maintain and make available accurate, updated and comprehensive water data, possibly through the United States Geological Survey and the E.I.A. The E.I.A. maintains an extensive database of accurate, up-to-date and comprehensive information on energy production, consumption, trade and price. Unfortunately, there is no equivalent set of data for water. Consequently, industry, investors, analysts, policy makers and planners lack the information they need to make informed decisions about power plant siting or cooling technologies.

The government should also invest in water-related research and development (spending has been pitifully low for decades) to seek better air-cooling systems for power plants, waterless techniques for hydraulic fracturing, and biofuels that do not require freshwater irrigation.

We should encourage the use of reclaimed water for irrigation, industry and the cooling of equipment at industrial operations like smelters and petrochemical complexes. These steps typically spare a significant amount of energy and cost. The use of dry and hybrid wet-dry cooling towers that require less water should be encouraged at power plants, since not all of them need wet cooling all the time. As power plants upgrade their cooling methods to ones that are less water-intensive, these operations can save significant volumes of water.

Most important, conservation should be encouraged, since water conservation results in energy conservation, and vice versa.

New carbon emissions standards can also help save water. A plan proposed by the Obama administration (requiring new power plants to emit no more than 1,000 pounds of carbon dioxide per megawatt hour generated) would encourage utilities to choose less carbon- and water-intensive fuels. Conventional coal plants, which are very thirsty, exceed the standards proposed by the president. But relatively clean, and water-lean, power plants that use wind, solar panels and natural gas combined cycle, would meet them. Thus, by enforcing CO2 limits, a lot of water use can be avoided.

Because rivers and aquifers can span many states (or countries), because there is no alternative to water, and because water represents a critical vulnerability for our energy system, governments at all levels have a stake in working with industry to find solutions. The downsides of doing nothing — more blackouts — are too serious to ignore.

Michael E. Webber is an assistant professor of mechanical engineering and the associate director of the Center for International Energy and Environmental Policy at the University of Texas, Austin.

Proposed HOMES Act will provide rebates

With Congress struggling to find consensus on most issues, Reps. David McKinley (R-W.V.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) today found common ground by introducing bipartisan energy efficiency legislation that will create jobs, save homeowners money and benefit the environment.

The Home Owner Managing Energy Savings (HOMES) Act will provide rebates to homeowners who invest in energy efficiency improvements. Homeowners who demonstrate a 20 percent energy savings will receive a $2,000 rebate. For every 5 percent in additional energy savings, they can receive another $1,000 – up to a total of $8,000 or 50 percent of the project’s cost. The legislation is modeled after the Welch-authored Home Star Energy Retrofit Act (H.R. 5019), which passed the House with bipartisan support in the 111th Congress.

House passed the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010

This afternoon, the House passed the Home Star Energy Retrofit Act of 2010 (H.R. 5019) with a vote of 246 to 161!  The bill passed with bi-partisan support – 12 Republicans voted in favor.

Let’s see how our Minnesota representatives voted:

  • Bachmann, Michele, Minnesota, 6th – Nay
    She likes the ‘Drill Baby Drill’ approach and evidently does not have much use for conservation.  In the aftermath of the BP spill you would think that she would see that there needs to be smart alternatives, to drilling our way out of our energy challenges.
  • Ellison, Keith, Minnesota, 5th – Yea
    Smart man!  He earned your support.
  • Kline, John, Minnesota, 2nd – Nay
    Kline writes on his site that “Any legislation designed to revive and renew our economy should help American families and small businesses by preserving and creating more jobs in America. Americans should be able to keep more of their hard-earned money – to save, spend or invest. Legislation based on those principles would put America on a direct road to economic recovery.”

    If Kline really believes in his words, that we need to create jobs and help people save money, there is is no good reason from him to vote Nay.  Remember this folks when he is up for reelection.

  • McCollum, Betty, Minnesota, 4th – No vote
  • Oberstar, James L., Minnesota, 8th – Yea
    Another smart individual who deserves your support.
  • Paulsen, Erik, Minnesota, 3rd – Nay
    What is Erik thinking??
  • Peterson, Collin C., Minnesota, 7th – Yea
    Thanks Collin.
  • Walz, Timothy J., Minnesota, 1st – Yea
    Tim understands energy conservation and deserves your support.

This is a major milestone for Home Star, but work still remains. First, the Senate must follow up and pass their version of the Home Star bill. Additionally, today’s vote was an authorization, so it must be matched with an appropriation bill. An appropriation bill will actually allocate the $6 billion dollars to the program.