[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
EFFORTS RELATED TO THE
ENERGY AND WATER LINKAGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND
ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 9, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-41
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science and Technology
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
50-662 WASHINGTON : 2009
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. BART GORDON, Tennessee, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois RALPH M. HALL, Texas
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR.,
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California Wisconsin
DAVID WU, Oregon LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas
BRIAN BAIRD, Washington DANA ROHRABACHER, California
BRAD MILLER, North Carolina ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
MARCIA L. FUDGE, Ohio W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
PAUL D. TONKO, New York BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
PARKER GRIFFITH, Alabama MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas
STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
JIM MATHESON, Utah BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee ADRIAN SMITH, Nebraska
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia
RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri PETE OLSON, Texas
BARON P. HILL, Indiana
HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona
CHARLES A. WILSON, Ohio
KATHLEEN DAHLKEMPER, Pennsylvania
ALAN GRAYSON, Florida
SUZANNE M. KOSMAS, Florida
GARY C. PETERS, Michigan
VACANCY
------
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment
HON. BRIAN BAIRD, Washington, Chair
JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois BOB INGLIS, South Carolina
EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland
LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois
GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona W. TODD AKIN, Missouri
DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas
BEN R. LUJAN, New Mexico MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
PAUL D. TONKO, New York
JIM MATHESON, Utah
LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
BART GORDON, Tennessee RALPH M. HALL, Texas
JEAN FRUCI Democratic Staff Director
CHRIS KING Democratic Professional Staff Member
MICHELLE DALLAFIOR Democratic Professional Staff Member
SHIMERE WILLIAMS Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELAINE PAULIONIS PHELEN Democratic Professional Staff Member
ADAM ROSENBERG Democratic Professional Staff Member
JETTA WONG Democratic Professional Staff Member
ELIZABETH CHAPEL Republican Professional Staff Member
TARA ROTHSCHILD Republican Professional Staff Member
JANE WISE Research Assistant
C O N T E N T S
July 9, 2009
Page
Witness List..................................................... 2
Hearing Charter.................................................. 3
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Brian Baird, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science and Technology,
U.S. House of Representatives.................................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Ranking Minority Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 7
Written Statement............................................ 7
Prepared Statement by Representative Jerry F. Costello, Member,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on Science
and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.................. 8
Prepared Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson,
Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, Committee on
Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives.......... 8
Witnesses:
Dr. Kristina M. Johnson, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 9
Written Statement............................................ 14
Biography.................................................... 22
Ms. Anu K. Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Oral Statement............................................... 22
Written Statement............................................ 24
Biography.................................................... 29
Dr. Bryan J. Hannegan, Vice President, Environment and
Generation, The Electric Power Research Institute
Oral Statement............................................... 29
Written Statement............................................ 33
Biography.................................................... 50
Mr. Terry Murphy, President and Founder, SolarReserve
Oral Statement............................................... 50
Written Statement............................................ 52
Biography.................................................... 67
Mr. Richard L. Stanley, Vice President, Engineering Division, GE
Energy
Oral Statement............................................... 68
Written Statement............................................ 69
Biography.................................................... 75
Discussion
The Effects of Population Growth............................... 76
Consideration of Water in Energy Legislation................... 77
Climate Change Impacts......................................... 79
Funding Public-Private Partnerships............................ 79
Increasing Efficiency.......................................... 80
Water and Nuclear Power........................................ 81
More on Efficiency Practices................................... 83
Water in Coal Carbon Sequestration............................. 84
Pricing Carbon................................................. 85
Greatest Impact Technologies................................... 86
Closing........................................................ 87
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Kristina M. Johnson, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy........................................... 90
Dr. Bryan J. Hannegan, Vice President, Environment and
Generation, The Electric Power Research Institute.............. 91
TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS RELATED TO THE ENERGY AND
WATER LINKAGE
----------
THURSDAY, JULY 9, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science and Technology,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Brian
Baird [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
hearing charter
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Technology Research and Development
Efforts Related to the
Energy and Water Linkage
thursday, july 9, 2009
10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m.
2318 rayburn house office building
Purpose
On Thursday, July 9, 2009 the Subcommittee on Energy and
Environment will hold a hearing entitled: ``Technology Research and
Development Efforts Related to the Energy and Water Linkage.''
The hearing will explore the role of the Federal Government and
industry in developing technologies designed to address the link
between our energy and water resources and how deployment of such
technologies could help to avoid resource supply disruptions. Energy
and water are directly linked. Water is essential for energy generation
and fuel production--it is used in energy resource extraction,
refining, processing, transportation, hydroelectric generation and
thermoelectric power plant cooling and emissions scrubbing. Equally
important is the energy needed for water pumping, treatment,
distribution and end-use requirements. Climate variability and demand
growth affect both our water and energy resources, so it is important
to acknowledge their interdependency and develop technologies and adopt
practices that allow us to manage these resources effectively. The
Subcommittee will hear from expert witnesses who will discuss the
issues relevant to deployment of advanced technologies related to
energy-water issues.
Witnesses
Dr. Kristina M. Johnson is the Under Secretary of
Energy. Dr. Johnson will testify on the current research,
development and demonstration activities at the Department of
Energy to advance technologies related to the link between our
energy and water resources. She will include a discussion of
the Department's program offices' coordination in this area.
Ms. Anu Mittal is the Director, Natural Resources and
Environment at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Ms. Mittal will provide a preview of two GAO reports due later
this year. One report covers water use in power generation and
the second report addresses water use in biofuel production. In
addition, she will identify some of the technology research and
development gaps related to the energy and water linkage.
Dr. Bryan Hannegan is the Vice President, Environment
& Generation for the Electric Power Research Institute. Dr.
Hannegan will testify on the water use at thermoelectric power
generation plants, including future water use anticipated
should carbon capture and storage technologies be deployed
broadly. He will describe existing and advanced cooling
technologies and operation practices available today and the
challenges and benefits with deployment of these technologies
and strategies. He will also comment on the Department of
Energy's energy/water RD&D programs.
Mr. Terry Murphy is the President of SolarReserve.
SolarReserve builds utility-scale solar power plants to deliver
energy using integrated storage. The company is headquartered
in Santa Monica, CA. Mr. Murphy will provide an overview of
concentrating solar thermal technologies and how water is used
in the generation process. He will discuss the different
cooling technologies used today and under development. He will
also comment on the Department of Energy's energy/water RD&D
programs.
Mr. Richard L. Stanley is Vice President, Engineering
Division with GE Energy. GE Energy is one of the world's
leading suppliers of power generation and energy delivery
technologies. Mr. Stanley will provide an overview of the range
of technologies GE is developing to address energy-water
related issues, including water filtration, desalinization,
organic rankine cycle, Jenbacher gas engines and advanced gas
turbine technologies. He will also discuss research and
development needs in this area and comment on the Department of
Energy's energy/water RD&D programs.
Thermoelectric Power
Water is a critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry.
The primary purpose for water withdrawal is cooling. Thermoelectric
power generation uses a variety of fuel sources including coal,
nuclear, oil, natural gas, and the steam portion of gas-fired combined
cycle plants. The United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that
thermoelectric generation accounts for approximately 136,000 million
gallons per day of freshwater withdrawals, ranking only slightly behind
agricultural irrigation as the largest source of freshwater withdrawals
in the United States.\1\ According to the National Energy Technology
Laboratory Director's testimony before the Senate Energy and Natural
Resources Committee earlier this year, nuclear power plants consume
approximately 40 percent more water than an equivalent contemporary
sub-critical pulverized coal (PC) plant and natural gas combined cycle
plants consume approximately 60 percent less than the PC plant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Feeley, Thomas J., et al., 2006 ``Department of Energy/National
Energy Technology Laboratory's Power Plant-Water R&D Program,''
Pittsburgh, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water availability represents a growing concern for meeting our
future power demands. As our population grows, our demand for water
continues to rise while supplies are dwindling. In water-stressed areas
of the United States, power plants will increasingly compete with other
sectors of the economy and end users for water resources. In addition,
water and energy-related regulatory policy may add to the challenge of
operating our existing power plants and permitting new thermoelectric
power plants. As water use decisions become more difficult, it is
apparent that there is a role for the federal government to manage a
comprehensive research, development and demonstration strategy to help
ensure we are well-equipped to prevent energy and water supply
disruptions.
In discussing water use at thermoelectric power plants, it is
necessary to make a distinction between water withdrawal and water
consumption. Water withdrawal represents the total water taken from a
water source or reservoir, such as a lake or river. Water consumption
measures the amount of water withdrawal that is not returned to the
source. Freshwater consumption for thermoelectric uses appears low at
only three percent when compared with other use categories such as
irrigation which is responsible for 81 percent of water consumed.\2\
Still, at that consumption rate, thermoelectric power plants consumed
more than 32 billion gallons per day.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Feeley, Thomas J., et al., 2007, ``Water: A Critical Resource
In the Thermoelectric Power Industry,'' U.S. Department of Energy,
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermoelectric power plants require large quantities of cooling
water to produce electricity. There are two types of cooling water
system designs: Once-through or open loop and re-circulating or closed
loop. In once-through cooling systems, a local water body supplies the
water, which is circulated through the heat exchangers, and then the
warm water is discharged back into the same water body from which it
came. This type of system has a high water withdrawal, but low water
consumption. Closed-loop cooling refers to cooling systems in which
water is withdrawn from a source, circulated through heat exchangers,
cooled and then recycled. Subsequent water withdrawals for a closed-
loop system are used to replace water lost to evaporation or leakage,
for example. There are three common types of closed loop cooling water
systems: wet cooling towers, cooling ponds and air cooled (dry re-
circulating). Wet cooling tower systems withdraw 30-50 times less water
than once-through systems, but 75 percent of the water is lost during
plant operations.\3\ Dry re-circulating cooling systems use either
direct or indirect air-cooled steam condensers. The dry re-circulating
systems, in general, have minimal water withdrawal and consumption. In
the United States, existing thermoelectric power plants use all of
these cooling systems with approximately 42 percent of generating
capacity using once-through, 42 percent using wet cooling towers, 14
percent using cooling ponds, and just under one percent using dry re-
circulating systems.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Feeley, Thomas J., et al., 2007, ``Water: A Critical Resource
In the Thermoelectric Power Industry,'' U.S. Department of Energy,
National Energy Technology Laboratory, Pittsburgh, PA.
\4\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given that the energy-water relationship is already under strain,
the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
is developing advanced technologies targeted at reducing freshwater
withdrawal and consumption associated with thermoelectric power
generation. NETL's Innovations for Existing Plants (IEP) program has
two major objectives: 1) develop cost-effective technologies for
commercial demonstration by 2015 that can help reduce freshwater
withdrawal and consumption by 50 percent at plants equipped with wet
re-circulating cooling technology and 2) develop cost-effective
technologies for commercial demonstration by 2020 that can reduce
freshwater withdrawal and consumption by 70 percent.
The following research and development categories include the major
initiatives supported by NETL: alternate sources of cooling water make-
up, including produced water, mine water or reuse of treated
wastewaters; advanced cooling technology; reclamation of water from
combustion flue gas for use as cooling; and reduction of cooling tower
evaporative losses. In Fiscal Year 2009, $12 million is available for
NETL's energy/water R&D under the IEP program. The President's Fiscal
Year 2010 budget request does not continue funding this R&D.
Oil, Gas and Oil Shale
Initial extraction of oil and gas does not require a lot of water,
but as oil deposits are depleted enhanced oil recovery (EOR) techniques
are applied to extract additional oil from existing wells. These
techniques oftentimes involve injection of water or steam into the well
to extract the additional resource. In 1995, the American Petroleum
Institute estimated that oil and gas operations generated 18 billion
barrels of produced water and estimates that over 70 percent of the
produced water is recycled and used for EOR. The Department of Energy
estimates that conventional petroleum refineries consume one gallon of
water for each gallon of oil refined. Additional water is needed for
cooling during the refining process. DOE also estimates that the U.S.
has 500 billion to 1.1 trillion barrels of oil in the form of oil shale
deposits. Recovery of these deposits could consume two to five gallons
of water per gallon of refinery-ready oil, according to DOE.
Renewables
The use of water in the extraction and processing of petroleum-
based transportation fuels is relatively small compared to the
electric-generating industry. However, similar to fossil and nuclear
technologies many renewable energy technologies use water in their
generation process. The Department's Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy has started to address these issues through their
Industrial Technologies Program (ITP) as well as through studies and
research activities in individual renewable energy technology programs.
Concentrating solar thermal, geothermal and biomass combustion are all
renewable technologies which generate power through conventional heat-
engine operating cycles which are generally water intensive. One area
of research funded by ITP is the organic rankine cycle (ORC), which can
improve recovery of waste heat in industrial processes and be used in
solar thermal and geothermal operations. An ORC uses an organic fluid
instead of steam to power a high-efficiency turbine, hence reducing
water use and increasing energy efficiency. Additional efficiency gains
can be achieved for solar thermal and geothermal technologies if a
power plant forgoes a wet cooling technology for the more expensive dry
cooling technology, similar to fossil power plant technologies.
Biofuel production has come under significant scrutiny for its use
of water. From feedstock production to final conversion to a liquid
transportation fuel, biofuels have an impact on water resources.
Dedicated energy crops grown specifically for energy production can be
very water intensive if irrigation is necessary for sufficient yields.
On the other hand low-value woody biomass, algae, agriculture residues
or other organic waste streams used as feedstocks for energy production
biomass have a much smaller demand for water. Additionally, water is
used in several other processes during conversion, but the biorefining
process is modest in absolute terms compared to the water applied and
consumed in growing the plants used to produce the biofuels. According
to a 2007 Sandia National Laboratories report a traditional dry mill
corn-ethanol facility uses four gallons of water per gallon of ethanol
produced (gal/gal).\5\ A new study by the Argonne National Laboratory
has shown that this number has significantly decreased over time.\6\
Technologies being researched such as gasification and pyrolysis may
also help to decrease the need for water in biofuels production.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Pate, R., M. Hightower, C. Cameron, W. Einfeld. 2007. Overview
of Energy-Water Interdependencies and the Emerging Energy Demands on
Water Resources, Sandia National Laboratories, Los Alamos, NM, USA.
\6\ Wu, May. 2008. Analysis of the Efficiency of the U.S. Ethanol
Industry 2007, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne National
Laboratory, delivered to Renewable Fuels Association.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the same time, there are positive synergies between some
renewable energy technologies and water. For example, biogas produced
by anaerobic digestion of organic waste is a co-product of wastewater
treatment facilities. Biogas is more than 60 percent methane, a
valuable energy resource. About 3,500 of the large wastewater
facilities already utilize wastewater to produce biogas which can be
used as a substitute for natural gas. The biogas can also be utilized
for internal process heat needed to complete the digestion process.
Anaerobic digestion reduces the need for fossil based natural gas while
also treating the wastewater. The Point Loma Plant in San Diego,
California is a successful illustration of anaerobic digestion of
wastewater. The plant has the capacity to treat 240 million gallons of
wastewater per day, is energy-self-sufficient and sells excess energy
in the form of electricity back to the grid. In 2000, the city of San
Diego saved more than $1.4 million in operational energy costs and sold
$1.4 million in excess power to the electrical grid while also treating
its wastewater.
As future demands for energy and water continue to grow, the
reliability of our energy and water supplies is likely to be an
increasing challenge. In 2005, Congress directed the Department of
Energy to develop a report to Congress identifying current and emerging
national issues associated with the link between our energy and water
resources and develop an Energy-Water Research and Development Roadmap.
That roadmap is now under review by the new Administration.
Chairman Baird. Welcome to today's hearing. We have just
received information that we expect a whole series of votes in
about 15 minutes, and there are, what did we hear, 30?
Staff. Thirteen.
Chairman Baird. Thirteen? That is good, 13 votes, which
will take a long time. Accordingly, what I am going to do is
dispense with any opening comments except to thank our
witnesses for their presence today, for their expertise, and
for their input on an important topic.
I will introduce you briefly. We will have five minutes for
opening comments from each of the witnesses. With luck and
alacrity, we can possibly get through at least the opening
comments and then depending on how it looks over on the Floor,
we will proceed.
I will recognize my colleague and friend, Mr. Inglis, for
brief opening comments as well.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Baird follows:]
Prepared Statement of Chairman Brian Baird
Good morning and welcome to today's hearing on Technology Research
and Development Efforts Related to the Energy and Water Linkage.
I would like to welcome our expert panelists who will discuss the
ongoing RD&D activities to develop technologies that will help us to
avoid disruptions in supplies of these two vital resources.
Climate variability and demand growth affect both our water and
energy resources, and it is critical that we acknowledge that
interdependency and develop technologies and adopt practices that allow
us to manage these resources most effectively.
If new power plants continue to be built with today's technologies,
consumption of water for electrical energy production could more than
double by 2030 from 3.3 billion gallons per day in 1995 to 7.3 billion
gallons per day.
During the last Congress and continuing into this year, the
Committee brought attention to water supply challenges through a series
of hearings and passage of several pieces of legislation.
Additionally, during the last Congress Chairman Gordon requested
that the Government Accountability Office undertake several analyses to
explore the relationship between energy and water resources. We are
pleased to have GAO here today to talk about some preliminary findings
of their work.
We have tended to think about these two essential resources
independently. However, the strong linkage between water and energy
requires that we make a more concerted effort to ensure that water and
energy technologies are being developed synergistically.
Again, I would like to thank the witnesses for their participation
today and I look forward to your testimony.
Mr. Inglis. I agree with you, Mr. Chairman. We should go
with alacrity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Inglis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Bob Inglis
Good morning and thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman.
This summer, my home State of South Carolina got the good news that
we finally emerged from a long and difficult two year drought. The
drought forced us to consider how we use water at home, in irrigation,
and for industrial use. Especially in the upstate, we'll be dealing
with the long-term impacts of this drought for quite some time.
I bring this up to highlight the importance of water scarcity in
the decisions we make in our economy and communities. Climate change
will further stress our water resources and make water management more
difficult. While we need to make wise decisions to minimize our impact
on the natural environment, we also need to consider how changes in our
environment may impact the way we do business.
Electricity generation is the second largest source of freshwater
withdrawals in the United States. The technologies we use today are
very water inefficient, despite the availability of cooling systems
that substantially reduce our water needs. As we change our choice of
fuels in order to minimize our greenhouse gas emissions, we should also
work to minimize the strain we put on our limited water resources. I'm
encouraged by the work of DOE's National Energy Technology Laboratory
to develop the technologies that will reduce our water withdrawal and
consumption.
Fossil fuel and renewable energy resources also demand a
considerable amount of energy in the generation process. I am looking
forward to learning about the technologies and techniques that will
help us recover and use this energy with a limited impact on other
natural resources.
There's one aspect of energy and water linkage that this hearing
fails to address. Our oceans are a tremendous source of kinetic energy
that we can harness without consuming water. Despite millions of
dollars in federal investment, not a single project to harness that
energy has been added to our electricity grid. I hope that our
committee will explore these alternatives at the cutting edge of
renewable energy development.
Thank you again for holding this hearing, Mr. Chairman, and I look
forward to hearing from our witnesses.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Costello follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Jerry F. Costello
Good Morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding today's hearing
to examine the link between energy and water and explore how the
government and the private sector can best coordinate efforts to
develop and deploy technology to utilize the energy-water nexus.
Water is a vital component of nearly every form of energy
production. It creates energy through hydroelectric power, provides the
cooling element necessary for all thermoelectric power generation, aids
in the extraction of oil from nearly depleted wells, and is necessary
for the growth of biomass and the creation of renewable energy sources.
In addition, energy is necessary to move, treat, and use water. The
connection between these two important resources makes the increased
demand for energy and the limited supply of water more troublesome.
Research, development, and demonstration of technology and
practices that will stabilize and conserve our water supply while
continuing to meet our energy demands will require a coordinated effort
by the Department of Energy, the 20 other federal agencies that engage
in water research, and the private energy sector. I am pleased to see
representatives from each of those stakeholders here today, and I look
forward to hearing their testimony.
In particular, I am interested in hearing about the use of water
for renewable energy production, in particular ethanol, biodiesel, and
other biofuels. I would like to hear from our witnesses what their
current research efforts on this issue are and how this committee can
assist you in moving those efforts to the development and demonstration
phases.
Again, I welcome our panel of witnesses and I thank the Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson
Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
As Chair of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee of the
House Committee on Transportation, water is a subject of great interest
for me.
The efforts of the Science Committee can greatly enhance that of
the Water Resources Subcommittee, as research is needed to better
understand and manage this critical resource.
In Dallas, the Trinity River is a wonderful resource.
It feeds six thousands of acres of the Great Trinity Forest. It is
an important source of natural beauty and inspires nature enthusiasts
to this day.
However, improper management of the lands around the Trinity River
put the city of Dallas and surrounding areas of flooding.
The Trinity River Project is one of the most monumental public
works and economic development projects every attempted.
As flood protection, recreation, environmental restoration,
economic development, and major transportation projects converge along
the Trinity River, residents and visitors from around the world will
have a new and exciting image of the City of Dallas.
I have been heavily engaged in seeing that the Trinity River
Project will not only improve traffic flow, but it will also give
citizens access to wildlife, trails, parks, lakes, and the Great
Trinity Forest.
The project also seeks to include a world-class equestrian center,
as well as the award-winning Audubon Environmental Interpretive Center.
All of these special features will stimulate new urban development
such as waterfront condominiums, beautiful townhouses, office towers,
and sidewalk cafes and shops.
Today, this subcommittee will hear more about the connection
between energy and water.
It is our hope to hear about the future of thermoelectric power. We
hope to hear about new technologies to reduce freshwater withdrawal and
consumption.
We hope to learn more about how to mitigate actions such as
irrigation that account for 81 percent of all freshwater consumed.
In Texas, oil extraction and production is a major economic driver.
I will be interested to hear, in more detail, how we can use less water
for the enhanced oil recovery techniques that are water-intensive.
In areas of Texas that have been severely impacted by drought, I am
curious to know if those techniques had to be reduced because of the
water shortage.
As energy demands increase, it will become more important for our
nation to innovate, when it comes to our energy supply.
Welcome to today's witnesses. Your knowledge and interest in this
issue will be valuable to Members of the Subcommittee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman Baird. Alacrity being the order of the day, it is
my privilege to introduce our witnesses quickly. Dr. Kristina
Johnson is the Under Secretary of Energy of the U.S. Department
of Energy. Ms. Anu Mittal--is that properly pronounced--is the
Director of Natural Resources and Environment at the U.S.
Government Accountability Office. Dr. Bryan Hannegan is the
Vice President of the Environment and Generation for the
Electric Power Research Institute. Mr. Terry Murphy is the
President of SolarServe. Is that all proper?
Mr. Murphy. SolarReserve.
Chairman Baird. SolarReserve? I knew I was missing
something. Mr. Richard L. Stanley is the Vice President of the
Engineering Division of GE Energy.
As witnesses know, we will have five minutes for each
person's spoken testimony followed, apparently in this case, by
a break and then a series of questions from the Committee.
Thank you all, and with that, Dr. Johnson, please begin.
STATEMENT OF DR. KRISTINA M. JOHNSON, UNDER SECRETARY OF
ENERGY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Dr. Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
Committee. I definitely appreciate the opportunity to be here
to provide testimony on DOE's programs for developing water-
efficient and environmentally sustainable energy technologies.
Let me just say a couple words about my background. To
demonstrate my particular and passionate interest in this area,
I am a third-generation engineer. My grandfather worked with
George Westinghouse at the first turn of the last century in
helping to electrify the country. My father then worked for 37
years with Westinghouse, started his career in hydroelectricity
and ended it in nuclear. I was inspired by their examples of
using energy and technology to better their communities, and
therefore, it is a privilege to be here to serve the country in
this position.
I also understand the purpose of this hearing is to talk
about the relationship between energy and water resources and
to explore the ways that we work across not only the programs
within the Department but also the different agencies. So to
that point, I just want to say a word about my academic
background. After getting a Ph.D. and teaching for many years,
I became a dean and then a provost. Interestingly enough, the
Under Secretary of Science has also been a provost, and what do
provosts do? Most people don't know. Our goal is to make the
whole greater than the sum of the parts. And so in thinking
about these issues I was particularly pleased to be here
because I personally had not explored in depth the relationship
between energy and water, and after preparing for this hearing,
it is quite an interesting story. So without further ado, let
me continue.
In thinking about the energy-water nexus, it is important
to step back in my view and think about climate. Climate
affects water, water affects energy. The way we use energy
affects climate. And it is a critical time right now for our
country and our planet. Global climate change is real and it is
happening. And that was the important message from the U.S.
Global Climate Change Research Program that released a report
three weeks ago. The report showed that there had been
significant impact already occurring, including changes in
precipitation across the U.S., more rainfall in the Northwest,
and less in the Southeast. The oceans are becoming more acidic,
and studies have shown, and in fact a statement released by the
Academies of Sciences of 70 countries including the United
States, said that at the current emission rates of greenhouse
gases, the coral reefs and the polar ecosystems will be
severely affected by 2050, if not earlier. Marine and food
supplies are likely to be reduced with significant implications
for food production and security in regions that depend on fish
protein for human health and well-being. And finally, ocean
acidification is irreversible on time scales of tens of
thousands of years.
So in thinking about energy and water, we also have to
think about climate, and we must address the global climate
change now or we are in danger of losing the coral reefs, the
Amazon, and the Arctic caps.
So how does climate specifically affect water and energy
resources? Professor Roni Avissar from Duke University, his
models have shown that the deforestation of the Amazon resulted
in, or contributed greatly to, the drought that we experienced
in the mid part of this decade in the West, and if we think of
just a graphic for a moment, so less water, about 90 percent of
our electricity is derived from thermoelectric generation.
So in the first graphic here, I just want to show that
where the droughts have occurred, we also see that conventional
electric power sees a tremendous decrease of about 35 percent.
So 90 percent of our electricity requires water to cool the
thermal generation of electricity, and so when we have
droughts, we don't have the water to generate the electricity.
And the drought in the Southeast in 2007 in August, our nuclear
plants in that area had a reduction of 50 percent of electrical
generation. So there is an intimate relationship between
climate, water, and energy.
So I want to talk a little bit about what we are doing in
the Department of Energy to address this issue with our R&D. I
will say recent advances in coal-fired plants and gas plants,
i.e., integrated gasification combined cycle plants and natural
gas combined cycle plants, are about 20 percent more efficient
than the older pulverized coal plants, and they consume 40
percent to 60 percent less water. That is the good news.
The other news is that 80 percent of those plants are older
than 30 years. So a big consideration moving forward is this
aging infrastructure that we have. We have to be ready that
when they, the fleet that is older and aging, can be turned
over, we have to have that more efficient technology ready to
deploy. The more efficient the power plants, the less water. So
this is one of the areas where we are working.
So first let me just summarize then that our approach has
been three-pronged. First is energy efficiency. We use less
energy, we need less water. Second is the energy that we
generate, let us make it more efficient. Third, renewables use
less water--for example, solar PV, wind--we have goals for 2030
where we believe that by 2030, 20 percent of our electrical
generation will come from wind, six percent can come from
solar, and a significant percentage from geothermal and also
biomass, and hydroelectric we anticipate could be as high as 10
percent.
By reducing the electric generation from thermoelectric to
these other renewables, we can actually reduce the amount of
water we need by possibly a third or more.
So first, it is important to look at energy conservation
and efficiency. I would like to just mention that energy
efficiency in our buildings, industry and transportation
presents a tremendous opportunity to reduce our energy use, and
over the last 40 years our energy use per dollar of gross
domestic product has been cut in half. The lighting standards
that Secretary Chu announced last week will not only save
consumers $4 billion a year, they will eliminate the need for
14 500-megawatt power plants which would consume 50 million to
100 million gallons of fresh water a day. DOE has several
efficiency programs that directly cut water use including the
Energy Star labels and appliance standards that cover washers,
dishwashers and lighting.
Second, our research to improve the efficiency of power
plants also reduces water consumption as I mentioned.
Third, the renewables including concentrated solarthermal
power and geothermal power require water for cooling. However,
we are looking at ways of doing dry cooling in that area.
Fourth, our renewable power plants such as wind and solar PV do
not require water for cooling and can sharply reduce our power
consumption.
And the only thing I want to point out here in these
graphics is that the Midwest and the West are in some sense the
breadbasket of renewables. If you look, here is a map of the
United States, of course. Here is the wind, here is where our
solar is, our hydroelectric in this area, and finally
geothermal.
So we have a tremendous possibility to exploit these new
technologies, and we are working vigorously to do that.
Lastly, I want to state a little bit about the growth and
conversion of biomass energy. It can consume a great deal of
water if we use irrigated crops and fertilizers. But if we go
to switchgrass and miscanthus, we don't need to use any
additional water in terms of irrigation, and I think that is
really a focus for some of our R&D activities.
Let me just end by finally applauding the House for passing
the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009. We believe
it will help position the United States to be a leader in the
green economy, and we are committed to reducing greenhouse gas
emissions and our dependence on foreign oil while investing in
the R&D so that we can be leaders in the new energy
technologies of the future.
Chairman Baird and Members of the Subcommittee, I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony
on this important topic and to discuss with you the activities
of the Department and plans for developing even further water
efficient technologies and sustainable energy. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Johnson follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kristina M. Johnson
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I appreciate
this opportunity to provide testimony on the U.S. Department of
Energy's (DOE's) programs for developing water-efficient
environmentally-sustainable energy-related technologies and DOE
strategies for coordinating these activities. Energy production of all
types affects and is affected by the natural water cycle, and
increasingly, water-efficient technologies are being developed to
reduce these impacts.
Interactions with Others/R&D Selection
It is, of course, important to point out that a number of other
federal agencies also have significant water programs, in particular
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and a number of Department of the Interior Agencies and Bureaus,
although they are much less focused on energy-related aspects. In
addition, the private sector must be congratulated for the progress
they have made in introducing cost-effective water efficiency
approaches into their operations over the last several decades as
competition for water among all sectors of society has increased.
Finally, State and local governments have major roles in energy and
water issues through their Public Utility Commissions, State lands and
waters management authority, and their various regulatory departments.
The Federal Government and its agencies can contribute innovative
research and development activities to support these other sectors.
Overall, we work closely with all of these partners in identifying
important energy-water related issues, and in developing appropriate
federal level strategies to address the issues. DOE supports pre-
competitive basic and applied research for water-efficient technology
development, which enables the identification of cross-cutting
challenges that will have broad potential applicability.
Research Coordination and Synthesis
The Federal Government, in general, and DOE in particular, supports
a broad range of research and development activities at universities,
at National Laboratories, and in cooperative research agreements with
the private sector. DOE, as the landlord of the Nation's largest
civilian National Laboratory system, supports research and development
activities ranging from the most basic to the most applied at various
sites across the United States. We regularly support national workshops
and conferences that draw our researchers together with those from
other institutions to build understanding and research collaborations.
Researchers within our Laboratories are not partitioned based on their
funding sources, and we expect our scientists and managers to provide
mutual support across the range of basic to applied challenges.
DOE program planning, and research and development coordination and
integration, occurs within individual DOE offices and across offices
frequently. Under Secretary Koonin and I are committed to continuing
progress in enabling cross-office dialogues. More broadly, water-
related R&D activities of federal agencies are discussed with the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)--National Science
and Technology Council (NSTC), Committee on Environment and Natural
Resources (CENR), Subcommittee on Water Availability and Quality
(SWAQ). DOE is an active participant.
I would now like to discuss some of DOE's current energy-water
related activities, and how we are working on the challenges we have
identified related to water use in energy production and end-use. In
general, water is only one of many factors such as materials inputs,
energy production and consumption, emissions, and others that must be
considered in the life cycle construction, operation, and
decommissioning of energy technologies. Consequently, water-related
technology R&D is best done as part of the broader R&D effort to
improve performance, lower costs, and reduce environmental impacts,
including water, of energy supply and end-use technologies.
THERMOELECTRIC POWER
Water, once considered a nearly inexhaustible resource, is becoming
constrained in many areas, and water requirements for electricity
production may compete with other demands, such as agriculture and
sanitation. The August 2007 drought in the southeastern U.S.
underscored this issue with several nuclear power plants in the region
reducing their output by up to 50 percent due to low river levels. This
situation could be exacerbated as more areas become drought-prone due
to changing climate.
Thermoelectric power plants (including coal, oil, natural gas, and
nuclear, with small contributions from biopower, geothermal, and
concentrating solar thermal power), generate about 90 percent of the
electricity in the United States, and require large quantities of
cooling water, a resource that is limited in parts of the Nation. A
recent DOE analysis estimated that in 2005 the U.S. thermoelectric
power generation sector withdrew 147 billion gallons per day (Bgal/d)
from surface water bodies such as rivers or lakes of which about 3.7
Bgal/d of freshwater were consumed, for cooling systems.
An important distinction should be made between water withdrawal
and consumption. Withdrawal is defined as the removal of water from any
natural source or reservoir such as a lake, river, stream, or aquifer
for human use. The withdrawn water that is not consumed typically is
returned to the original water body, making it usable again farther
downstream, but the withdrawal can still place stress on the water
bodies and ecosystems affected. Consumption is that portion of the
water withdrawn which is no longer available for use because it has
evaporated, transpired, been incorporated into products and crops,
consumed by people or livestock, or otherwise removed from freshwater
resources.
In thermoelectric power plants, heat is used to create steam, which
then turns a steam turbine. A cooling system is then used to condense
the steam as part of the thermodynamic cycle. There are three general
types of cooling systems used for thermoelectric power plants: once-
through, wet re-circulating, and dry. Older power plants equipped with
once-through cooling water systems have relatively high water
withdrawals, typically 20,000-60,000 gal/MWh, but low water
consumption, typically 200-400 gal/MWh, since most of the water is
returned to the original water body at a roughly 20+F higher
temperature. Clean Water Act regulations effectively prohibit the use
of once-through cooling systems for new power plants due to
environmental concerns. New thermoelectric power plants therefore must
be equipped with either wet re-circulating cooling systems or dry
cooling systems. Wet re-circulating systems have relatively low water
withdrawal, typically 300-700 Gal/MWh, but the water withdrawn is
entirely consumed, giving them higher water consumption than once-
through systems. Dry cooling systems rely on heat exchange with ambient
air, rather than water, and therefore both water withdrawal and
consumption are minimal. However, dry cooling is not as effective as
wet cooling and can result in significant efficiency and capacity
penalties during hot weather conditions. In the United States,
approximately 43 percent of generating capacity uses once-through
cooling systems, 56 percent of the plants use wet re-circulating
cooling systems, and one percent use dry cooling systems. DOE reported
to Congress in October 2008 the potential impact of converting the
once-through cooling systems to recirculating systems, ``Electricity
Reliability Impacts of a Mandatory Cooling Tower Rule for Existing
Steam Generation Units.''
Although commercially available cooling technology options can
reduce water consumption, they result in some added cost and
complexity, and reduce the power available from the plant. DOE is
developing new technologies that will reduce the cost and complexity of
these systems.
On a generating unit basis (gal/MWh produced), nuclear plants
consume approximately 40 percent more water and natural gas combined
cycle plants consume approximately 60 percent less than contemporary
subcritical pulverized coal (PC) technology. Advanced technology coal
plants can significantly reduce the water consumptive footprint, with
integrated gasification combined cycle technologies (IGCC) reducing
water consumption by about 40 percent compared to PC technology.
DOE, within Office of Fossil Energy programs implemented at the
National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL), is developing advanced
water management technologies applicable to fossil and other power
plants in three specific areas: non-traditional sources of process and
cooling water to demonstrate the effectiveness of utilizing lower-
quality water for power plant cooling and processing needs; innovative
water reuse and recovery research explores advanced technologies for
the recovery and reuse of water from power plants; and advanced cooling
technology research examines advanced wet, dry, and hybrid cooling
technologies.
Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (CSP)
Because of the huge solar resource across the Southwest U.S., and
because of the ability of Concentrating Solar Thermal Power (CSP) to
use thermal storage so that they can provide dispatchable power at any
time, utilities are showing increasing interest in CSP systems. In the
U.S. Southwest, however, water availability is an issue. During the
public meetings held in 2008 as part of the Solar Energy Development
Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement conducted with BLM, much of
the discussion by environmental groups centered on water usage.
DOE analyzed water use by CSP plants in a report to Congress last
fall: ``Concentrating Solar Power Commercial Application Study:
Reducing Water Consumption of Concentrating Solar Power Electricity
Generation'' under P.L. 106-554, Section 515.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ http://www1.eere.energy.gov/solar/pdfs/
csp-water-study.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The study found that a dry-cooled parabolic trough plant in the
Mojave Desert--about the worst possible thermal conditions--would
``provide five percent less electric energy on an annual basis and
increase the cost of the produced electricity by seven to nine
percent'' compared to wet cooling. However, air cooling at a site in
New Mexico--with cooler daytime temperatures than the Mojave--would
raise electricity costs just two percent. The impact of air cooling on
a power tower is even less, with annual generation dropping by only 1.3
percent while that of a trough plant would drop 4.6 percent. Analysis
of a hybrid wet/dry cooling system for a parabolic trough plant found
that water consumption could be reduced 50 percent with only a one
percent drop in annual electricity output, or 85 percent reduction in
water consumption with only three percent reduction in output. Further
R&D on hybrid wet/dry cooling systems could have significant benefits
across a wide range of thermal power plants.
CRS also recently analyzed water requirements for CSP.\2\ CRS found
that ``resource data gaps on current and projected non-CSP water
consumption and on availability of impaired water supplies add
uncertainty to analyses of the potential significance of CSP freshwater
use and alternatives to its use. For these reasons, any estimate of how
much water may be consumed by CSP at the regional, State, or county
level is highly uncertain.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ CRS Report, Water Issues of Concentrating Solar Power (CSP)
Electricity in the U.S. Southwest; R40631.
Geothermal power plants
Geothermal power plants also use water, air, or hybrid cooling
systems in their power conversion cycle and similar considerations
apply to them as for fossil and CSP plants above. In addition,
geothermal power plants--hydrothermal and Enhanced (or Engineered)
Geothermal Systems (EGS)--circulate water through the hot underground
reservoir to extract heat for the power conversion cycle. Successful
operation requires that most of the injected water is returned to the
surface. In the next five years, emerging technology is expected to
reduce total water loss in an EGS reservoir to no more than two percent
of the total water injected, and as the technology matures the goal is
to reduce that water loss to less than one percent over the life of the
reservoir, or about 30 years. Current research activities to achieve
this and other program goals include the development of high
temperature sensors and tools for use in the reservoir; the ability to
isolate and control the flow of fluids through the reservoir; the
development of detailed computational models of the reservoir and the
thermal, chemical, and fluid interactions within it; and the ability to
image fluid flow through the reservoir.
Wind and Solar PhotoVoltaic (PV) Power
Wind and solar PV electricity generation are not based on
thermoelectric power cycles and only require minimal water for
occasional cleaning. The DOE Report, ``20% Wind Energy by 2030:
Increasing Wind Energy's Contribution to U.S. Electricity Supply''
estimated that in a 20 percent wind by 2030 scenario, water consumption
for power generation could be reduced by 17 percent in 2030 as compared
to the business-as-usual scenario, saving roughly 1.2 Bgal/d.
Hydroelectric Power
Water Power R&D within the Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy investigates technologies that use the motion of water
to generate electricity, including both conventional hydropower and
emerging marine and hydrokinetic technologies such as wave, current,
and tidal power. While hydropower reservoirs do have evaporative losses
that are shared across the many uses of the reservoir (flood control,
recreation, power generation, etc.), water power technologies do not
themselves directly consume water. The deployment of these technologies
thus contributes to the overall reduction of water consumption in the
Nation's energy generation portfolio. Consequently, the program does
not conduct research specifically to reduce water consumption in the
production of energy.
For both marine hydrokinetic and conventional hydropower, the
program focuses its efforts in two key areas: technology development
and market acceleration. The goal of technology development is to
characterize different technology types, reduce costs and obstacles
associated with design, development, deployment, and testing, and to
improve device reliability and performance. Market acceleration
research aims to more accurately quantify the potential magnitude,
costs and benefits of water power generation, and reduce the time,
expense and negative impacts associated with project siting.
Under the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009, funds
have been made available under a cost sharing program for efficiency
and/or capacity upgrades at existing hydropower infrastructures,
including both large (>50 MW) and small (<50 MW) conventional
hydroelectric facilities. The goal is to generate more electricity with
less water, while concurrently increasing both the environmental
benefits and grid services of hydropower systems.
Several studies are currently underway to more precisely quantify
the energy generation potential of all U.S. water resources. These
include conventional hydroelectric supplies as well as new resources
derived from ocean, current, tidal or ocean thermal power. Accurately
identifying realistically extractable amounts of energy will allow both
public policy and industry decision-makers to better prioritize future
efforts.
Finally, the Water Power Program is facilitating the initial
development and testing of new marine hydrokinetic technologies through
a number of competitive public-private partnerships. Products from this
process will include new engineering designs for wave energy
converters, development and testing of improved tidal power turbines,
and the validation of the latest low-cost, high reliability ocean
thermal energy components.
Carbon Capture and Sequestration
Using today's technologies, capturing carbon dioxide
(CO2) from existing coal and natural gas plants, or from new
fossil-fuel fired plants, would increase water consumption because
capturing CO2 requires the addition of several processes
that are both energy and water intensive. Processes that use solvents
to capture CO2 require energy to regenerate the solvent so
it can be used again. Once the CO2 is captured, it must be
compressed for sequestration or beneficial use, with compressors
usually having significant operating power and cooling requirements.
These processes are common for both conventional fossil-based
combustion processes and advanced technologies such as IGCC. The added
internal energy requirements for these processes can effectively
subtract 10 to 30 percent of the energy from the net plant power output
and also correspondingly increase water consumption.
Efforts to capture 90 percent of carbon emissions by using current
near-commercial carbon capture and storage (CCS) technologies on
pulverized coal (PC) plants could more than double the amount of water
consumed per unit of electricity generated. Studies of this consumptive
footprint have indicated that IGCC plants with CCS have a comparative
advantage, with water consumption significantly lower than that of PC
plants with CCS.
A key objective of DOE R&D activities is to mitigate the potential
impact of CO2 capture on water resources. This is being
addressed in a key component of its Office of Fossil Energy R&D
Program--the development of advanced CO2 capture
technologies that require less cooling.
In addition to CO2 capture, CO2 sequestration
can also impact water resources. The focus of regulatory activities
governing geologic storage of CO2 has been on developing
rules that will protect underground sources of drinking water. EPA
published a proposed rule for geologic storage on July 29, 2008, which
uses Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) authorities and revises the
Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program. The rule is designed to
provide consistency across the United States and transparency that will
build public confidence. As part of the rule-making process, EPA drew
heavily on experience gained from DOE's Carbon Sequestration Program,
particularly the Regional Partnership Program, which is helping to
develop a CCS infrastructure throughout the United States and parts of
Canada.
Sequestration Program research and field testing are developing
best practices for characterizing geologic formations and predicting
and tracking the movement of stored CO2. This will help to
minimize the possibility of CO2 contacting underground
sources of drinking water. For example, significant effort has been
made on ways to assess the potential for leakage through existing
wellbores, which is important if CO2 is injected into older
oil fields. Another focus area is the management of existing water in
large, deep saline formations, which are vast and represent the most
abundant CO2 storage opportunities in the U.S. DOE is
currently leading a National Risk Assessment Program that will develop
the strong science and technology base necessary to ensure the
potential risks at each site are comprehensively identified and
understood, thereby providing large scale projects with the tools and
knowledge necessary for safe and secure storage.
FUELS
Natural Gas and Oil
There are a variety of water-related issues associated with natural
gas and oil production, including produced water and its effects on the
environment, treatment of process waters, and the availability of water
in arid lands. During the extraction of crude oil, water is often
injected into the reservoir to increase the pressure and stimulate the
production of oil. This water, along with mobile water that naturally
occurs in hydrocarbon-bearing rock layers is pumped to the surface
along with the oil and/or natural gas, and is collectively called
produced water. Pumping and managing additional liquid from the
formation requires considerable energy, and constitutes a significant
cost for operators of oil and natural gas wells. Produced water is the
largest by-product or waste stream generated by the oil and natural gas
industry. An estimated 20 billion barrels (840 billion gallons) of
produced water are generated in the U.S. each year. The characteristics
of produced water vary considerably ranging from near potable waters to
those containing residual hydrocarbons, salts, metals, and dissolved
solids, depending on geographic location, geology and whether natural
gas or oil is being produced. As the availability of usable water
supplies is becoming a more significant issue in communities across the
country, the protection of existing water supplies is even more
critical and produced water from oil and natural gas production is
being viewed as a potential water resource for agriculture and other
beneficial uses, rather than a waste.
Since the early 1990's, DOE's Office of Fossil Energy has conducted
over 100 science and technology research projects involving industry,
universities, National Laboratories, states, and other federal agencies
on various aspects of water management related to oil and natural gas
development. Twenty-three states currently utilize similar risk-based
data management systems (RBDMS) protocols for regulating oil and
natural gas production and underground injection well activities which
were developed with DOE funding under the auspices of the Ground Water
Protection Council.
U.S. natural gas supply is expected to come increasingly from
domestic gas-filled shales. New shale gas developments in existing
plays, such as the Barnett and emerging plays such as the Marcellus,
Haynesville, Fayetteville, and Woodford, are expected to expand
significantly in the coming years. These new resources and the required
technologies to exploit them are introducing new challenges as well as
new opportunities for water re-use and recycling. As oil and natural
gas development expands to new areas of the country, water issues are
also expanding to include concerns about community water supplies and
infrastructure needed to support the influx of workers.
Mature oil wells, which accounted for 16 percent of the Nation's
oil production in 2007, yield large quantities of produced water. DOE-
funded research in collaboration with the National Stripper Well
Consortium, regional universities and others has included efforts to
develop and demonstrate cost-effective, environmentally sound water
management technologies and methods that can maintain well productivity
and protect water quality.
Alaska is unique with respect to the environmental and water
issues. The cold winter climate, environmental sensitivity of the
tundra and permafrost covered areas, the reliance on ice roads and ice
pads for oil and natural gas exploration activity in remote regions,
the unique characteristics of Alaska's fisheries and ecosystems, and
the importance of subsistence hunting and fishing to many of Alaska's
citizens make it imperative that development of fossil energy
resources, including oil and natural gas, whether for delivery to the
Lower-48 States, or for local use, be environmentally responsible.
Office of Fossil Energy oil and natural gas and Arctic research
projects are managed by NETL.
Hydrogen
Water is a key feedstock for the production of hydrogen. Water is
used as both a chemical feedstock and as a cooling medium for most of
the proposed hydrogen production pathways (i.e., central and
distributed, steam methane reforming and electrolysis). Since water is
an essential input for the production of hydrogen, a preliminary
analysis was conducted using the well-to-wheels methodology to
determine the water use for each renewable hydrogen production pathway
compared to conventional fuel pathways. The preliminary analysis of
water consumption found the water consumption to be equal to or less
than other conventional fuels, up to 70 percent less than conventional
fuels on a gasoline equivalent basis. At current water prices, it is
unlikely that water will have a major economic impact on the adoption
of hydrogen as a fuel nor would the adoption of hydrogen significantly
increase stress on the U.S. water supply overall, recognizing that
there may be the need for permitting agencies in some areas to manage
the phase-in of hydrogen with the phase-out of production of other
fuels to avoid overlaps.
A more detailed analysis is required to examine impacts of hydrogen
on regional water resources, the water cost on hydrogen product cost,
regional permitting constraints and options to reduce water consumption
in the hydrogen production pathways. The DOE Fuel Cell Technologies
Program commissioned Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to conduct
this in-depth analysis and recommend technology improvements to reduce
the water use. The analysis will be completed by the end of FY 2009.
The results will be incorporated in the cost analysis of each of the
hydrogen production pathways.
Moreover, stationary fuel cells for combined heat and power
applications show promise of having no net water consumption at the
application site and can actually produce clean water which can
potentially be used there. These attributes of fuel cells and the
technology requirements for water production will be characterized in
FY 2010.
Biomass Energy
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Biomass
Program has funded several National Laboratories to assess water
consumption and water quality impacts of biofuels production. Argonne
National Laboratory is working on an assessment of the net water
consumption of two major steps of the biofuels life cycle: feedstock
production and fuel production. The work addresses irrigation and
process water, and has evaluated five fuel pathways, including ethanol
from corn, ethanol from cellulosic feedstocks, gasoline from
conventional crude oil, gasoline from Saudi Arabian crude oil, and
gasoline from Canadian oil sands. The analysis to date revealed that
the amount of irrigation water used to grow biofuel feedstocks varies
significantly from one region to another and that water consumption for
biofuel production varies with processing technology.
Argonne has also been funded to examine water quality issues
related to the production and conversion of biomass feedstocks. This
task addresses the impact of biomass feedstock and fuel production on
water quality at a regional or watershed level. Water quality impacts
addressed include nutrient from agricultural run-offs, water pollutant
outputs from point sources that are generated by major industries, and
discharge from fuel production plants.
Finally, Argonne is examining the opportunities and benefits of
alternative production strategies to leverage the use of impaired water
and marginal land at the State to regional level to supply biomass
feedstock for biofuel production. To date, assessments have shown that
there are sizable opportunities to grow biomass on marginal and
underutilized land in the study area of Nebraska, and that this
production could be doubled with no further land commitment if impaired
water and the nutrients that it entrains could be efficiently
recovered. Future work will expand the study area, as well as the scope
to include economic data and the optimization tools to determine
tradeoffs between productivity with marginal resources and farmer
profits.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) has begun an analysis of
current and future water quality issues in several major hydrologic
regions of the U.S., identifying those sites with water bodies listed
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as having water quality
problems related to agricultural practices. They are examining if such
water quality problems can be improved by replacing crops requiring
intensive management with more sustainable crops that could be used for
bioenergy production. A series of economic and environmental models
will be linked to forecast water quality implications of landscape
changes associated with the production of new more environmentally
sustainable bioenergy crops such as switchgrass at a national scale.
These studies will analyze both economic and environmental impacts
including nutrient and sediment loading and changes in biotic habitat.
In addition, ORNL is pursuing opportunities to gather field data to
quantify effects of large-scale bioenergy plantings in several
locations. Field studies are being designed to consider how bioenergy
feedstock production can affect water quality as well as how bioenergy
crop production can affect habitat for a variety of organisms.
ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS
Energy efficiency improvements in buildings, industry, and
transportation avoid the consumption of water in producing power and
fuels. Thus, all of these programs have an impact on water and offer a
very significant opportunity for reducing water consumption in the
production of electricity and fuels. Most of the R&D activities in
these programs, however, are not directly targeted towards water usage.
The Buildings Technology Program (BTP), however, will be conducting a
thorough review of the R&D opportunities for increased energy
efficiency in appliances, including appliances that use water.
For Buildings, in particular, the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (EPCA) states that procedures for testing and measuring water use
of faucets and showerheads, and water closets and urinals, shall be
American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME)/American National
Standards Institute (ANSI) Standards, but that if ASME/ANSI revises
these requirements, the Secretary shall adopt such revisions unless the
Secretary determines that the revised test procedures are not
satisfactory for determining water use or they are unduly burdensome to
conduct. It further provides that if the requirements of the ASME/ANSI
Standard are amended to improve the efficiency of water use, the
Secretary shall publish a final rule establishing an amended uniform
national standard unless adoption of such a standard is not (i)
technologically feasible and economically justified, (ii) consistent
with the maintenance of public health and safety; or (iii) consistent
with the purposes of this Act.
BTP currently conducts activities in both the deployment and rule-
making (appliance standards) areas that directly impact water usage.
These are listed below.
Energy Star
ENERGY STAR is a joint program of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy, helping us all save money and
protect the environment through energy efficient products and
practices. The ENERGY STAR label appears on products that have met
strict requirements for energy, and in some cases direct water savings.
DOE is responsible for the labeling programs for commercial and
residential ENERGY STAR clothes washers and residential dishwashers.
Residential Clothes Washers
The average American family washes almost 400 loads of laundry each
year. Families can cut their related energy costs by more than a third
and water costs by more than half by purchasing an ENERGY STAR clothes
washer. Effective July 1, 2009, DOE raised the minimum Modified Energy
Factor (MEF) to 1.8 and lowered the maximum water factor to 7.5. In
comparison, before January 1, 2007, the minimum MEF was 1.42 and there
was no Water Factor requirement. MEF is an equation that takes into
account the amount of dryer energy used to remove the remaining
moisture content in washed items. Water Factor is the water use of the
washer measured in gallons per cycle per cubic foot of clothes washer
tub volume. This change in criteria level applies to both residential
and residential-style commercial clothes washers. The change in
criteria level is the fourth since 2001. The effective date gives
manufacturers 17 months to prepare for the criteria change. The annual
program savings for ENERGY STAR qualified clothes washers are projected
at 538 million kWh/year and 7.9 billion gallons of water. DOE will
further raise the minimum MEF to 2.0 and lower the maximum water factor
to 6.0 effective January 1, 2011. To qualify for ENERGY STAR, a clothes
washer must have a minimum of 1.72 and also a maximum Water Factor of
8.0.
Residential Dishwashers
ENERGY STAR qualified dishwashers use at least 41 percent less
energy than the federal minimum standard for energy consumption and
much less water than conventional models. Because they use less hot
water compared to new conventional models, an ENERGY STAR qualified
dishwasher saves about $90 over its lifetime. Effective August 11,
2009, the requirements will be a maximum energy use of 324 kWh/year and
5.8 gallons per cycle for standard models and a maximum energy use of
234 kWh/year and 4.0 gallons per cycle for compact models. The
inclusion of water consumption is a new addition to the ENERGY STAR
dishwasher criteria. The criteria will be changed again on July 1, 2011
with standard ENERGY STAR dishwashers using 307 kWh/year and 5.0
gallons of water per cycle and compact models using 222 kWh/year and
3.5 gallons per cycle. Currently, standard ENERGY STAR models must have
an energy factor of 0.65 or more (equivalent to roughly 339 kWh/year)
and compacts must have an energy factor of 0.88 or greater (equivalent
to roughly 252 kWh/year). These performance measures are not strictly
comparable to the new levels as the efficiency metrics have changed and
now also include, for example, stand-by losses.
Appliance Standards
The Appliance Standards program develops test procedures and
minimum efficiency standards for residential appliances and commercial
equipment. Each standard must ``be designed to achieve the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency, or, in the case of showerheads,
faucets, water closets, or urinals, water efficiency, which the
Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically
justified.'' The direct link between energy and water means that all
energy conservation standards result in water conservation, and vice
versa. In addition, certain covered products are specifically regulated
for their water consumption. These products are discussed below.
Residential Clothes Washers
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) also
prescribed water conservation standards for residential clothes
washers. Previously, federal standards regulated only the energy use of
residential clothes washers. Effective January 1, 2011, top-loading and
front-loading standard-size residential clothes washers must have a
water factor of not more than 9.5. DOE is currently undertaking a rule-
making to amend the standards for residential clothes washers
manufactured after January 1, 2015. The final rule is scheduled for
completion no later than December 31, 2011.
Commercial Clothes Washers
New federal water and energy conservation standards for commercial
clothes washers went into effect on January 1, 2007. DOE is currently
conducting a rule-making to consider revising these standards. The
final rule is scheduled for completion by January 1, 2010 and will
apply to products manufactured three years after the date of
publication of the final rule.
Residential Dishwashers
Section 311(a) of EISA 2007 amended section 325(g) of EPCA to adopt
energy conservation standards and water conservation standards for
residential dishwashers manufactured on or after January 1, 2010.
Standard size dishwashers may not exceed 6.5 gallons per cycle and
compact size dishwashers may not exceed 4.5 gallons per cycle. Again,
the water efficiency requirements are a new addition. DOE is scheduled
to complete a rule-making amending the standards for dishwashers that
would take effect in 2015.
DOE Facility Efficiency Options
Executive Order 13423 (2007) called for a reduction in water
consumption of each agency's water consumption through life cycle cost
effective measures by two percent annually through the end of FY 2015.
The DOE Federal Energy Management Program provides information on water
conservation in federal facilities at http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/
water/. All National Laboratories are supporting DOE's efforts in this
area by tracking water consumption and actively implementing water
conservation measures as well as energy conservation measures.
Conclusion
Again, Chairman Baird and Members of the Subcommittee, I want to
thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on this important
topic of energy and water linkage, and to discuss with you the
Department's activities and plans for developing water-efficient,
environmentally-sustainable energy technologies. I would be pleased to
take your questions now.
Biography for Kristina M. Johnson
Kristina M. Johnson is currently the Under Secretary of Energy in
the U.S. Department of Energy. She received her B.S., M.S. (with
distinction) and Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Stanford
University. After a NATO post-doctoral fellowship at Trinity College,
Dublin, Ireland, she joined the University of Colorado-Boulder's
faculty in 1985 as an Assistant Professor and was promoted to full
Professor in 1994. From 1994 to 1999, Dr. Johnson directed the NSF/ERC
for Optoelectronics Computing Systems Center at the University of
Colorado and Colorado State University, and then served as Dean of the
Pratt School of Engineering at Duke University from 1999 to 2007. From
September of 2007 to April 2009, Dr. Johnson served as Provost and
Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs at The Johns Hopkins
University.
Dr. Johnson was named an NSF Presidential Young Investigator in
1985 and awarded a Fulbright fellowship in 1991. Her awards include the
Dennis Gabor Prize for creativity and innovation in modern optics
(1993); State of Colorado and North Carolina Technology Transfer Awards
(1997, 2001); induction into the Women in Technology International Hall
of Fame (2003); the Society of Women Engineers Lifetime Achievement
Award (2004); and, most recently, the John Fritz Medal, widely
considered the highest award in the engineering profession (May 2008).
Previous recipients of the Fritz Medal include Alexander Graham Bell,
Thomas Edison and Orville Wright.
A fellow of the Optical Society of America, IEEE, SPIE and a
Fulbright Scholar, Dr. Johnson has 142 refereed papers and proceedings
and holds 45 U.S. patents (129 U.S. and international patents) and
patents pending. These inventions include pioneering work on liquid
crystal on silicon (LCOS) micro-displays and their integration into
demonstration and commercial systems such as heads-up automotive
displays (HUD); pattern recognition systems for cancer pre-screening,
object tracking and document processing; HDTV and 3D projection
displays; displays brought to the eye and 3D holographic memories.
Other inventions include tunable optical filters, spectrometers and
color filters, microscope auto-focus systems, rechargeable pacemakers
and new methods for efficiently licensing intellectual property.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. Your grandfather
would be proud----
Dr. Johnson. Thank you.
Chairman Baird.--as are we grateful for your presence.
Ms. Mittal.
STATEMENT OF MS. ANU K. MITTAL, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Ms. Mittal. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I
am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on
R&D needs for the energy-water nexus.
At the request of this committee, GAO currently has work
under way related to three aspects of the energy-water nexus.
These include reviews of the water used to produce biofuels,
water used to produce electricity, and water used to extract
oil from shale. We expect to release reports on each of these
studies later this year or early next year.
For each study, you asked us to pay particular attention to
the technologies that could help reduce the amount of water
needed to produce energy from these sources. My testimony today
will discuss key themes that we have identified to date from
our biofuels and electricity work because these reviews are the
furthest along. Our work on oil shale is in its very
preliminary stages, and we will have more information to share
with the Committee later this year.
Our ongoing work on biofuels and electricity provide two
excellent case studies that highlight the types of R&D and data
collection activities that the Federal Government can focus on
to help address energy-water nexus issues. Our biofuels work
specifically has identified a variety of data and technology
areas where more research is needed, and our electricity work
has identified key areas of data collection that DOE can
improve.
I will briefly describe our preliminary observations in
each of these areas.
With regards to biofuels, our work has identified a number
of research needs at all stages of the biofuels life cycle,
from cultivation to conversion to distribution and storage. In
the area of cultivation, some examples of the research needs
that we have identified include the following: The need for
information on impacts of feedstock production on aquifer water
supplies, the need to develop additional drought-tolerant crop
varieties, the need for research on how the production of
cellulosics and algae can be scaled up in a sustainable way and
the need for research to determine the maximum amount of
agricultural residues that can be removed while maintaining
soil and water quality.
In the area of conversion of feedstocks into biofuels, we
have found that while much is known about the water needed to
convert corn into ethanol, more research is needed on how to
reduce the water needs of biorefineries that use cellulosics,
and there is need for research on technologies that can
effectively extract oil from algae.
In the area of storage and distribution of biofuels, we
have identified still other research needs. Because ethanol is
highly corrosive and poses a risk of damage to pipelines and
storage tanks, it could therefore lead to groundwater
contamination. To overcome potential compatibility issues,
experts have told us that further research is needed on
conversion technologies that can produce renewable fuels that
are compatible with the existing infrastructure.
Shifting to our work on electricity, we have found that the
use of advanced cooling technologies such as air cooling or
hybrid cooling can reduce the amount of fresh water needed by
thermoelectric power plants, but DOE's current data collection
efforts may not fully capture the extent to which the industry
is moving in this direction. Moreover, higher costs associated
with using these technologies may cause power plant developers
to reject these options, and research that can help reduce the
cost of these technologies can help make their use more
widespread. Similarly, the use of alternative water sources,
such as effluent from sewage treatment plants, brackish water
or sea water can also reduce fresh water use by power plants.
But DOE's data collection efforts also are not systematically
capturing this trend in the industry.
Water experts and federal agencies we spoke to told us that
not having data on the extent to which advanced cooling
technologies or alternative water sources are being used by the
industry limits the ability of industry analysts to assess the
extent to which these technologies have reduced fresh water
use. Lack of such information also impacts the ability of
federal decision-makers to target research efforts most
appropriately. According to DOE officials, the agency is
currently redesigning the process it uses to collect data on
advanced cooling technologies and will implement this new
process in 2011.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, both of our ongoing reviews
have identified a number of R&D efforts that are being
supported by DOE and other federal agencies. However, our work
has also identified a number of R&D areas that still need to
receive attention in the future. Investments in these areas
will help resolve many of the uncertainties that currently
exist relating to the energy-water nexus.
That concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to
respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anu K. Mittal
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to participate in your hearing on
technology research and development for the energy-water linkage often
referred to as the energy-water nexus. As you know, water and energy
are inexorably linked, mutually dependent, and each affects the other's
availability. Energy is needed to pump, treat, and transport water, and
large quantities of water are needed to support the development of
energy. Production of biofuels that may help reduce our dependency on
oil, and the cooling of power plants that today provide the electricity
we use, represent two examples where water supply is tied directly to
our ability to provide energy.
However, both water and energy are facing serious supply
constraints. Freshwater is increasingly in demand to meet the needs of
municipalities, farmers, industries, and the environment. Likewise,
rising demand for energy--fueled by both population growth and
expanding uses of energy--may soon outstrip our ability to supply it
with existing resources. Looking just at electricity, according to the
Energy Information Administration's (EIA) most recent Annual Energy
Outlook, 259 gigawatts of new generating capacity--the equivalent of
259 large coal-fired power plants--will be needed between 2007 and
2030. As the country's energy needs grow along with its population,
additional pressure will likely be put on our water resources.
Given the importance of water and energy, both the Federal
Government and State governments play key roles in monitoring,
regulating, collecting information, and supporting research on energy
and water issues. In general, State governments play a central role in
overseeing water availability and use by evaluating water supplies and
permitting water uses. However, while much of the authority governing
water supply and distribution lies with State and local governments,
the Federal Government also has a role in helping the country meet its
energy needs without damaging or depleting our supplies of freshwater.
For example, federal agencies, including the Department of Energy
(DOE), have provided data and analysis about water use for energy
production, as well as funded related research and development. These
activities are important to further our understanding of how to more
efficiently use such critical resources.
At the request of this committee, GAO currently has work under way
related to three aspects of the energy-water nexus--water use in the
production of biofuels, water use at thermoelectric power plants, and
water use in the extraction of oil from shale. We expect to release
reports on biofuels and thermoelectric power plants later this year.
For each study, the Committee asked us to identify technologies that
could help reduce the amount of water needed to produce energy from
these sources. My testimony today discusses key themes we have
identified during our work to date on the two ongoing energy-water
nexus jobs that are furthest along, specifically (1) biofuels and water
use and (2) thermoelectric power plants and water use. Our work on oil
shale is in its very preliminary stages and we will have further
information to share with the Committee on this aspect of the energy-
water nexus later this year.
To identify the effects of biofuel cultivation, conversion, and
storage on water supply and water quality, we are conducting a review
of relevant scientific articles and key Federal and State government
reports. In addition, in consultation with the National Academy of
Sciences, we identified and spoke with a number of experts who have
published research analyzing the water supply requirements of one or
more biofuel feedstocks and the implications of increased biofuel
cultivation and conversion on water quality. Furthermore, we are
interviewing officials from DOE, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and the Department of Agriculture (USDA) about impacts on water
supply and water quality during the cultivation of biofuel feedstocks
and the conversion and storage of the finished biofuels. To identity
the relationship of thermoelectric plants and water, we are reviewing
selected reports, interviewing federal officials and experts, and
examining relevant energy and water data. In particular, we are
examining reports on alternative cooling technologies and water
supplies and the impact they can have on water use at power plants. We
are also interviewing officials from DOE, EPA, and the Department of
Interior's U.S. Geological Survey, as well as State water regulators
and water and energy experts at national energy laboratories and
universities. In addition, we are interviewing representatives from
electric power producers, sellers of electric power plant equipment,
cooling technology companies, and engineering firms that design new
power plants. Finally, we are examining power plant data on water
source, use, consumption, and cooling technology types collected by EIA
and data collected and reported by the U.S. Geological Survey. Our work
is being conducted in accordance with generally accepted government
accounting standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background
Biofuels are an alternative to petroleum-based transportation fuels
and derived from renewable resources. Currently, most biofuels are
derived from corn and soybeans. Ethanol is the most commonly produced
biofuel in the United States, and about 98 percent of it is made from
corn that is grown primarily in the Midwest. Corn is converted to
ethanol at biorefineries through a fermentation process and requires
water inputs and outputs at various stages of the production process--
from growth of the feedstock to conversion into ethanol. While ethanol
is primarily produced from corn grains, next generation biofuels, such
as cellulosic ethanol and algae-based fuels, are being promoted for
various reasons including their potential to boost the Nation's energy
independence and lessen environmental impacts, including on water.
Cellulosic feedstocks include annual or perennial energy crops such as
switchgrass, forage sorghum, and miscanthus; agricultural residues such
as corn stover (the cobs, stalks, leaves, and husks of corn plants);
and forest residues such as forest thinnings or chips from lumber
mills. Some small biorefineries have begun to process cellulosic
feedstocks on a pilot-scale basis; however, no commercial-scale
facilities are currently operating in the United States.\1\ In light of
the federal renewable fuel standard's requirements for cellulosic
ethanol starting in 2010,\2\ DOE is providing $272 million to support
the cost of constructing four small biorefineries that will process
cellulosic feedstocks. In addition, in recent years, researchers have
begun to explore the use of algae as a biofuel feedstock. Algae produce
oil that can be extracted and refined into biodiesel and has a
potential yield per acre that is estimated to be 10 to 20 times higher
than the next closest quality feedstock. Algae can be cultivated in
open ponds or in closed systems using large raceways of plastic bags
containing water and algae.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For example, Range Fuels has operated a pilot biorefinery in
Denver, Colo., since 2008 that has successfully converted pine and
hardwoods into cellulosic ethanol. The company plans to optimize the
technologies from this pilot plant at its cellulosic biorefinery,
expected to begin commercial-scale production in 2010. This
biorefinery, located in Soperton, Ga., is targeted to produce
approximately 100 million gallons of ethanol and mixed alcohols from
wood byproducts when it is at full scale.
\2\ The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Pub. L. No.
110-140 (2007).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thermoelectric power plants use a fuel source--for example, coal,
natural gas, nuclear material such as uranium, or the sun--to boil
water to produce steam. The steam turns a turbine connected to a
generator that produces electricity. Traditionally, water has been
withdrawn from a river or other water source to cool the steam back
into liquid so it may be reused to produce additional electricity. Most
of the water used by a traditional thermoelectric power plant is for
this cooling process, but water may also be needed for other purposes
in the plant such as for pollution control equipment. In 2000,
thermoelectric power plants accounted for 39 percent of total U.S.
freshwater withdrawals.\3\ EIA annually reports data on the water
withdrawals, consumption and discharges of power plants of a certain
size, as well as some information on water source and cooling
technology type. These data are used by federal agencies and other
researchers in estimating the overall power plant water use and
determining how this use has and will continue to change.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Water consumed by thermoelectric power plants accounts for a
smaller percentage.
Information Is Limited on the Water Supply and Water Quality Impacts of
the Next Generation of Biofuels
Our work to date indicates that while the water supply and water
quality effects of producing corn-based ethanol are fairly well
understood, less is known about the effects of the next generation of
feedstocks and fuels. The cultivation of corn for ethanol production
can require substantial quantities of water--from seven to 321 gallons
per gallon of ethanol produced--depending on where it is grown and how
much irrigation water is used.\4\ Furthermore, corn is a relatively
resource-intensive crop, requiring higher rates of fertilizer and
pesticide applications than many other crops; some experts believe that
additional corn production for biofuels conversion will lead to an
increase in fertilizer and sediment runoff and in the number of
impaired streams and other water bodies. Some researchers and
conservation officials have told us that the impact of corn-based
ethanol on water supply and water quality could be mitigated through
research into developing additional drought-tolerant and more nutrient-
efficient crop varieties thereby decreasing the amount of water needed
for irrigation and the amount of fertilizer that needs to be applied.
Furthermore, experts also mentioned the need for additional data on
current aquifer water supplies and research on the potential of biofuel
cultivation to strain these water sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Wu, M., M. Mintz, M. Wang, and S. Arora. Consumptive Water Use
in the Production of Ethanol and Petroleum Gasoline. Center for
Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division, Argonne National
Laboratory, January 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In contrast to corn-based ethanol, our work to date indicates that
much less is known about the effects that large-scale cultivation of
cellulosic feedstocks will have on water supplies and water quality.
Since potential cellulosic feedstocks have not been grown commercially
to date, there is little information on the cumulative water, nutrient,
and pesticide needs of these crops, and it is not yet known what
agricultural practices will actually be used to cultivate these
feedstocks on a commercial scale. For example, while some experts
assume that perennial feedstocks will be rainfed, other experts have
pointed out that to achieve maximum yields for cellulosic crops,
farmers may need to irrigate these crops. Furthermore, because water
supplies vary regionally, additional research is needed to better
understand geographical influences on feedstock production. For
example, the additional withdrawals in states relying heavily on
irrigation for agriculture, such as Nebraska, may place new demands on
the Ogallala Aquifer, an already strained resource from which eight
states draw water. In addition, if agricultural residues--such as corn
stover--are to be used, this could negatively affect soil quality,
increase the need for fertilizer, and lead to increased sediment runoff
to waterways. Considerable uncertainty exists regarding the maximum
amount of residue that can be removed for biofuels production while
maintaining soil and water quality. USDA, DOE, and some academic
researchers are attempting to develop new projections on how much
residue can be removed without compromising soil quality, but
sufficient data are not yet available to inform their efforts, and it
may take several years to accumulate such data and disseminate it to
farmers for implementation. Experts we spoke with generally agree that
more research on how to produce cellulosic feedstocks in a sustainable
way is needed.
Our work also indicates that even less is known about newer
biofuels feedstocks such as algae. Algae have the added advantage of
being able to use lower-quality water for cultivation, according to
experts. However, the impact on water supply and water quality will
ultimately depend on which cultivation methods are determined to be the
most viable. Therefore, research is needed on how best to cultivate
this feedstock in order to maximize its potential as a biofuel
feedstock and limit its potential impacts on water resources. Other
areas we have identified that relate to water and algae cultivation in
need of additional research include:
Oil extraction. Additional research is needed on how
to extract the oil from the algal cell in such a way as to
preserve the water contained in the cell along with the oil,
thereby allowing some of that water to be recycled back into
the cultivation process.
Contaminants. Information is needed on how to manage
the contaminants that are found in the algal cultivation water
and how any resulting wastewater should be handled.
Uncertainty also exists regarding the water supply impacts of
converting feedstocks into biofuels. Biorefineries require water for
processing the fuel and need to draw from existing water resources.
Water consumed in the corn-ethanol conversion process has declined over
time with improved equipment and energy efficient design, according to
a 2009 Argonne National Laboratory study, and is currently estimated at
three gallons of water required for each gallon of ethanol produced.
However, the primary source of freshwater for most existing corn
ethanol plants is from local groundwater aquifers and some of these
aquifers are not readily replenished. For the conversion of cellulosic
feedstocks, the amount of water consumed is less defined and will
depend on the process and on technological advancements that improve
the efficiency with which water is used. Current estimates range from
1.9 to 5.9 gallons of water, depending on the technology used. Some
experts we spoke with said that greater research is needed on how to
manage the full water needs of biorefineries and reduce these needs
further. Similar to current and next generation feedstock cultivation,
additional research is also needed to better understand the impact of
biorefinery withdrawals on aquifers and to consider potential resource
strains when siting these facilities.
Our work to date also indicates that additional research is needed
on the storage and distribution of biofuels. Ethanol is highly
corrosive and poses a risk of damage to pipelines, and underground and
above-ground storage tanks, which could in turn lead to releases to the
environment that may contaminate groundwater, among other issues. These
leaks can be the result of biofuel blends being stored in incompatible
tank systems--those that have not been certified to handle fuel blends
containing more than 10 percent ethanol. While EPA currently has some
research under way, additional study is needed into the compatibility
of higher fuel blends, such as those containing 15 percent ethanol,
with the existing fueling infrastructure. To overcome potential
compatibility issues, future research is needed on other conversion
technologies that can be used to produce renewable and advanced fuels
that are capable of being used in the existing infrastructure.
Key Efforts to Reduce Use of Freshwater at Power Plants May Not Be
Fully Captured in Existing Federal Data
In our work to date, we have found (1) the use of advanced cooling
technologies can reduce freshwater use at thermoelectric power plants,
but federal data may not fully capture this industry change; (2) the
use of alternative water sources can also reduce freshwater use, but
federal data may not systematically capture this change; and (3)
federal research under way is focused on examining efforts to reduce
the use of freshwater in thermoelectric power plants.
Advanced cooling technologies offer the promise to reduce
freshwater use by thermoelectric power plants. Unlike traditional
cooling technologies that use water to cool the steam in power plants,
advanced cooling technologies carry out all or part of the cooling
process using air. According to power plant developers, they consider
using these water-conserving technologies in new plants, particularly
in areas with limited available water supplies. While these
technologies can significantly reduce the amount of water used in a
plant--and in some cases eliminate the use of water for cooling--their
use entails a number of challenges. For example, plants using advanced
cooling technologies may cost more to build and operate; require more
land; and, because these technologies can consume a significant amount
of energy themselves, witness lower net electricity output--especially
in hot, dry conditions. However, eliminating or minimizing freshwater
use by incorporating an advanced cooling technology provides a number
of potential benefits to plant developers, including minimizing the
costs associated with acquiring, transporting, and treating water, as
well as eliminating impacts on the environment associated with water
withdrawals, consumption, and discharge. In addition, the use of these
advanced cooling technologies may provide the flexibility to build
power plants in locations not near a source of water.
For these reasons, a number of power plant developers in the United
States and across the world have adopted advanced cooling technologies,
but according to EIA officials, the agency's forms have not been
designed to collect information on the use of advanced cooling
technologies. Moreover, the instruments the agency uses to collect
these data were developed many years ago and have not been recently
updated. EIA officials have told us that while some plants may choose
to report this information, they may not do so consistently or in such
a way that allows comprehensive identification of the universe of
plants using advanced cooling technologies. Water experts and federal
agencies we spoke to during the course of our work identified value in
the annual EIA data on cooling technologies, but some explained that
not having data on advanced cooling technologies limits public
understanding of their prevalence and analysis of the extent to which
their adoption results in a significant reduction in freshwater use.
According to EIA officials, the agency is currently redesigning the
instrument it uses to collect these data and expects to begin using the
revised instrument in 2011. In addition, during the course of our work
we noted that in 2002, EIA discontinued reporting water-related data
for nuclear power plants, including water use and cooling technology.
As we develop our final report, we will be looking at various
suggestions that we can make to DOE to improve its data collection
efforts.
Our work to date also indicates that the use of alternative water
sources can substantially reduce or eliminate the need to use
freshwater for power plant cooling at an individual plant. Alternative
water sources that may be usable for power plant cooling include
treated effluent from sewage treatment plants; groundwater that is
unsuitable for drinking or irrigation because it is high in salts or
other impurities; industrial water, such as water generated when
extracting minerals like oil, gas, and coal; and others. Use of these
alternative water sources can ease the development process where
freshwater sources are in short supply and lower the costs associated
with obtaining and using freshwater when freshwater is expensive.
Because of these advantages, alternative water sources play an
increasingly important role in reducing power plant reliance on
freshwater, but can pose challenges, including requiring special
treatment to avoid adverse effects on cooling equipment, requiring
additional efforts to comply with relevant regulations, and limiting
the potential locations of power plants to those nearby an alternative
water source. These challenges are similar to those faced by power
plants that use freshwater, but they may be exacerbated by the lower
quality of alternative water sources.
Power plant developers we spoke with told us they routinely
consider use of alternative water sources when developing their power
plant proposals. Moreover, a 2007 report by Argonne National Laboratory
indicates that the use of treated municipal wastewater at power plants
has become more common, with 38 percent of power plants after 2000
using reclaimed water. EIA collects annual data from power plants on
their water use and water source. However, according to EIA officials,
while some plants report using an alternative water source, many may
not be reporting such information since EIA's data collection form was
not designed to collect data on these freshwater alternatives. One
expert we spoke with told us that not having data on the use of
alternative water sources at power plants limits public understanding
of these trends and the extent to which these approaches are effective
in reducing freshwater use. As we develop our final report, we plan to
also develop suggestions for DOE that can improve this data gathering
process.
Power plant developers may choose to reduce their use of freshwater
for a number of reasons, such as when freshwater is unavailable or
costly to obtain, to comply with regulatory requirements, or to address
public concern. However, a developer's decision to deploy an advanced
cooling technology or an alternative water source depends on an
evaluation of the tradeoffs between the water savings and other
benefits these alternatives offer and the cost involved. For example,
where water is unavailable or prohibitively expensive, power plant
developers may determine that despite the challenges, advanced cooling
technologies or alternative water sources offer the best option for
getting a potentially profitable plant built in a specific area.
While private developers make key decisions on what types of power
plants to build and where to build them, and how to cool them based on
their views of the costs and benefits of various alternatives,
government research and development can be a tool to further the use of
alternative cooling technologies and alternative water supplies. In
this regard, the Department of Energy's National Energy Technology
Laboratory (NETL) plays a central role in DOE's research and
development effort. In recent years, NETL has funded research and
development projects through its Innovations for Existing Plants
program aimed at minimizing the challenges of deploying advanced
cooling technologies and using alternative water sources at existing
plants, among other things. In 2009, the lab spent about $9 million to
support research and development of projects that, among other things,
could improve the performance of advanced cooling technologies, recover
water used to reduce emissions of air pollutants at coal plants for
reuse, and facilitate the use of alternative water sources such as
polluted water for cooling. Such research endeavors, if successful,
could alter the trade-off analysis power plant developers conduct in
favor of nontraditional alternatives to cooling.
Concluding Observations
Ensuring sufficient supplies of energy and water will be essential
to meeting the demands of the 21st century. This task will be
particularly difficult, given the interdependency between energy
production and water supply and water quality and the strains that both
these resources currently face. DOE, together with other federal
agencies, has a key role to play in providing key information, helping
to identify ways to improve the productivity of both energy and water,
partnering with industry to develop technologies that can lower costs,
and analyzing what progress has been made along the way. While we
recognize that DOE currently has a number of ongoing research efforts
to develop information and technologies that will address various
aspects of the energy-water nexus, our work indicates that there are a
number of areas to focus future research and development efforts.
Investments in these areas will provide information to help ensure that
we are balancing energy independence and security with effective
management of our freshwater resources.
Mr. Chairman that concludes my prepared statement, I would be happy
to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Subcommittee might have.
GAO Staff Acknowledgments
Key staff contributors to this testimony were Jon Ludwigson,
Assistant Director; Elizabeth Erdmann, Assistant Director; Scott
Clayton; Paige Gilbreath; Miriam Hill; Randy Jones; Micah McMillan;
Nicole Rishel; Swati Thomas; Lisa Vojta; and Rebecca Wilson.
Biography for Anu K. Mittal
Ms. Anu K. Mittal, is a Director with the Natural Resources and
Environment team of the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), in
Washington, D.C. She is responsible for leading GAO's work in the areas
of Water Resources and Defense Environmental Cleanup.
Ms. Mittal has been with GAO since 1989, during which time she has
led a variety of reviews of federal programs relating to water
resources, oceans and fisheries, environmental restoration programs,
energy, housing, food safety, science and technology, and agriculture
issues. She has also served in other organizational capacities and
worked on special projects for the Comptroller General.
Ms. Mittal received a Masters in Business Administration from the
University of Massachusetts, and has completed the senior executive
fellow program at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard
University. She has received numerous GAO honors for sustained
leadership and exceptional contributions to the agency's mission.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Ms. Mittal. Dr. Hannegan.
STATEMENT OF DR. BRYAN J. HANNEGAN, VICE PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENT
AND GENERATION, THE ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTITUTE
Dr. Hannegan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
Inglis, and Members of the Subcommittee. It is a great pleasure
to be with you here today to join this distinguished panel in
discussing the research needs for the energy-water nexus.
I want to focus first on a couple points about EPRI, the
Electric Power Research Institute founded in 1973 as an
independent, non-profit center for collaborative research
regarding energy and environment issues in the public interest.
A key element of EPRI's mission is informing the public policy
process, and we are very thrilled to be here today to have this
opportunity.
One of the key points I would like to make in my testimony
this morning is that water is a finite resource with multiple
uses, and when you look at the totality of both water demand
and water supply going forward, it is increasingly obvious in
the electric sector not only are we looking at a carbon-
constrained world, we are also looking at a water-constrained
world. When you think about the competing uses from population
growth, from agriculture, from climate variability and change
affecting both the timing and the magnitude of water
availability, think about the demand for water increasing over
time as a result of economic growth and increasing
electrification, the shift to low-carbon technologies, some of
which are more water intensive as the Under Secretary alluded
to in her comments, particularly around CO2 capture
and storage, work that we have been doing identifies the CCS
technologies at present will roughly double the water demand in
a conventional coal or natural gas-fired unit. So there are
tremendous opportunities there to improve water availability
for CCS.
As my colleague, Ms. Mittal from GAO, just mentioned a
moment ago, advanced cooling technologies do exist. They offer
a lot of promise, but at present their costs, their performance
are not where we would want them to be for widespread
commercial application. And so as you look to future research
needs in this area, not only the whole notion of water resource
management and understanding the supply of water but also
moderating and mitigating the demand of water from the electric
power sector through advanced cooling technologies is going to
be a key effort going forward.
To expound upon these key points which are described in
detail in my testimony, I want to just show you a couple of
graphics.
This is from an outdated USGS assessment of water use. On
the left-hand side, you see water withdrawals, thermoelectric
power and particularly, cooling is a significant withdrawer of
water. But one of the key elements I want to stress is that the
electric power industry needs access to water but doesn't
necessarily consume it. If you look at the right-hand side, as
a fraction of consumption, electric power utilities only
consume three percent. It is really a question for us of
access. It is also a question of returning that water back to
the environment in a state that it can be used. And so it is
mitigating the impact of taking that water in, where fish
protection and other aquatic organisms are concerned, and also
bringing that water back with minimal or no effluence that
cause environmental degradation as well, and I think that is a
key point to make.
When you look at the water used by power plant type,
nuclear, fossil, but even solar-thermal and biofuel are big
consumers of water from a cooling standpoint. And even simple
gas combustion turbines use a lot of water for fuel injection.
And as we change this generation mix, we are going to be
changing the water demands.
To drive that home, one of the ways in which we are looking
at the transition to a low-carbon economy in the electric
sector is to bring on, as shown here in this chart, increasing
amounts of renewables, increasing amounts of nuclear energy,
increasing amounts of CO2 capture and storage for
both existing and new units. This shift is going to change the
way we use water in this important segment of society.
So we have existing technologies that are on the board
right now, once through cooling and wet cooling towers, roughly
about half and half with existing plants in the application
there, a lot of advanced technologies such as dry or hybrid
cooling approaches, recycling the water within the plant, using
gray waters and increasing the thermal efficiency of plant are
all going to be important. The challenge with dry cooling as
the Under Secretary mentioned is that these things are emerging
technologies.
There is a lot of work to be done here, and at present, if
you look at the left-hand side of this chart, it is at a
significant increased cost, both from capital as well as
operations and reducing the power output, even things like
noise and the size of the units that you need for a typical
500-megawatt plant are things that are of concern.
We talked about the impact here in the United States. It is
also worth reflecting on the heat wave in France in 2003. It
was an impact not just on the availability of water for
cooling, but in fact the generation capacity and the resulting
changes in the market that led to more spot market purchases of
electricity, higher prices ultimately to consumers, and large-
scale load shedding and other mechanisms to maintain the
reliability of the system. So it is really at the heart of
maintaining a reliable and low-cost electrical system.
So to sum up, we have worked with the Department of Energy,
the NETL, and Sandia National Labs through the energy-water
nexus program to outline about a $40 million, 10-year research
program that would be focused around these five areas, both
understanding the financial and operating impacts of cooling
technologies. As Ms. Mittal suggested, there is a big gap there
that can be addressed there in the near-term, working on the
technologies, particularly dry and hybrid cooling approaches,
using degraded waters. One of the issues with carbon capture
and storage is the potential production of saline waters from
the saline aquifers that we are injecting CO2 into.
If there was a way to treat that saline water to use that for
thermoelectric plant cooling, you are solving multiple problems
with one approach. And finally, getting our arms around how
climate interacts with water and how water interacts with
climate, both in the production of renewable energy, but just
in the availability of the resource, that is improving decision
support, developing better climate modeling tools that allow us
to get a handle around the hydroelectric cycle. There is a lot
of work that can be done here, and we are well under way
working very collaboratively with the Department on pursuing
next steps.
Thank you, and that concludes my testimony.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hannegan follows:]
Prepared Statement of Bryan J. Hannegan
Thank you, Chairman Baird, Ranking Member Inglis, and Members of
the Subcommittee. I am Bryan Hannegan, Vice President--Environment and
Generation, at the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). EPRI
conducts research and development on technology, operations and the
environment for the global electric power industry. As an independent,
non-profit Institute, EPRI brings together its members, scientists and
engineers, along with experts from academia, industry and other centers
of research to:
collaborate in solving challenges in electricity
generation, delivery and use;
provide technological, policy and economic analyses
to drive long-range research and development planning; and
support multi-discipline research in emerging
technologies and issues.
EPRI's members represent more than 90 percent of the electricity
generated in the United States, and international participation extends
to 40 countries. EPRI has major offices and laboratories in Palo Alto,
California; Charlotte, North Carolina; Knoxville, Tennessee, and Lenox,
Massachusetts.
EPRI appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony to the
Subcommittee on the subject of ``Technology Research and Development
Efforts Related to the Energy and Water Linkage.'' In my testimony
today, I would like to highlight the following key points:
While thermoelectric power plant cooling accounts for
approximately 40 percent of freshwater withdrawals in the U.S.,
it accounts for only three percent of total consumption.
Water use for power generation has declined steadily
per unit of power produced; however more significant growth in
power demand has led to a total increase in water use by the
electric power sector over the past five decades.
The largest users of water are nuclear and coal-based
power plants; however renewable energy resources such as
concentrated solar and biomass can also use significant water
resources on a life cycle basis.
Advanced cooling technologies, such as dry cooling
and use of degraded waters, can reduce water use in power
plants but come at a significant increased cost using existing
technologies available today.
EPRI, working with DOE and others, has identified a
$40 million, 10-year research program focused on reducing the
cost of existing cooling options, and developing new technology
options and decision support tools to reduce the demand for
fresh water resources in the coming decades.
These research efforts are urgently needed to
mitigate the expected shortfall in water needs for
thermoelectric cooling as a result of future electricity demand
growth, competing demand for water resources by other economic
sectors, and new water demands from low-carbon generation
sources such as nuclear, biomass, and CO2 capture
and storage.
I. Fresh Water Use at Thermoelectric Power Plants
The major use of water for thermoelectric plants is condensing of
steam. These plants convert heat energy (as steam) to electric energy.
The source of the heat energy may be nuclear, coal, gas, oil, biofuel,
solar or geothermal. The heat source boils water and the resulting
steam is driven through a turbine which turns a generator. The steam
exits the turbine into the condenser where it must be condensed and
cooled in order to be pumped backed to the boiler and converted to
steam to complete the overall cycle.
According to the most recent available survey of water withdrawals
by the USGS (Figure 1), thermoelectric power plant cooling accounts for
approximately 40 percent of freshwater withdrawals in the U.S.
Agricultural irrigation accounts for approximately the same amount.
Most of the water withdrawn by thermoelectric generation is discharged
back into the receiving water body. On the other hand, thermoelectric
power plants account for approximately three percent of total
freshwater consumption in the U.S. (Figure 2). The USGS stopped
reporting water consumption values after the 1995 survey; water use
numbers were reported for 2000 but have not changed substantially. In
arid regions of the U.S., power companies employ significant use of
cooling towers, non-traditional water sources, water recycling within
the power plant and use of evaporation ponds. In these instances the
total amount of freshwater withdrawn by power plants is likely to be
significantly less that in other regions.
The use of recirculating systems (e.g., cooling towers) and
freshwater conservation measures, such as substitution of sewage
treatment effluent for freshwater in the arid parts of the country, has
been driven by limited water availability. In other parts of the
country, the main driving factor for recirculating systems has been
water intake and discharge regulations (e.g., fish protection and
thermal discharge requirements).
These measures have enabled the electric power industry to reduce
its water withdrawals per unit of electric power generated by a factor
of three (Table 1). However, the electric industry increased its output
of electric power by a factor of 15 over the same period. The net
result was a five-fold increase in water withdrawals by the electric
power industry since 1950, most of which occurred before 1980. Total
water withdrawal by the industry has actually declined since 1980.
Power plant water use is often measured as the amount of water
withdrawal per unit of electric energy generated. The lower this
number, the more efficient is the plant's use of water. Power plant
water use varies with type of generation (Figure 3). The efficiencies
shown in the figure are representative of the type of generation. In
reality, there is considerable variability depending not only on the
type of generation but also on numerous other factors. For example,
with respect to coal plants with wet cooling towers, a survey conducted
by EPRI showed that cooling water withdrawal ranged from 500 to 700
gallons/megawatt-hour.
Note that a coal plant uses water not only for cooling but also for
flue gas scrubbing and ash handling. A combined cycle gas plant, which
uses the exhaust of a gas turbine to drive a single steam cycle, is
significantly more water efficient than a single steam cycle plant. A
renewable energy plant may or may not have significant cooling
requirements. While a wind energy or solar photovoltaic plant uses
little water, a solar thermal or biofuel plant is conceptually no
different than a fossil or nuclear steam plant and needs significant
amounts of water for cooling. With respect to biofuel, there can also
be significant water demand associated with fuel production. Although
Figure 3 does not show water demands by geothermal electricity
production, its water needs are conceptually no different than those of
nuclear and coal plants. In fact, geothermal electricity production
requires more cooling water since its thermal efficiency (ratio of
electricity output to thermal energy input) is relatively low compared
to other electric generation technologies.
Under severe drought conditions or heat waves, the generating
capacity of operating power plants is more likely to be limited by an
inability to meet thermal discharge permits than by the quantity of
available water. When thermal discharge limitations occur it is
possible for the appropriate regulatory agency to grant the plant a
waiver to continue operating. However, when there is inadequate water
to operate the plant at full capacity, the only options are either to
reduce power plant generation or completely shut down the plant. Over
the last several years, there have been isolated incidents in the U.S.
of plants having to reduce power or shut down because of limited
available water. In France, in 2003, there was a major multi-week heat
wave that resulted in a regional impact consisting of a 7-15 percent
loss of nuclear generation capacity for five weeks, a loss of 20
percent of hydro generation capacity, large scale load shedding,
purchase of large amounts of electricity on the wholesale power market,
and sharp increases in electricity prices on the spot market.
II. Existing Cooling Technologies in Use Today
Historically, condensing and cooling of the steam has been provided
by once-through cooling systems (Figure 5) in which cool water from a
river, lake, ocean or a pond is pumped to the condenser where it
condenses the steam from the turbine. After exiting the condenser, the
heated cooling water is discharged back into the receiving water body.
To minimize the impacts on fish and address thermal discharges, new
electric power generation plants typically use recirculating cooling
water systems (Figure 6). In a recirculating cooling water system, the
cooling water is cooled either in a cooling tower or cooling pond and
then recycled back to the condenser.
If a recirculating cooling water system was completely closed, the
salt concentration in the water would build up to a point where the
condenser tubes would collect saline scale (affecting performance) and
corrosion would be excessive. For this reason, it is necessary for a
percentage of the recycling water be released during each cycle. This
water is called blowdown. To makeup for the blowdown and cooling water
that is lost to evaporation and drift of the cooling tower exhaust, the
recycling system must continuously withdraw water. This water is called
makeup.
Figure 7 shows a schematic of typical water use in a 500MW thermal
plant with a recirculating cooling system (wet cooling tower). The
cooling tower is the largest water consumer in the plant, and in this
example, requires 9537 gal/min (gpm) of fresh water when running at
full load. This makeup is required to replace the water lost to
evaporation and drift (about two-thirds of the total) and blowdown
(about one-third).
There are four major strategies for reducing fresh water use in
thermoelectric generation, all of which are being applied to some
extent today:
1. Dry/hybrid cooling substitutes air for water as the cooling
medium.
2. Non-traditional water sources substitute degraded waters
such as sewage treatment effluent, agricultural runoff,
produced water associated with the extraction of oil and gas,
mine water, saline groundwater, and stormwater for freshwater.
3. Water recycle strategies will treat waste streams within
the plant and reuse the water; e.g., remove salts from cooling
tower blowdown and recycle as makeup.
4. Increased thermal conversion efficiency through use of the
waste heat of one plant process to drive another. For example,
combined heat and power applications use the waste heat from
the electric generation process to satisfy space heating needs,
reducing the overall fuel and water use required while
providing the same level of energy services.
The advantages and limitations of each of these technologies depend
on local conditions and fuel costs; hence there is no universal optimal
approach. The objective of EPRI's advanced cooling research program is
to optimize the various technologies in terms of technological and
economic performance with the goal of minimizing both overall costs and
environmental impact.
III. Future Impacts on Water Use in the Electric Power Industry
Water availability is expected to become a major issue for the
electric utility industry over the next decade and beyond. Siting of
new plants is already constrained by access to cooling water,
especially fresh water. Electric power is frequently assigned the
lowest priority for water allocation after residential, commercial
industrial and agricultural uses. Given limited supplies of fresh water
and increasing demands, it is critical to examine options for reducing
this anticipated demand as electricity is needed to drive the U.S.
economy. This demand must be viewed in light of anticipated changes in
climate and new technologies expected to enter the marketplace.
CO2 Policy and New Generation--With the expectation that the
United States will soon have some form of regulation for carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases, utilities are already anticipating and
planning for the changes that will need to occur. Many of these changes
will impact water requirements, and new generation will need to be
responsive to public and regulatory pressures.
EPRI's PRISM analysis (Figure 8) examines the potential for
CO2 reductions under varying assumptions of conservation,
energy efficiency and new technologies entering the marketplace over
the next 20 years. These technologies, if implemented, would have water
resource impacts which are briefly described below.
More Nuclear, More Biomass, and More Solar--Figure 8 shows EPRI's
assumed increases in power generation from nuclear, biomass and solar
generating stations from the PRISM analysis. Each of these technologies
has potential water impacts. Current nuclear power plant designs use
slightly more cooling water than their fossil-fueled equivalents. This
is due to the lower peak steam temperature and pressure that nuclear
units can achieve and the subsequent impact on efficiency. It is also
much more difficult and expensive to use some of the water conserving
technologies (such as dry cooling) because of the containment and
safety issues inherent to nuclear plants.
Dedicated biomass generation is growing as an electric power source
and has no net carbon emissions. These plants have similar water
requirements to other fossil-fueled plants while in operation. However,
from a life cycle perspective, water is likely required to cultivate
the fuel and should be taken into consideration when examining future
water use and consumption. Solar power can be generated by photovoltaic
systems, which have little water requirement aside from cleaning the
panels, or solar thermal. Solar thermal plants operate much the same as
traditional thermal power plants, where solar radiation is used in
place of fuel to boil a working fluid, which is then used to turn a
turbine and condensed and cooled with a cooling system. Water
requirements for solar thermal plants are similar to other thermal
plants.
Carbon Capture and Storage--The application of carbon capture and
storage (CCS) for fossil power plants will entail additional water
requirements and could ultimately lead to doubling of the water
requirement for such plants. Figure 9 shows data from a DOE-NETL study
that compares water use among different technologies, including coal
with CCS. EPRI studies show very similar results: an ultra-
supercritical pulverized coal (USC) plant with carbon capture would
incur a 38 percent increase in water consumption compared to one
without CCS. When the decrease in net power is factored into the
calculation (due to the parasitic load of the carbon capture
equipment), a facility with a CCS system will use more than twice as
much water compared to a facility without CCS.
Shift of Other Carbon Emitters to Electricity--EPRI's PRISM study and
other analyses of greenhouse gas reductions predict that other sectors
of the economy will switch to electric technologies in response to
CO2 emission constraints as the reductions in the electric
sector would be more cost-effective in many cases. Examples include:
Industrial--change to electric motors, eliminate
package boilers, etc.
Agricultural--electric motors for water pumps and
other stationary equipment
Residential--switching to electric water heating,
cooking, etc.
Transportation--increased use of electric and plug-in
hybrid vehicles
Some of this new electric load will be met with renewable energy
sources that may not require water, but some portion of this increased
demand for electricity will require access to water including those
with advanced water conserving technologies.
Change of Existing Once-Through Cooling to Cooling Towers--As current
once through cooled plants are retired, new electric generating
facilities will likely employ cooling towers (primarily for fish
protection). While the use of cooling towers reduces water withdrawal
by 95 percent or more, it also doubles water consumption (through
evaporative losses). Unless power companies have cost-effective options
to reduce water use, there will be an increasing demand for fresh water
for cooling. Many new plants are already being challenged on water use
grounds.
Potential Increase in Climate Change Impacts and Drought--A recent
study performed by the University of California-Santa Barbara Bren
School of Environmental Science for the California Energy Commission
predicts that climate change would potentially reduce the snow pack in
the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the runoff from snow melt would be
shorter and stronger. While it is often difficult to use climate model
precipitation data and predict localized impacts, changes in the global
climate will have impacts on water resource distribution and
availability, and precipitation patterns. These changes could require
additional storage capacity, additional treatment to address water
quality degradation, and lower water volumes with higher variability.
All of these potential changes would have dramatic effects on operation
of thermal power plants.
New Regulations--There are several pending regulations that will govern
how water is used in current and future thermal generation power
plants. Each of these regulations will provide additional limits that
must be met, and could have a significant impact on water withdrawals
and water consumption.
Pursuant to Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act,
EPA is developing new regulations to address fish entrainment
and impingement losses at Cooling Water Intake Structures
(CWIS) for once-through cooled plants. New plants must already
meet fish protection equivalent to wet cooling towers. EPA is
still drafting regulations for retrofitting CWIS for existing
once through cooled plants. These requirements, while still
under development, could potentially require retrofit of
cooling towers on many once through cooled power plants.
EPA is considering development of new Effluent
Guidelines for the utility industry. These new regulations
could potentially require significant change in how water is
managed and treated within power plants including the potential
to reduce overall water discharges.
The California State Water Resources Board is going
one step further and considering regulations that would require
all ocean-cooled power plants in the state to retrofit cooling
towers.
IV. Opportunities to Reduce Water Needs in the Electric Sector
EPRI conducts and plans research to allow the power industry to
address risks associated with growing limitations on water
availability. The objectives are two fold: (1) to reduce energy and
costs associated with increasing water use efficiency while reducing
overall water use and (2) to develop integrated risk analysis tools
that can be used for planning water use among various stakeholders. The
former consists of studies to improve existing water conserving
technologies, demonstration of emerging technologies, and development
of new technologies. Research plans also call for fundamental strategic
studies of heat transfer, fluid flow and desalination to make major
technological breakthroughs with respect to air cooling and water
treatment. The second objective is to create and test integrated risk
analysis tools for community and regional water resource planning and
management.
Another important facet of the EPRI program is collaboration with
government agencies and other research organizations. EPRI has been
working closely with the Energy-Water Nexus (EWN), a group of national
energy laboratories, to further the understanding of the many facets of
the overall energy-water sustainability issue. EPRI belongs to the EWN
Executive Advisory Committee and has contributed to the Report to
Congress and Research Roadmap that EWN has produced for USDOE. EPRI has
also provided assistance to GAO as they review the issue of energy-
water sustainability. EPRI is an active member of the Federal Advisory
Committee on Water Information (ACWI), a FACA committee chaired by
USDOI. EPRI co-chairs, with U.S. Forest Service, the Energy-Water
Sustainability Subcommittee of ACWI. Other organizations that EPRI has
collaborated with on the issue include: American Society of Mechanical
Engineering, Water Environment Research Foundation, WateReuse Research
Foundation, California Energy Commission, and Water Research
Foundation. A listing of government funding that EPRI has received is
included in Appendix A.
There are many opportunities for reducing fresh water use in the
electric sector and the following sections pinpoints some of the
additional research needs. Many of these needs have been outlined in a
recent DOE Roadmap report which was completed with input from EPRI and
others.
Degraded Water Sources--EPRI has extensively studied the use of
degraded water sources, including many joint studies with DOE and the
CA Energy Commission. These studies have evaluated degraded water
sources from the standpoint of quantity, quality, variability,
treatment options and cost, transportation options and cost, and
wastewater disposal issues. Many power plants have been operating for
years on degraded water sources, particularly treated sewerage
effluent. This degraded water source has been the most attractive
source because of its year round availability, proximity to power
plants, inexpensive price, relatively low cost treatment and minimal
impacts to power plant operation. Even this water source is being
protected in some areas of the country for use in irrigation and
groundwater recharge, limiting its use for power plant cooling.
Additional degraded water sources that are being considered
include:
Brackish water from coastal areas
High salinity groundwater
Mine water and produced water from oil and gas wells
Agricultural runoff
Stormwater
Each of these sources will cost more than traditional surface or
groundwater sources, with the highest costs usually a result of
treating the water and transporting it to the power plant. Additional
costs can come from materials of construction, chemicals to prevent
scaling, fouling and corrosion, storage or backup water system costs,
and wastewater treatment and disposal.
Degraded water sources typically contain suspended or dissolved
solids. Suspended solids can usually be filtered or removed in
clarifiers, but dissolved solids are more difficult to remove. These
dissolved solids can lead to scaling and corrosion of power plant
equipment, and the suspended and dissolved solids can lead to fouling.
In addition, nutrients and minerals in degraded water sources can lead
to biological growth that creates additional fouling issues. All of
these treatments have to be incorporated to prevent operational and
maintenance issues within the power plant and add to the cost of using
degraded water sources.
EPRI has identified many research needs for improving the use of
degraded water sources. Some of the research that EPRI has identified
includes:
Better and cheaper treatment options
Wastewater disposal options (salts)
Coatings to prevent scaling, fouling and corrosion
Technologies that can better accommodate degraded
water sources (like Wet Surface Air Coolers)
Long-term experience and guidelines on using degraded
water sources (example: brackish and salt water cooling towers)
Dry Cooling--Dry cooling works like the radiator on an automobile,
where heat is rejected to the atmosphere by passing air over a heat
exchanger, usually by using fans. There are generally two types of dry
cooling. Air-cooled condensers (ACCs) are used to condense and cool the
steam directly from the turbine (Figure 10). The steam is ducted to the
ACC in large piping. With indirect dry cooling, the steam is cooled in
a traditional condenser using a recirculating water loop. The warm
water is then pumped to an air-cooled heat exchanger, where it is
cooled and returned to the condenser.
While dry cooling can virtually eliminate the water required to
cool power plants, it does have drawbacks.
Cost--The capital cost for dry cooling systems is
significantly higher, typically over 10 percent higher than wet
cooling systems (Figure 11), because they require the
manufacture of large finned-tube heat exchangers, large fans
and drive motors, and large steel structures to provide ground
clearance for proper air circulation. There are also higher
operating costs associated with dry cooling. The fans needed
for air circulation are much larger and more numerous than
those required for a wet tower. This increases the parasitic
load on the unit, and reduces the net power available from the
plant. Dry cooling cools water to the dry-bulb temperature,
which means that the water returned to the plant will be warmer
than it would be with a wet cooling tower (which cools to the
wet-bulb temperature) or once through cooling (which cools to
the local surface water temperature). This higher temperature
has the effect of reducing unit efficiency, which can mean up
to and over a 10 percent efficiency penalty on the hottest
days.
Size--Dry cooling systems are significantly larger
than traditional cooling towers and they require additional
land space to build.
Noise--The large number of cooling fans can create
issues with noise for neighbors. This can be alleviated with
the purchase of low-speed, low-noise fans, but this type of fan
adds significantly to the cost.
Wind Effects--Many utilities have experienced wind
impacts on their air cooled condensers. These wind impacts have
caused sudden drops in load, and in extreme cases, unit trips.
High winds, especially gusty winds, can cause stalling of the
air flow in leading edge fans, which causes a sudden drop in
the cooling capacity. This creates higher back pressure for the
steam turbine which cam lead to blade damage. If the control
system is fast enough, it will be able to reduce steam flow
(reducing load) and protect the turbine. If the back pressure
rises too rapidly, and the control system cannot close the
steam valves fast enough to protect the turbine, the unit will
trip in order to protect the turbine from major damage.
EPRI has sponsored a great deal of research into addressing these
issues for dry cooling. We have already investigated the wind effects
and have developed a simple wind screen that should eliminate most of
the wind issues. Additional research is needed to field test and
demonstrate the technology and move it to commercial application. EPRI
also believes that further improvements in efficiency of dry cooling
could be made by improving the heat transfer characteristics of the
condensing steam and the finned tubes. Significant improvements in
finned tubes in recent years have resulted in better heat transfer and
lower manufacturing costs, but there is still room for improvement in
this area.
Hybrid Cooling--Hybrid cooling systems (Figure 12) provide a
combination of a wet cooling tower and a dry cooling tower. This
arrangement allows most of the heat to be rejected to the atmosphere on
the cooler days, and still have high efficiency during hot days, with
the wet tower taking part of the cooling load when the temperatures are
higher. This system is becoming more popular because the tower sizes
can be minimized to reduce additional costs, and performance is better
than air-cooling only.
EPRI is just beginning a research program to assess the state-of-
the-art for hybrid towers. There are many ways to optimize such a
system, depending on the goals of the plant design and the available
water sources. The guidelines EPRI will be developing will assist plant
designers with this optimization process.
There may also be a research need in helping plant operators decide
when to use the wet cooling portion of the hybrid system. When
operators are faced with a limited water source, and the need to
preserve water for the hottest operating days of the year, some sort of
forecasting and optimization tool would be useful in deciding when to
use the wet cooling towers for maximum benefit (efficiency, power
demand and power price).
Combined Cycles/Bottoming Cycles--Natural gas combined cycle (NGCC)
power plants are common in the United States and are the predominant
type of plant constructed in the last 10-15 years. NGCC plants have
many benefits that make them the logical choice. The combined cycle
provides for much higher efficiencies that, in return, reduces the fuel
costs. This also has the effect of lowering the carbon emissions for
each unit of power generated.
NGCC plants (Figure 13) also can provide a large water conservation
benefit. Since roughly two-thirds of the power is produced by the
combustion turbines, which do not require cooling water, the cooling
water consumption is reduced by an equivalent amount. In addition, the
one-third of the power produced by the steam generator/turbine can be
cooled by ACCs, further reducing the water usage. The ACC will be
smaller, since it is only cooling one third of the total plant, and any
efficiency penalties on hot days would only be incurred on that one
third of the capacity.
Bottoming cycles (Figure 14) are another way to increase the
efficiency of a traditional steam plant. Such cycles were investigated
by EPRI and Electricite de France (EdF) in the 1980's, and these cycles
are being examined again in light of upcoming water constraints.
Increasing the power output from thermal plants would provide for
decreased water consumption per unit power generated. These systems,
for now, appear very costly, and managing the working fluids (ammonia
or supercritical CO2) poses a potential safety risk.
However, additional research into combined cycle options, including
bottoming cycles, may lead to economical systems to improve power plant
efficiency, reducing both emissions (including carbon) and water
utilization.
Water Recapture and Water Reuse--There is a significant amount of water
lost through power plant stacks (flue gas from fossil fuels) and
cooling tower plumes. DOE-NETL has been sponsoring work to develop the
Air-2-AirTM system (Figure 15) for capturing moisture in cooling tower
plumes. Water loss could potentially be reduced by 15-30 percent.
The Energy and Environmental Research Center at the University of
North Dakota is pilot testing a desiccant system to recover water from
flue gas. Lehigh University has also received DOE funding to develop
condensing heat exchangers that will condense water from flue gas.
KEMA, in the Netherlands, is developing a membrane system to extract
water from flue gas. All of these technologies hold promise to replace
part of the water requirements for power generation, but need
additional research before they can be considered commercially
available or economical.
Power plants in operation today already employ many practices to
reuse water within the plant. Water is typically ``cascaded'' from one
use to another, depending on the quality of water that is needed for
each process. Some examples include:
Fresh water that is treated and used for boiler
feedwater
Wastewater from the water treatment system is used as
makeup in the Flue Gas Desulfurization (FGD) system
Boiler blowdown is used as makeup in cooling water
system
Cooling tower blowdown is used as makeup in the FGD
system
FGD blowdown is used for ash sluicing
Ash pond runoff is used for fly ash wetting (dust
control)
By tightening the water balance in the plant, many utilities have
already mastered the art of water reuse. Investments in research for
more efficient and lower cost wastewater treatment systems would allow
for even greater recycling and reuse. EPRI is sponsoring research in
many areas of wastewater treatment, zero liquid discharge and water
management toward this goal.
Role of Renewable Resources--Renewable energy from wind, solar
photovoltaic, geothermal (with brine water cooling), hydroelectric,
marine and hydrokinetic sources all require little to no water
consumption. To the extent that these technologies can economically
penetrate the generation mix, water use can be reduced. EPRI has an
extensive research program into renewable energy sources, and is
supporting the commercialization of new and better technologies to
reduce the cost of these resources and reduce their environmental
impacts.
Advanced Desalination Techniques--Sandia National Labs has had an
extensive membrane and desalination program that has provided
improvements in membrane technologies for reverse osmosis and other
issues like salt management. As degraded water sources are used to
replace potable water sources, economical desalination technologies
will help reduce the costs of water treatment in the electric industry
as well. Additional research into better membranes and new desalination
concepts will have a dual effect. By reducing the cost of desalination,
the use of degraded water sources in power plants becomes more
economical. In addition, better technologies will reduce the amount of
electricity required and the cost of desalination to meet growing
population demands for fresh water. This research could have major
impacts on society as a whole in future years. Additional research is
also needed to address salt management, especially in inland areas
where ocean disposal is not an option.
EPRI is also investigating a new forward osmosis technology that,
if feasible, would be a breakthrough in desalination, and wastewater
treatment and reuse. These ``breakthrough'' technologies could have a
major impact on how we develop new water sources for everyone, not just
the utility sector.
V. Research Needs
Most of the technologies described above are still in the
development stage or have limits on where they can economically be
applied. Additional work will be needed to develop viable options and
provide solutions to water conservation needs in the electric sector.
None of these water conserving options are universally applicable. Each
has its advantages based on such factors as fuel type, plant design,
local water sources, meteorological conditions and other factors. All
of the alternative options for water conservation are more expensive
than using traditional cooling towers and once through cooling using
fresh water sources. However, these economics are based on the current
price of raw water, and that price is expected to increase
dramatically, especially over the typical 50-60 year life of a new
power plant. In order to protect the capital investment that is made
when building a new plant, power companies must be assured of a
constant water source for the duration. The utility industry, and
ultimately the rate payers, will benefit from a ``toolbox'' of
potential solutions to allow for a best-fit solution to each plant for
water conservation.
In order to reduce these costs and have a variety of options to
choose from in a water constrained world of the future, extensive
research is needed. These research plans have been developed in
cooperation between the federal government (primarily DOE and the
National Labs) and EPRI.
Engineering and Economic Analysis: Although the
choice among various water-use technologies depends on a
variety of plant-specific considerations--including climate and
the cost of available water--clear guidelines for the economic
and operational consequences of alternative water conservation
technologies are not available. Thus there is a need to develop
an analytical framework to help guide plant decisions in the
selection of equipment and approaches for addressing water
needs.
Previous EPRI research has laid the groundwork for such a
framework by comparing the economics of various cooling
technologies in particular circumstances for fossil plants.
EPRI is planning additional research that will develop a
decision framework for utility planners to readily compare
costs and performance of alternative air and water cooling
systems for thermoelectric plants. Follow-on work will adapt
the framework for analysis of other water-conserving
technologies.
Improving Dry and Hybrid Cooling: Although there are
currently several power plants that use dry cooling, most are
gas-fired, combined-cycle units. There is only limited
experience with dry cooling on a large scale and under baseload
operations. In addition to the guidelines EPRI will be
developing for designing and operating these systems, there is
additional need for basic research to improve them. The
greatest research need is to reduce capital and operating cost
of these systems.
Reducing Water Losses from Cooling Towers: One of the
most promising ways to reduce water consumption from existing
systems is to capture the evaporative losses from cooling
towers, which could produce savings up to $1.2 million annually
for a 350-MW plant. A number of new options are currently being
explored. The Air to Air heat exchanger described earlier could
recapture about 15-30 percent of water exiting the cooling
tower. This technology is being prepared for full-scale field
testing. EPRI is also proposing additional research into
optimization of water use in existing cooling towers. While
these reductions are likely to be small, the cumulative effect
over entire plants could be quite significant. In addition,
efficiency gains in plant operations can have a similar effect
in providing additional power to the grid for the same cooling
water load.
Use of Degraded Water: To reduce the demand for fresh
water, plants in some regions are considering the use of
nontraditional sources of degraded water, such as treated
municipal effluent, contaminated groundwater, and agricultural
irrigation return water. A major obstacle, however, is the cost
of treating degraded water before it can be used in a power
plant. In addition to the technology research needs identified
before, additional research is needed to develop a better
inventory of potential sources and explore the feasibility of
matching these sources with cost-effective pretreatment
technologies.
Water Resources Management and Forecasting: Episodic
droughts and water shortages are an increasing problem in all
regions of the U.S. An example of needed research in this arena
is comparing the performance of available climate models to
improve the forecasting of droughts. Additional research would
also provide better decision-support tools, development of
effective strategies for coping with water shortages, and
integrated predictions of climate change impacts by
incorporating output from climate models into watershed models
to assess future water availability.
EPRI has estimated the total cost of such a research program as
$40 million over a 10-year period. The potential benefits of using the
technologies developed as part of such a program would be substantial
at the plant level through improved efficiency of plant operation and
significant reductions in water use. The technical potential exists to
increase water use efficiency and water conservation in thermoelectric
generation. Realizing this potential and the associated cost savings
will require a sustained research program dedicated to water
sustainability. Such a program could create a portfolio of new
technologies and practices that utilities could apply in site-specific
ways to achieve substantial benefits.
EPRI, the electric sector, DOE, the California Energy Commission
and others have invested in decades of research to bring us to this
point, and we are continuing to invest in the next generation of water
conserving technologies. This research investment today will have a
tremendous payoff for the industry and the country in the future.
Appendix A
Government Funding of EPRI Research on
Water Sustainability and Advanced Cooling Technologies
1. Use of Produced Water in Recirculating Cooling Systems at Power
Generating Facilities. NETL/USDOE. $735,000.
2. Technical Support for National Energy-Water Report to Congress.
Sandia/USDOE. $50,000.
3. Water/Energy Sustainable Residential Development. WERF/USEPA.
$850,000.
4. Ohio River Basin Regional Water Quality Trading Program. USEPA.
$995,000.
5. Alternative Cooling. California Energy Commission. $320,000.
6. El Dorado Spray Enhanced Cooling. California Energy Commission.
$252,000.
7. U.S. Wave Energy Resource Assessment. USDOE. $500,000.
8. Eel Downstream Passage. USDOE. $50,000.
9. Lab Evaluation of Cylindrical Wedge Wire Screens. USEPA. $150,000.
10. Field Evaluation of Wedge Wire Screens. USEPA. $300,000.
11. Field Evaluation of Strobe Lights for Fish Protection. USEPA
$200,000.
12. Engineering Design of Advance Hydropower Turbine USDOE. $600,000.
13. Turbine Design Support. New York State ERDA. $250,000.
14. California Hydropower Sedimentation Assessment. California Energy
Commission. $50,000.
15. Hydrokinetic Turbine Testing. USDOE. Proposal under review.
16. River In-steam Resource Assessment. USDOE. Proposal under review.
17. Live Cycle Cost Assessment of Wave and Hydrokinetic Power Plants.
Proposal under review.
Biography for Bryan J. Hannegan
Dr. Bryan Hannegan is Vice President, Environment and Generation
for the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). In this capacity, he
leads the teams responsible for EPRI's research into technologies and
practices that maintain a safe and reliable power plant fleet, develop
cleaner and more efficient power generation options for the future, and
reduce the environmental footprint associated with electric power
generation, delivery and use.
Prior to joining EPRI in September 2006, Hannegan served in a dual
capacity as the Chief of Staff for the White House Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ), and as an acting Special Assistant to the
President for Economic Policy. During his tenure, he led the
development of the President's Advanced Energy Initiative and assisted
federal agencies in their implementation of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT 2005). At CEQ, Hannegan also coordinated federal agency
policies and activities on a wide range of environmental issues
affecting air, water, land, and ecosystems.
Between 1999 and 2003, Hannegan served as Staff Scientist for the
U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, where he handled
energy efficiency, renewable energy, alternative fuels, and
environmental aspects of energy production and use. He put together the
first draft of what would become EPACT 2005, and was a principal staff
member for action on energy and climate legislation during the 107th
Congress.
A climate scientist, engineer and energy policy expert, Hannegan
holds a doctorate in Earth system science, a Master of Science in
engineering, both from the University of California-Irvine, and a
Bachelor of Science in meteorology from the University of Oklahoma.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Dr. Hannegan. Mr. Murphy.
STATEMENT OF MR. TERRY MURPHY, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER,
SOLARRESERVE
Mr. Murphy. Good morning, Chairman Baird and the Committee.
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here today.
I am the co-founder of SolarReserve, after a 27-year career
at Rocketdyne, where I was the Director of Advanced Programs.
So you might be able to say that actually I am a rocket
scientist. My executive responsibilities at Rocketdyne covered
a wide range of advanced power systems for both space and
terrestrial applications. We generated over 40 patents that
leveraged aerospace technologies into clean and renewable
terrestrial energy projects. So I appreciate the opportunity to
give my perspective on this important issue.
As the other members have already said, power-plant cooling
systems currently account for roughly one-third of our
freshwater withdrawals. This is a particular problem in the
Southwest where there is already a scarcity of water resources
and where solar thermal plants, the things that I am working
on, are expected to flourish. Solar-based electricity will be a
key enabler in achieving our renewable energy goals, but water
is also a key ingredient for electrical power generation, and
we have got to look at that with a total approach.
CSP power plants, concentrated solar power, capture the
sun's thermal energy by focusing mirrors onto thermal receivers
and then transforming that energy into steam, which in turn
then drives steam turbines. These turbines have an inertia in
them that allows them to go through the transients that you see
in photovoltaics and other types of things. So they have the
thermal capability to ride that through, and the utilities like
it because it matches the common stock, the rolling stock that
they currently have within their inventory.
Our technology at SolarReserve takes all that to the next
level in that we actually run these on molten salts, and so
instead of just trying to take the thermal energy and convert
it to steam, we are actually putting the energy into molten
salts which can retain that heat and operate these systems on
demand. And so now you have a power plant that operates like a
combined cycle plant that are predictable, have zero price
volatility, zero fuel costs, and can provide reasonable power
for generations to come.
As discussed here, all conventional steam turbines can be
dry cooled, and we have already talked about that. Most of them
are wet cooled, and you have already heard of people talking
about the water consumption on wet-cooled turbines.
Unfortunately, the air-cooled performance gets hit when it is
needed the most. And so when you go into an air-cooled system,
on the hottest days is when you are really seeing the
performance degradation. And so you can see up to 30 or 40
percent of degradation right when you need the power the most.
So we need to be very cautious about when we are moving
forward on, you know, how we put water and the water allocation
into these plants.
There is an interesting technology called hybrid technology
which is a combination of wet- and dry-cooled systems, and it
may be the best alternative for reducing water plant
consumption. Hybrid systems operate without water when the
ambient air temperature allows it to, and then if it gets
really hot, only then do they start consuming water. And if you
do that you can potentially have an 80 percent reduction in
your water.
So you know a lot has been talked about the cost. I think
one of the things the Committee has to look at is what is the
public policy? You know, I have never seen a power plant that
without being regulated would go to dry cooling. And so it
really becomes a question of how much is it going to cost and
the ability to have the rate payers pay for that. I mean, if we
have got to look at water that way, that is the way we have to
approach it.
There are a lot of things I can talk about through
questions and answers in advanced technologies on Closed-Loop
Brayton cycles, and it is a little bit intuitively backwards,
but the hotter you go, the easier it is. So technologies that
push temperature are a good thing for us because of the
rejection temperature.
I would also like to mention there is a system on the
FutureGen, on the advanced coal system, and there is maybe an
opportunity for the Committee to think about looking at a
FutureGen and solar on a CSP plant where I really believe we
have the technology to build the ideal power plant, and maybe
we can replicate something that is going on on the coal side.
So concentrated solar power is not going to solve all of
our energy problems, but they do represent the best utility
scale system for the American Southwest. We can run large steam
turbines, and when you start looking at the types of these
facilities, a single facility can generate 500 million kilowatt
hours on an annual basis and do that on demand, which would
reduce, you know, 500,000 pounds of CO2. So it can
definitely make an impact.
These new plants--we talked about aging plants. We could
replace the coal plants with facilities like these, and many
are in the works. Many are being permitted right now. You are
looking at about 500 jobs per year in construction for each one
of those plants.
So I look forward to answering your questions this morning
and hope that a brief exchange of our ideas that we can try and
put a little bit more light on this really important subject.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murphy follows:]
Prepared Statement of Terry Murphy
Good Morning Chairman Gordon and Members of the Committee.
Thank you for this opportunity to appear before you this morning to
discuss the linkage between Energy and Water. My name is Terry Murphy
and I'm the President and Founder of SolarReserve.
I co-founded SolarReserve, along with U.S. Renewables Group, after
a twenty-seven year career at Rocketdyne, where I was the Director of
Advanced Programs. My executive responsibilities at Rocketdyne covered
a wide range of advanced power systems for both space and terrestrial
applications. My business unit generated over 40 patents which
leveraged aerospace technologies into clean and renewable terrestrial
energy projects, so I appreciate the opportunity to offer my
perspective on water usage in the generation of electricity.
Solar Reserve is a U.S. company, based in Santa Monica, California,
which is leveraging U.S. technology, DOE investments and local
manufacturing to address our energy security and energy related
environmental concerns. SolarReserve has the exclusive worldwide rights
to the United Technologies, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne molten salt
power tower technology that was thoroughly validated by the Department
of Energy at the Solar Two pilot plant in Barstow, California from 1995
to 1999.
United Technologies, a Fortune 30 company, is standing behind this
technology by guaranteeing the performance of the system, which is key
enabler to successful project finance.
The critical components in this facility are engineered by the same
team at Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne that designed and built the
International Space Station solar power systems, the Space Shuttle Main
Engines, and the Apollo moon rocket propulsion systems. This is world-
class American technology generating American jobs, erecting critical,
desperately needed infrastructure and establishing a foothold to our
permanent energy independence.
Our unique, molten salt, solar power technology solves a key
fundamental challenge of renewable energy: storage. Wind only has a two
percent correlation with electrical energy demand in California, so
while building a wind farm may satisfy the Renewable Portfolio
Standards (RPS), it does very little to satisfy customer requirements.
Conventional solar, the rooftop photovoltaic (PV) that we are all
familiar with is more coincident with demand, but intermittent cloud
cover can cause it to drop off in milliseconds; and what's worse, turn
right back on just as quickly. While these systems have minimal water
use and are great for distributed rooftops, Utility scale deployment of
PV could introduce problems with grid stability and reliability due to
a rapid and unpredictable intermittent generation profile.
Conversely, a SolarReserve power plant generates electricity from
the sun's heat; this type of solar energy is known as Concentrated
Solar Power (CSP). These power plants capture the sun's thermal energy
by focusing thousands of heliostats (or mirrors) on to a central
receiver, converting and storing that energy in molten salt and then
transforming that energy into steam, which in turn drives turbines.
Unlike a photovoltaic power system, however, the molten salt CSP
technology allows electricity to be generated on demand and controlled
like any conventional power generator. These load following power
plants operate on a highly predictable and dependable fuel supply, the
sun! They have zero price volatility, zero fuel costs, and can provide
reasonably-priced renewable electricity for generations to come. The
technology does not require toxic operational fluids and last, but not
least, SolarReserve technology does not require natural gas or other
fossil fuels.
Like any power plant technology using a conventional steam turbine,
our system can be Air-Cooled, reducing overall plant water consumption
significantly relative to any water-cooled plant, particularly older
plants which use less efficient technologies or water-saving designs.
We believe, however, that we need appropriate public policy and
economic incentives to realize this opportunity in the competitive
marketplace since, relative to conventionally water-cooled generators,
air-cooled technologies have a significant impact on electricity
production efficiency and cost of electricity. In addition,
SolarReserve encourages collaborative research with the Department of
Energy into technologies that could further reduce our water
consumption and increase our plant performance, thereby putting us on
track to build the ``Ideal Power Plant.''
SolarReserve Power Towers can't solve all of our energy problems,
but I believe that they do represent the best utility scale renewable
energy system for the American Southwest. Because SolarReserve Power
Towers operate on demand, they are perfectly suited to replace the
aging coal-fired power plants that are currently operating in the
Southwest. SolarReserve already has fifteen projects in various stages
of development, with the first project in the United States slated for
Tonopah, Nevada. This system will provide 500,000,000 kW-hr per year of
clean, emission free, renewable energy and would abate over 500,000
tons of CO2 when compared to a coal fired power plant over
its operating life.
Our $700 million dollar Tonopah facility is scheduled to begin
construction in 2010. Solar Reserve hopes that this committee will
support our efforts to expedite the federal review and approval process
by working directly with the Department of Defense, the Federal
Aviation Administration and the Bureau of Land Management, so that this
project can avoid further costly delays. SolarReserve will employ
nearly 500 people during the two year construction period and will
operate with 50 permanent positions. In addition to Tonopah,
SolarReserve has significant development activities in California,
Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and several international efforts,
including two projects is in Spain.
I look forward to answering your questions this morning and hope
that our brief exchange of ideas, along with my written testimony will
provide you with a more comprehensive analysis and awareness of water
usage in power plants and the true potential of Concentrated Solar
Power technologies.
Biography for Terry Murphy
Mr. Murphy co-founded SolarReserve, along with U.S. Renewables
Group, after a twenty-seven year career at Rocketdyne, where he was the
Director of Advanced Power Systems and Business Development. His
executive responsibilities at Rocketdyne covered a wide range of
advanced power systems for both space and terrestrial applications. His
former organization continues to be a recognized technology leader in
concentrated solar power, liquid metal heat transport, systems
engineering of space power/propulsion systems, and nuclear power
generation.
Prior to the acquisition of Rocketdyne by United Technologies, Mr.
Murphy was the Division Director of Boeing Energy Systems. His business
unit generated over 40 patents which leveraged aerospace technologies
into clean and renewable terrestrial energy projects. Mr. Murphy
solidified many external partnerships, which led to the redesigned and
improved the reliability of gas turbines, coal gasification and
hydrogen production systems. Mr. Murphy was also responsible for a host
of technology contracts supporting the NASA exploration initiatives and
led the capture of a deep space radioisotope thermoelectric generator
power system award from the Department of Energy.
As the Director of Advanced Engine Programs and International
Business Development, Mr. Murphy formulated the design of the RS-68
booster engine for the Boeing Delta IV launch vehicle and initiated
several international teaming agreements for upper stage engines. The
RS-68 is the largest hydrogen engine in the world and was originally
developed for commercial launches, and has also been selected by NASA
for their next generation launch system due to its low cost and
demonstrated reliability.
Mr. Murphy earned a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical and
Astronautical Engineering from Purdue University and was honored in
2005 with their Outstanding Engineering Award. He also earned a Master
of Science in Systems Management from the University of Southern
California, is an Associate Fellow of the AIAA and has authored several
patents relating to concentrated solar power applications.
Chairman Baird. Thank you very much. The tradition of the
Committee is that if one of our witnesses is from the home
state of one of the Members, the Member gets to introduce that
witness. And I will recognize Mr. Inglis for that purpose.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the
opportunity to brag on General Electric and Rick Stanley. We
have 1,500 engineers and 1,500 production people in the GE
facility in Greenville, and Rick Stanley is the guy in charge
of all those engineers. And so he is a Notre Dame Bachelor's
degree holder who then worked for GE Aircraft, got a Master's
degree in aerospace engineering at the University of
Cincinnati, had lots of promotions with the company, and then
in 2005 came to his current post which is Vice President and
General Manager of Engineering Division for GE Energy. And it
is particularly exciting to have him here because he is working
on power generation, gas turbine, steam turbine, gasification,
controls, generators, wind, aeroderivatives, nuclear, solar and
services segments of General Electric. That is quite a
portfolio. He holds five patents himself, and we are very happy
to have him in Greenville and very excited about having General
Electric in Greenville making wind turbines and gas turbines
and figuring out ways to repower our lives. So Mr. Stanley?
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Before you begin
your testimony, let me just share with my colleagues, we have
about 12 minutes left on this vote. We will have time for Mr.
Stanley's testimony. Then, my friends, we are going to have to
recess probably for at least 45 minutes, possibly longer. We
had some nightmarish days a while back, and I apologize for
that.
So what we will do is I will tell my colleagues when we
have five minutes to give us plenty of time to go get this in
critical motion to adjourn vote, doubtless followed by
similarly critical votes, but nevertheless, we do have to make
that vote.
So Mr. Stanley, please proceed. I know you will do your
best to keep within five minutes, and then we will decide where
to go from there. Thank you.
Mr. Stanley. Will do. Thank you very much, Congressman.
STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD L. STANLEY, VICE PRESIDENT,
ENGINEERING DIVISION, GE ENERGY
Mr. Stanley. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,
I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the critical
link between energy and water.
I have four recommendations for public-private partnerships
to address this linkage. First, greater investments in water
reuse technologies to facilities in pilot new technologies;
second, federal support for research, development and
demonstration of high-efficiency natural gas turbine technology
as envisioned in H.R. 3029; third, increased research in system
integration of desalination processes; and finally, additional
research on large-scale demonstration of organic rankine cycle
technology for waste heat recovery.
Energy and water are co-dependent, and in its simplest
terms, energy is required for producing water and water is
required for the production of energy. In the United States,
demands for water related to electricity production are
expected to nearly triple from 1995 consumption levels.
Significant quantities of water are used throughout the power
generation cycle in boilers, cooling towers, and fuel gas and
emission treatments. With water treatment and reuse, important
reductions could be made in the amount of water consumed in
power generation.
GE is working to develop high-efficiency membrane materials
that will allow for through-puts that increase water flow by a
factor of 10-plus and further reduce energy costs. Achieving
these results requires advances in manufacturing technologies,
materials and processes, as well as the establishment of
facilities to pilot new technologies.
We can accomplish this most effectively through joint
government, industry and university initiatives. Wider
deployment of less water-intensive power generation
technologies and improving the efficiency of these technologies
represents another important opportunity to reduce water
consumption in power generation.
Currently natural gas combined cycle power plants represent
about 20 percent of the country's electric generation. Now, on
a per-megawatt basis, natural gas combined cycle plants utilize
less than 50 percent of the water used by our pulverized coal
plants which comprise the largest percentage of U.S. power
generation capability today.
Today's most advanced gas turbines are capable of reaching
up to 60 percent efficiency. Aggressive technology advancement
can lead to 65 percent efficiency. Now this is a stretch goal,
but one that is worth aiming for because a one percentage point
improvement in efficiency applied to GE's existing F-class
fleet in the United States would result in CO2
emission reductions of 4.4 million tons per year while
providing savings of more than $1 billion per year in fuel
costs, all while using far less water than alternate
technologies.
GE Energy has invested over $1 billion in the gas turbine
technology during the past three years, but more work is
needed. The Department of Energy can partner with U.S. private
industry to reduce the inherent risk in the required research
and development efforts. H.R. 3029, introduced by
Representative Paul Tonko and referred to this committee
provides the basis for such a partnership. GE commends
Representative Tonko and applauds the House of Representatives
for including this proposal in the recently passed American
Clean Energy and Security Act.
For desalination applications, GE's LMS 100 aero-derivative
gas turbine has heat rejection that can ideally be integrated
with a desalination process to produce clean water as well as
power while achieving substantial savings in total power usage.
Further research is needed in system integration to achieve
these benefits at a low cost.
The organic rankine cycle offers the opportunity to reduce
dramatically the need for water and energy production. This
technology utilizes an organic solvent as a working fluid to
extract power from low-grade waste heat in a gas turbine. The
key advantage is that it is a closed cycle, and it does not
utilize water. GE is working to evaluate this technology.
However, there are significant needs for development and
demonstration on a large scale before this opportunity can
become a reality.
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the nexus between power
generation and water usage is one of the world's most complex
and critical public policy challenges. GE believes that the
Congress can play an important role in bringing focus and
facilitating partnerships between the U.S. Department of Energy
and the private sector in areas including water reuse, gas
turbine technology advancement, integration of desalination,
and organic rankine cycle technology for gas turbine
applications.
Thank you, and I would be pleased to answer any of your
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Stanley follows:]
Prepared Statement of Richard L. Stanley
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, I am Rick Stanley,
Vice President of GE Energy's Engineering Division. I appreciate the
opportunity to testify today on the link between energy and water and
technologies that can enable us to better manage these interrelated
resources. GE has long recognized the connection between energy and
water, and commends the Committee for its efforts to explore and make
progress on this critically important topic. In my testimony today, I
will address three major points: the depth of the challenges
surrounding the use of water in power generation, the role of current
technology in addressing these challenges, and the need for targeted
research and development through public-private partnerships.
Background
GE is a global leader in power generation technology and products
with more than 100 years of industry experience. In 2008, GE's water
and power generation businesses were integrated to better meet customer
needs and address significant global challenges. Our team of more than
30,000 employees operates in 140 countries around the world, and had
2008 revenues of $23 billion. GE Power & Water offers a diverse
portfolio of products and services, including renewable energy
technologies such as wind, solar, and biomass, and fossil power
generation, gasification, nuclear, oil & gas, transmission, and smart
meters. GE Power & Water likewise has technologies for water treatment
and use, including process chemicals, water chemicals, equipment and
membranes.
At GE, we see the importance of achieving water and energy
efficiencies across our own portfolio of businesses. In 2005, GE
launched a global environmental initiative called ecomagination. We
have committed to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent on
a normalized basis (allowing for projected growth of GE's businesses),
or one percent in absolute terms from 2006 to 2012. In addition, we
have committed to reducing our water consumption by an absolute 20
percent during the same time frame. At the same time, we're working
with our customers around the world to help them achieve similar
efficiencies.
In addition, GE is doubling its level of investment in clean
research and development from $700 million in 2005 to more than $1.5
billion by the year 2010. This research effort is focused on helping
our customers meet pressing energy and water challenges.
The Energy-Water Nexus
It could be said our economy runs on water. Unfortunately, water
demand already exceeds supply in many parts of the world. And, as the
world's population continues to grow at an unprecedented rate, many
more areas are expected to experience this imbalance in the near
future.\1\ The situation is no different here in the United States,
where most states expect water shortages during the next decade.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Greenfacts.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy and water are co-dependent. In simplest terms, energy is
required for producing water and water is required in the production of
energy. Globally, the demand for both of these crucial resources is
projected to grow at an alarming pace, with energy demand doubling\2\
and water demand tripling\3\ in the next 20 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE/EIA-0384 (2004).
\3\ NETL 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we prepare to meet the future electricity demands here in the
U.S., corresponding demands for water related to electricity production
are expected nearly to triple from 1995 consumption levels. In
addition, the deployment of technologies to meet expected carbon
emission requirements will increase water consumption by an additional
one to two billion gallons per day.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ NETL 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water reuse represents a significant opportunity to achieve
reductions in water consumption for power generation. It is estimated
that 45 percent of freshwater withdrawals in the United States is used
for industrial purposes.\5\ And nearly 90 percent of all industrial
water--or 39 percent of all freshwater withdrawals--is used for the
generation of power.\6\ Although power generation facilities in the
United States today withdraw 136 billion gallons per day (GPD), they
only consume four billion GPD through evaporation and other means. The
vast majority of the water is used for once-through cooling water
applications, and then returned to the receiving stream. Once-through
cooling, however, consumes large amounts of energy to pump the water,
and it also elevates the temperature of the receiving stream.\7\ It is
often less expensive to pull water from a river or the ground than it
is to reuse it.\8\ In addition, many power plants in the United States
use potable water from municipal systems to meet their cooling and
other needs.\9\ This places strains on community systems. If the
cooling water needs could be met with reused wastewater, significant
benefits would result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004.
\6\ USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004.
\7\ USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004.
\8\ USGS, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2000, USGS
Circular 1268, March 2004.
\9\ Wade Miller, Executive Director, WateReuse Association (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another opportunity for reductions in water consumption for power
generation is in selection of less water-intensive power generation
technologies and in improving the efficiencies of those technologies.
For example, the use of advanced gas turbines in power generation
applications contributes to water savings. Key applications include the
use of natural gas combined cycle (NGCC) power plants and integrated
gasification combined cycle (IGCC).
NGCC plants currently account for about 20 percent of total
electric generation in the United States. They are a highly efficient,
flexible source of clean and reliable electric power, and can be
constructed and installed in relatively short periods of time in
comparison with other forms of electric generation. On a per megawatt
basis, NGCC plants utilize less than 50 percent of the water used by
pulverized coal power plants--which comprise the largest percentage of
U.S. power generation capability today. Wider deployment of natural gas
combined cycle plants--and technology advances to make those plants
more efficient--will have a dramatic impact on water usage for power
generation in the United States.
IGCC is a power generation technology that gasifies coal to remove
pollutants and capture carbon prior to combustion. IGCC technology is
commercially ready to utilize the abundant coal resources here in the
U.S., with both lower emissions and reduced water consumption. GE is
building the first fully commercial IGCC plant at Duke's Edwardsport,
Indiana facilities. This new GE IGCC generation plant will utilize 30
percent less water and offer significant emissions reduction benefits
in comparison with a traditional pulverized coal facility. GE also is
working with the University of Wyoming to develop advanced coal
gasification technology, including a unique dry feed injection process.
The development of this dry feed process will deliver IGCC's
environmental benefits utilizing lower rank coals from Wyoming,
Colorado, Montana, Utah, and South and North Dakota, while capturing
the 30 percent reduction in water consumption.
Beyond the fact that NGCC and IGCC have less intensive water
consumption, continued advancements in gas turbine technology to
achieve greater fuel efficiency will also reduce water consumption per
megawatt of power produced.
The following sections discuss the challenges and research being
performed to enable cost-effective water reuse and improved gas turbine
efficiency.
Water Reuse Challenges
Throughout the cycle of power generation, significant quantities of
waters are used in boilers, cooling towers, and gas fuel and emission
treatments. Throughout this process the temperature, pH and contaminant
levels of the water change significantly, bringing tremendous
challenges to any water treatment scheme. The waters can contain a
significant amount of oils, dissolved solids, minerals, and potentially
ammonia, heavy metals and selenium. In order to reuse the waters in the
process systems without damaging equipment, the waters must be cleaned
to appropriate levels. This typically involves chemical treatments,
water filtration, biological processes to purify the water, and often a
thermal treatment to clean the waters. GE is investing in technologies
throughout this cycle to make water treatment more cost-effective and
robust, encouraging reuse and/or ecologically-friendly discharge. These
treatments must be able to handle wide variability in water conditions,
and be reliable and easily maintained.
During fuel preparation and emission cleaning, waters utilized
undergo significant change in temperature and pH, and pick up
contaminants that may include mercury, nitrates, salts, metal
compounds, and selenium. Broad portfolios of technologies must be
developed to allow customers to find the appropriate solution for their
process in order to effectively reuse the water.
Water Reuse Technology
Technology used to treat water includes filtration products to
remove particulate and organic matter, and membranes to remove
dissolved minerals and organic matter that are present in essentially
all natural water sources. State-of-the-art filtration products include
hollow fiber microfiltration (MF) and ultrafiltration (UF) as well as
spiral-wound nanofiltration (NF) and reverse osmosis (RO) membranes. In
order to drive cost and energy efficiencies, investment in technology
development will be required to meet future demands on water resources
to meet growing needs in industrial and energy applications. In the
near-term, significant focus is being applied to higher-flux membrane
systems that will enable larger water production for each unit area of
membrane. This will result in lower energy consumption per unit volume
of water treated. The integration of advanced filtration systems for
pretreatment for RO systems will further enable reductions in plant
footprint, while simultaneously allowing for higher-throughput due to
an improved ability to remove contaminants that are harmful to RO
systems and currently require more conservative designs.
Water scarcity requires high-recovery of product water in the
removal of dissolved minerals from stressed, saline aquifers, such as
in the Southwest USA, or for water reuse applications. GE is developing
advanced technologies in electrically-driven processes for the removal
of dissolved ions from these water sources that will allow for recovery
of greater than 85-90 percent of feed water as product water. Not only
will these systems enable improved efficiencies in water-management,
they will also accomplish this at significantly reduced energy
consumption as compared to current electrically-driven systems. This is
being accomplished through advances in power electronics and novel
energy-conversion systems. Furthermore, integration of renewable energy
sources and advanced energy recovery devices will further reduce
environmental impact and overall cost of operation by significantly
lowering energy requirements.
Anticipated increased water needs, coupled with projected
shortages, require innovations that enable substantially higher
efficacy in wastewater recovery and reuse. GE intends to address these
needs through the development of high-efficiency membrane materials
that will allow for throughputs that increase water-flux by a factor of
10+, and further reduce energy costs and system footprint requirements.
These innovations will be achieved through advances in manufacturing
technologies and processes, as well as materials of composition,
including advances in nano-materials. A major barrier to continuous
operation and maintenance of water flux is membrane surface fouling by
organic matter and mineral deposits. These effectively blind the
surface and prevent flow through the membranes, which also leads to
increased energy consumption. Advances in nano-materials can increase
membrane capabilities in fouling control and increased flux with
reduced energy consumption for water produced. Through novel
incorporation of nano-materials into a membrane matrix, it is
anticipated that biological growth can be mitigated. It is also
expected that significant increases in membrane surface areas can be
achieved with no increase in device size. Specifically designed and
tailored nano-materials that can prevent mineral deposits from forming
could also be envisioned. There are currently joint industry/university
research programs in this highly-specialized technical area in Europe
and other parts of the world. It is imperative that these capabilities
be developed here to ensure that the United States remains at the
technical forefront of this vital high-technology industry.
Investments in the technologies and establishment of facilities to
pilot new technologies will be needed to advance the state-of-the-art.
The complexity of the waters and resulting complexity of the treatment
systems will continue to be a barrier to broad adoption of water reuse.
Joint government-industry-university initiatives will allow the power
generation community to advance the knowledge of solution
effectiveness, cost and reliability, allowing adoption to be more rapid
and widespread.
Advanced Gas Turbine Technologies
As the world leader in industrial gas turbines, GE has always been
at the forefront of technology advancement that improves gas turbine
efficiency. As efficiency is improved, more output is achieved for the
same fuel consumption and water usage. Therefore, improvements in gas
turbine efficiency yield reduced water consumption per MW of power
output. To improve gas turbine efficiency, GE conducts research in
technologies such as aerodynamics, aeromechanics, compressor, high-
temperature materials and coatings, heat transfer, combustion,
controls, and manufacturing. In a current cost share program with the
U.S. Department of Energy, GE is working on technology advancements for
hydrogen fueled gas turbines that will be used when carbon capture is
used on IGCC coal power plants.
Current NGCC power plants are capable of reaching up to 60 percent
efficiency. That means 60 percent of the thermal energy contained in
the fuel is converted to useful power output. Aggressive Gas Turbine
technology advancement can lead to 62 percent efficiency and define
future technologies needed to get to 65 percent efficiency. The
efficiency gain would not just apply to future power plants, but many
pieces of the new technologies could be retrofitted into the existing
gas turbine power generation fleet. General Electric's E and F class
turbines are two of the backbones of the installed U.S. fleet, with
about 450 E class and 560 F class units deployed throughout the
country. A one-percentage point improvement in efficiency applied to
GE's existing F Class fleet would result in CO2 emissions
reductions of 4.4 million tons per year while providing savings of more
than a billion dollars per year in fuel costs.
Today, GE Energy is making significant investments to advance
technology and develop new products and capabilities. Over the last
three years, GE Energy has invested over $1 billion into gas turbine
products and technology. However, much more is needed to develop the
new technologies to reach the game changing level of 62 percent
efficiency. There is a distinct role for government, specifically the
Department of Energy, to partner with U.S. private industry to reduce
the inherent risk in the research and development efforts required to
reach such an aggressive target. Besides the national benefits that
will be realized for the U.S. in terms of water usage and emissions
reductions, a public-private partnership on gas turbine efficiency will
likewise have substantial economic and employment benefits, as well as
benefits for our national competitiveness in the global market for new
technologies. The fact that GE's foreign competitors receive funding
from their governments poses a significant challenge to the United
States' traditional preeminence and leadership in gas turbine
technology development.
H.R. 3029, introduced by Representative Paul Tonko and referred to
this Subcommittee, provides the basis for a future partnership between
industry and government to make the next big leap in gas turbine
efficiency. GE commends Rep. Tonko for his efforts, and also applauds
the House of Representatives for including this proposal in the
recently-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R.
2454. Because of the magnitude of the technological risks, a
government-industry partnership is needed to address challenges
inherent in moving the efficiency benchmark to 65 percent, in areas
including development of high temperature materials, improvements in
combustion technology, advanced controls, and high-performance
compressor technology.
Highly skilled engineers located at GE's Global Research Center and
GE Energy facilities in Schenectady, NY, Greenville, SC, Houston, TX,
and Cincinnati, OH will remain at the forefront of GE's efforts to
advance gas turbine technology. GE Energy has had an outstanding
collaboration with the U.S. DOE Fossil Energy team, including the
National Energy Technology Laboratory. Our recommendation in the area
of gas turbine technology is that the DOE, in addition to its current
coal/IGCC gas turbine focus, be authorized and funded to also pursue
advances in natural gas fueled gas turbine technologies.
The remainder of the testimony will focus on specific technologies
identified by the Committee as areas of interest.
Production of Clean Water--Desalination
Desalination refers to any process that removes excess salt and
minerals from water. Water desalination and its integration with power
plants is an economically attractive approach to improving overall
system efficiency. There are, in general, two approaches to
desalination--Reverse Osmosis (RO) and Multi-effect Distillation (MED).
Both processes can utilize waste heat from power plants to operate more
efficiently in producing clean water.
GE is taking leadership role in integrating desalination with power
generation equipment. GE is working with external partners to promote
use of gas turbines for use in desalination applications for both MED
and RO processes. For example, GE's LMS100 aeroderivative gas turbine
has heat rejection that can be ideally integrated with a desalination
process to produce clean water as well as power. GE's Global Research
Center has also developed low cost approaches to desalination that can
be utilized in next-generation desalination applications.
The main short-term technical challenges are in optimizing the
overall system efficiency to produce power and water at the lowest
cost. The MED process requires significant heat input, and proper
integration with gas turbines can mean substantial savings in total
power usage.
GE would support research in system integration of desalination and
power generation processes and development of the next generation
technologies required to achieve this integration at low cost.
Organic Rankine Cycle--Power From Waste Heat Without Water Usage
Organic rankine cycle technology utilizes an organic solvent as a
working fluid in a rankine thermodynamic cycle to extract power from
low-grade waste heat. This is similar to a steam cycle, but can recover
lower grade heat since the organic solvent has a lower boiling point.
There are several organic rankine cycle applications for heat recovery
in geothermal and gas turbine applications. The key advantage is that
it is a closed cycle, and it does not utilize water.
GE is working with external industry leaders in evaluating this
technology for gas turbine applications. Internally, GE is trying to
develop next-generation organic rankine cycle technology that can be
more efficient and also less expensive. This technology is already
being used in the Oil and Gas industry for power generation in pipeline
applications. For simple cycle gas turbines used in peaking
applications, this technology can potentially recover heat to produce
electricity without using incremental water.
The key technology hurdle is reducing the capital cost of the
equipment. Currently, the capital cost is 20-30 percent higher than a
steam cycle. Current technology utilizes one fluid to recover waste
heat from gas turbines and a second fluid to serve as the working
fluid. Future systems may utilize a single organic solvent to recover
waste heat and serve directly as the working fluid. Technology also
needs to be demonstrated in a bigger scale for gas turbine
applications.
Use of GE Jenbacher Gas Engines In Wastewater Treatment Systems
The process of treating municipal and industrial wastewaters from
homes and facilities across the United States is a tremendous
undertaking, involving complex operations and processes to treat flows
and return treated water to the environment. During these processes,
chemical and biological constituents are removed and separated from
wastewater, producing treated effluent that often is cleaner than the
bodies of water into which it is discharged. The removed constituents,
energy-rich biosolids, are then subsequently treated, in some cases
anaerobically (without oxygen) to be used in various manners. The by-
product is a methane-rich biogas that can be used to produce
electricity and heat.
There are over 16,000 municipal wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs)
in the United States, and approximately 540 of these plants
anaerobically treat their biosolids.\10\ The biogas produced by this
treatment process is most often flared at the facility. The United
States Environmental Protection Agency published a report in April 2007
that stated that less than 20 percent of the facilities with anaerobic
digestion used their biogas for electricity or heat production.\11\ The
USEPA estimated that if each of these plants were to convert the biogas
to electricity, it would produce 340 MW of renewable energy and remove
2.3 million metric tons of carbon dioxide--the equivalent of emissions
from 430,000 automobiles--from the atmosphere.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ United States Environmental Protection Agency Combined Heat
and Power Partnership, ``Opportunities for and Benefits of Combined
Heat and Power at Wastewater Treatment Facilities'' at page 1 (April
2007). This report is available at: http://www.epa.gov/CHP/documents/
wwtf-opportunities.pdf
\11\ Id.
\12\ Id. at pages 7-8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Electric's Jenbacher gas reciprocating engines provide an
effective solution for wastewater professionals looking to optimize
efficiency through the production of renewable energy. With more than
50 years' experience, GE Jenbacher has an extensive installed base of
over 460 units running at WWTPs, primarily in Europe where this
technology application has been used for years. The GE Jenbacher gas
engine product portfolio includes a wide variety of engine sizes
ranging from an electrical production of 0.33 MW to 2.70 MW on
anaerobic, digester gases. Additionally, the GE Jenbacher gas engines
present some of highest electrical and thermal efficiencies along with
lowest emissions available. Combined with the use of waste heat from
the engines, the total electrical and thermal efficiencies from GE
Jenbacher gas engines can exceed 85 percent.
Depending on a wastewater treatment plant's processes and
operations, the conversion of biogas to electricity and heat can amount
to a reduction of 30 percent--70 percent of a plant's energy costs--the
second leading cost (after personnel) facing wastewater treatment
operators today. By way of example, the Strass Plant in Austria,
located approximately four miles from the GE Jenbacher factory, is the
shining star for energy efficiency at WWTPs--currently producing 120
percent of the energy demand at the plant. The Strass Plant produces
electricity to power all of its processes, and returns 20 percent of
its demand to the grid from electricity produced by one GE Jenbacher
J208 engine.
As this technology continues to gain interest in the United States,
GE Jenbacher gas engines will continue to be a leader in technology and
research improvements. Future research will be dedicated to increasing
electrical efficiencies, improving engine heat rates, and reducing
emissions, such as Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) and CO2. A
commitment to these endeavors will allow wastewater professionals to
continue to protect their citizens by focusing on meeting their
wastewater treatment requirements while saving millions of dollars on
energy costs.
Conclusion
In summary, Mr. Chairman, the nexus between power generation and
water usage is one of the world's most complex and critical public
policy challenges. GE commends you and your colleagues for your
leadership in exploring the issues, and for your particular emphasis on
the role of technology solutions. GE is proud of its work in this area,
and we believe that the Congress and this committee can do a great deal
to promote progress by bringing focus and facilitating partnerships
between the U.S. DOE and the private sector. Our specific
recommendations are:
Greater investments in water reuse technologies and
establishment of facilities to pilot new technologies to
advance the state-of-the-art in membrane capabilities.
Additional research, development and demonstration of
high efficiency natural gas turbine technology, as envisioned
in H.R. 3029.
Increased research in system integration of
desalination and power generation processes and development of
the next generation technologies required to achieve this
integration at low cost.
Additional research on and larger scale integration
and demonstration of organic rankine cycle technology for gas
turbine applications.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
Biography for Richard L. Stanley
A graduate of the University of Notre Dame with a Bachelor's degree
in Mechanical Engineering, Rick joined GE Aircraft Engines in 1980.
With GE, he pursued his Masters Degree in Aerospace Engineering from
the University of Cincinnati and is a graduate of GE's Advanced
Engineering Program. During his career, he has held numerous
assignments in turbomachinery blade, rotor, structures and combustion
design and systems engineering. He has participated on many GE Aviation
product designs, including the F110, F120, CF34, CF6, GE90, GEnx, T700,
and F404 aircraft engines.
Increasingly responsible roles include Engineering Manager for the
Structures Center of Excellence, General Manager for the Combustion &
Configuration Center of Excellence, General Manager for Engine Systems
Design and Integration Department, and General Manager of the CF6
Project Department. In 2003, Rick was elected a corporate officer of
the General Electric company and promoted to Vice President and General
Manager of the Aviation Engineering Division.
In November 2005, Rick was appointed Vice President and General
Manager of the Engineering Division for GE Energy, with
responsibilities for research, development, technology and product
design activities spanning the Power Generation Gas Turbine, Steam
Turbine, Gasification, Controls, Generator, Wind, Aeroderivatives,
Nuclear, Solar and Services segments.
He has been awarded five patents, is an Associate Fellow of the
AIAA, and is a member of the ASME. He is the 2005 recipient of the
Distinguished Alumni Engineering award from the University of Notre
Dame.
Discussion
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Stanley. Here is our
situation. This is a motion to adjourn. We have seven minutes
left to go, and out of respect for the witnesses, I am going to
stay here and miss this vote. I will suffer the consequences of
missing a motion to adjourn vote, but I recognize my colleagues
may wish to make this vote if they want. My understanding is
the next vote will likely be a 15-minute vote, so my choice
here by sticking, I get 20 minutes with the witnesses. Now Mr.
Inglis is going to go do this. With his consent, we will just
continue the hearing. If my colleagues want to go, that is
fine. We will then reconvene after this series. So when I
finally have to go to the first vote, we will reconvene after
this here. So we have about 15 minutes or so at least to have a
discussion. Again, it is up to each individual Member whether
they want to head for this vote or not.
I want to thank Mr. Stanley for acknowledging Mr. Tonko's
excellent work on the legislation referred to, and we are
thrilled that it was included in the energy bill. His long and
distinguished background in energy has served this committee
and this country well. Mr. Lujan, thank you for your presence
as well.
So Members are free. We have six minutes to go if you feel
you want to make the vote. I will see you over there. But I
will proceed with questioning at this point.
The Effects of Population Growth
Again, thanks to all the witnesses for your outstanding
comments. Let me introduce another variable that hasn't I don't
think been mentioned to a great degree, and I am very curious
about it. If memory serves me correctly, the recent census data
suggests that the population growth in the next 40 years, U.S.
population growth, is projected at around 139 million. That is
an enormous addition in terms of demand on every portion of our
infrastructure. And yet, I almost never hear it factored into
energy, and in this case energy-water calculations, and it
seems to me that the combination of just consumption for
housing, for hydration, for irrigation and then in this point
here, the nexus between energy and water, to what extent is
this projected population growth being factored into our energy
projections and/or our energy-water consumption projections and
availability projections?
Dr. Hannegan. Mr. Chairman, thanks for that question. It is
really at the heart of the challenge when we look at water
sustainability. One of my comments in my testimony was that at
a fundamental level, in addition to the amount of water use by
the population themselves, there is water use by the energy
production that's demanded, in the base line that EIA puts
forth, they project an increase in generation. That has to be
met by an increasingly cleaner mix of resources. Many of those,
including central station solar, nuclear, coal with carbon
capture and storage, biofuels, both for transport and power, we
are talking about some fairly thirsty applications. And so I
think one of the challenges to the power sector is we recognize
that people need water. We recognize that agriculture and food
production needs water. Power generation tends to come at the
end of the line. And so it really places an imperative on the
need to get advanced cooling and waterless cooling technologies
right for cooling power plants, and I think that adds urgency
to this issue and the need to get the research and development
going at a much faster rate than it is today.
Chairman Baird. Would it be fair to also suggest that the
increase in human direct demand, and indirect through
agriculture for water, would produce an additional incentive
for less water-intensive energy generation?
Dr. Hannegan. Absolutely. I think if you look at what is
going on in the Colorado River Basin out in the Southwest, you
see that happening today. We saw that in the Southeast during
the difficulty, the droughts in 2006, and we see it anywhere in
the world that water resources are placed under pressure. It is
generally the energy production that has to adjust. If you look
at the power plants in South Africa where water is at a
premium, nearly all of them operated by Eskom operate on dry
cooling technologies but at a much higher cost, and that
obviously impacts job creation, economic development and
availability of power for people to live their lives.
Chairman Baird. Any other person wishing to comment on that
line of questioning?
Mr. Murphy. Well, yes, I just would--you know, not only do
you have that, but it is exacerbated by the fact that you do
have some of the old facilities. So you have this double thing
going on. But I think it is also a great opportunity that you
can replace the coal plants and do this build-up as this
country moves forward. The technologies are there as, you know,
everyone talked about. There are improvements that can be made,
but we can put together sensible systems and approach this
thing.
You know, up until now people haven't put that water
equation really into the power plants, and it is great that the
Committee is putting some light on that and that if we really
start thinking about that, we can design power facilities with,
like I said, hybrid-type cooling. And it is a cost issue. It is
not really as much really a technical issue as it is, how do
new facilities get permitted and how does that additional cost
as a power developer, how does that get factored into saying,
okay, you know, that has to go to the rate payer?
Consideration of Water in Energy Legislation
Chairman Baird. As you know, we passed through the House
the major energy bill right before the July 4 recess focused
predominantly on carbon. There is obviously offered by your
testimony today to the degree that the new energy bill
incentivizes renewables, wind, photovoltaic, and others, the
water demand may be somewhat lessened naturally versus, say, a
thermal-based coal plant. Would we have been wiser or would we
be wise as we move through the conference and the work with the
Senate to add some factor, a greater discussion of water
consumption? I don't know how we would do it, but I just put
this out there as a thought question. What would that look like
if we did that?
Dr. Johnson. Mr. Chairman, if I might comment.
Chairman Baird. Please, Dr. Johnson.
Dr. Johnson. First of all, I think it is an excellent point
you raise, and I think globally if you look at where the
population of the world is going by the mid-century, it is
supposed to be up to I think around nine billion, which I think
will place a tremendous pressure on these resources. Plus if we
don't do something, which we are taking the first step with the
bill in terms of carbon emissions, that is going to impact the
climate change tremendously as well. I think in your second
question, thinking about how we might do that, some of the
recent appliance standards with regard to dishwashers and
washing machines have both energy and water usage in them, and
I think that is important.
I think the biggest thing is figuring out how we can change
behavior in terms of capturing the waste, the amount of water
that we use, you know, from toilets to running faucets with
toothbrushes. It is a significant amount of water that we waste
and a significant amount of lighting and electricity that we
waste that is not needed. And I think that that is the low-
hanging fruit that we have to figure out a way to get after.
And I think standards, building standards, that affect energy
use as well as water use are important, and we are moving in
that direction trying to establish these standards. But that
would be very helpful to have policies in that direction.
Chairman Baird. Thank you.
Dr. Hannegan. Mr. Chairman, related to that, there is an
awful lot of inefficiency with water use in today's existing
plants as my colleague, Mr. Murphy, has put forward. A lot of
these existing plants are also going to be looking at new
pollution controls to meet more stringent air quality
standards. If there are changes in the way that we are dealing
with coal combustion products as a result of recent incidents,
that also is going to be an opportunity to modify those
facilities. These facilities are going to have a number of
different things that are going to be happening concurrently,
we hope, but maybe separately and on different time scales. It
is worth thinking about how do we treat those existing units as
we move from where we are today to the low-carbon future we all
want to get to in the future and whether there is an
opportunity to look at sort of an integrated redo of some of
these existing units. We are looking at bringing concentrated
solar right onto an existing facility as a way of kind of
hybridizing that power plant. Well, while you are making that
modification, you might want to do something to improve your
water use efficiency. And there are technologies that are on
the shelf today that we can do and there are tests of
technologies that are right at the cusp of being
commercializable that we can do as well.
So I think you have an opportunity. I know Senator Bingaman
and the Energy Committee staff on the Senate side have energy
and water-related provisions in the bills that they have been
working on, and so there may be an opportunity when you ideally
get to conference to have a good conversation about how you put
it all together.
Ms. Mittal. Mr. Chairman, our work on biofuels and
electricity basically tells us that there are three trade-offs
that you are making. This is a three-dimensional equation. You
have got energy trade-offs, you have got water trade-offs, and
you have got carbon trade-offs. And the choices that you make,
you are either going to be positive on one, negative on
another. There is no perfect equation because in each choice
that you make, you are either positive on one front and
negative on another. So these are the types of things that our
work is showing, and that you do have to factor water in.
One of the things that we are looking at in our
thermoelectric work is that states that have primary
responsibility for siting power plants are starting to take a
harder look at their water impacts, especially in those states
where there are long-term water shortages, where they are
dealing with water constraints. Whereas other states where they
have not had a history of water shortages, they don't have the
more detailed processes to look at the water impacts of power
plants. So it is again, as water supplies become more
constrained, we think people are going to become more aware of
how important it is to look at these three aspects.
Chairman Baird. Excellent point.
Mr. Stanley. Let me just say one last comment on that. I
think at the highest level, having a national water reuse
initiative would be something worth considering. Other
countries have done this. I believe Israel has a 70 percent
goal for water reuse. Singapore just passed an initiative for
30 percent as their goal for water reuse. Having a national
goal for water reuse at whatever level it is--I think we are at
six percent today as a country--would drive more technology
toward water reuse, that would accelerate technology, I think,
into water reuse and a study of how we do waste water and how
we can bring some of that back. I do think it is a worthy
discussion and a worthy goal that ought to be addressed.
Climate Change Impacts
Chairman Baird. I appreciate that. There is this
relationship between what I refer to lethal overheating of the
planet--I have said many times in this committee that global
warming sounds like a nice thing and lethal overheating sounds
like a bad thing, and acidification of our oceans, as Dr.
Johnson said, is also a bad thing, especially when one
considers that the oceans provide 50 percent of our oxygen.
Lest anybody think this climate change thing is insignificant,
ask yourself how you would like to do without 50 percent of
your oxygen, and it is not a good thing. But one of the impacts
is clearly availability of water. As we see, and we moved
through this committee legislation to establish a National
Climate Service, the idea being we would use our best available
knowledge to try to make predictions about climatic events and
how they would impact various aspects of our lives and our
economy. And it seems that energy, particularly in light of
this hearing, is critically impacted by that. You, in your
testimony, several of you offered images where water levels in
lakes or rivers, et cetera, had declined, and hence, the
available energy production which is water dependent also
declined. How is that being factored in as we look at--you
know, we are trying to reduce those impacts, but how is that
being factored in?
I tell you what. I am going to ask you to hold that
question, and I am going to recognize my colleague. Mr. Lujan
has returned from the vote. I am grateful that he did, and so
please hold my question and I will recognize Mr. Lujan for five
minutes. Thank you.
Mr. Lujan. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. We can see
the efficiency of being able to move back and forth quickly and
sometimes the benefits that it pays.
I can't thank you enough, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing. Coming from New Mexico and understanding the
importance of being able to support a generation thinking
outside of the box and looking to how we can embrace innovation
as we move forward in each of these areas, especially the
importance of water in the part of the country that I represent
and what we can do to help accelerate this.
Funding Public-Private Partnerships
One question that I have, Dr. Johnson, is having had a
chance to visit with Secretary Chu and understanding the
importance of moving forward Centers of Excellence and really
embracing the technology, the breakthroughs that are taking
place at our National Laboratories, the collaboration that is
taking place at Sandia National Laboratories already, some of
the explorations taking place up in Los Alamos, whether we are
looking to see what we can do to be able to recycle water
through exploration for oil and gas, some of the breakthroughs
associated with storage and to truly understand what Mr. Murphy
has done with storage capabilities and how that can break
through, but you can tell me, Dr. Johnson, is there any
thoughts as to how we can move forward without the existing
requirements of the private match? You know, there is a 20
percent match that is required from the public-private
partnership to support the laboratory's research in many of
these areas. Understanding that these breakthroughs will be
game-changing for everyone, is there any thought to how we may
be able to use that program or modify it so that we can
encourage some of the partnerships in the event that we don't
have that, the ability for some of those collaborations?
Dr. Johnson. Thank you very much for the question. First of
all, I firmly believe that these problems are so complex that
we need to bring together the best and the brightest from the
labs, from the private sector, from the universities, and to
that end, we need to encourage them as much as possible. The
work going on in the labs is not subject to the 20 percent
match. The universities would be and industry would be as well.
So it is not an issue for the labs, per se, but in terms of
bringing together these teams and partners, sometimes it can be
an issue, and we will be looking at what is appropriate to
encourage these kind of relationships as we move forward.
One of the ways that we are trying to bring together all
the best and brightest in one place to address these very
complicated issues are through the energy innovation hubs that
have been proposed, and I think that will certainly help move
some of these issues forward to be solved because it is
critically important we get industry, the universities, the
labs together to try and solve these critical issues, whether
it is, you know, fuels from sunlight or solar electricity or
batteries in storage. All the things that are related to how we
use energy and how we use water for the betterment of society.
So I am pleased that we will be hopefully moving forward with
some of those initiatives as well.
Increasing Efficiency
Mr. Lujan. Thank you, Dr. Johnson. And Mr. Murphy, Mr.
Stanley, in the area with what you have been able to see and
prove from every increase of percentage in energy efficiency
and even the importance of storage, your thoughts on how we can
accelerate. Going back to 2007, some of the legislation and
acts that were moved forward by the Congress to encourage more
storage exploration and how that will decrease the amount of
water that is needed to be able to move to the energy that is
being stored to make sure that it is fully dispatchable and the
impact on energy as a whole in those areas.
Mr. Murphy. Yes, that is a great point. I mean, when you
look at the real demand, as we move forward, if we can get the
power plants to be much more coincident with the demand. And so
what you're looking at with some of the power plants on base
load, particularly for example on a coal plant, it might be
running all night long and using these valuable resources, and
there may not be a demand that is necessarily justifying that.
So the idea of having storage--there was a discussion
about, you know, you have to trade water versus carbon dioxide
versus energy--I think you can get all three and I think there
are systems out there that exist today that we can achieve
reductions in all of those, but it comes at a price. So that is
the other dimension that, you know, happens.
But you know, the reality is, you know, you pay for it now
or you pay for it later. There is really not--it is just
something that we have to move forward with.
Mr. Stanley. I will add to that from a standpoint of the
machinery itself, having the machinery operate more efficiently
at part load, like nighttime. as opposed to being optimized at
full load and then not optimized at part load, is a big
technology as we move forward. Having optimized at part load,
even in these areas that need electricity but they don't need
it at nighttime, where storage is one option. Another option is
also just reduce the amount of fuel that is required for these
part-load periods during the day when a gas turbine, for
example, still can be run but run very efficiently. Right now
in some of the older technologies in our fleet of turbines that
are out there, they are not very efficient during nighttime.
They weren't designed that way. They were designed to run at
full speed, full load during the day at peak load. And some of
the new technologies which are actually being translated from
the aviation world down into land-based gas turbines actually
address those issues including the different temperatures
during the day. A hot day is very hard on the efficiency of a
turbine versus a cold day.
So just looking at the design of the machinery itself and
advancing that technology can have a big impact on reducing
fuel and water use on these systems, even in these areas that
have very low water areas to begin with.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know my
time is expired, and Dr. Hannegan, if you have an opportunity,
if you can respond to that later, whether it is through
questions today or in writing, I would be very interested to
hear your thoughts on that a little.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Lujan.
Dr. Hannegan. I would be happy to do that.
Chairman Baird. Mr. Inglis is recognized for five minutes.
Water and Nuclear Power
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is my understanding
that nuclear power I believe is a wonderful way to make
electricity, but it also has a trade-off, not just the waste
but also uses a lot of water as I understand it. Some talk--I
think I have heard this--of using it in combination with
desalinization, is that a matter of heating up the wastewater
and using that? Have you all been working on that, Mr. Stanley,
or is that----
Mr. Stanley. We are doing some research on that. It is
usually in the waste heat of it. You can do it on a nuclear
plant or even a gas turbine plant. But it is using the waste
heat, the leftover heat, to basically evaporate the water if
you will, leaving behind the solids in the waste water but
evaporating the water and recovering, reusing the water in the
cycle. So as opposed to taking it into the plant, using it and
then discharging it away from the plant, it is a way to use the
water in what we call a closed circuit so that we are not
taking as much water from the stream but keeping it inside the
plant.
Many nuclear plants today use water. If they use it in a
closed system, they lose a lot of it to evaporation during the
evaporation process. And so they do consume a lot of water, a
heavy amount of water, and this would help reduce that
consumption.
Mr. Inglis. Yes. I guess of course it is not really
consumed, it is just moved from one state to another and then
dropped somewhere else, right? But I guess it does have a local
impact in that you are withdrawing a fair amount of water out
of a stream. It will fall somewhere else, but the question is
how far away, right?
Mr. Stanley. That is correct.
Mr. Inglis. So is it something that you would put on a list
of real, feasible things about using seawater basically in that
process? We have got a lot more of that than we do fresh water.
We got a lot of population close to the shoreline in the United
States. Does that make that attractive or is that questionable?
Mr. Stanley. I think it is. No, I do believe it is
possible. It is still early in the stage of system integration
and simply cost, and the trick is getting the cost down to do
that and the cost of the systems it takes to use that type of
water, clean it and return it.
Mr. Inglis. Does anybody else want to comment on that?
Dr. Hannegan. Yes. Congressman, a number of nuclear plants,
particularly those in California, my home state, do intake sea
water as a method of cooling their activities. The challenge
associated with that is the impact on marine organisms, on fish
larvae and other species of concern, and one of the things that
we are working on at EPRI are protective measures and
alternative ways of getting the water into the plant that don't
have as much impact on the marine environment. That is a big
concern for EPA currently in the rule-making around the Phase
II rule, the 316(b) provisions, and the Clean Water Act. We
have done a lot of work looking at screens and intake
mechanisms and different conduits to get the water into the
plant.
So that is one thing to keep in mind when you are thinking
about seawater as an intake. Particularly in the coastal zone,
it has the potential for some significant impacts.
Mr. Inglis. If you take in a very large amount of water, I
guess you don't raise the temperature as much. Is that another
strategy is to cycle through a great deal of water and then----
Dr. Hannegan. Yeah, that is--in fact, where nuclear plants
take in a considerable amount of seawater, that is the goal, to
reuse and recycle within that plant through a number of
different cooling cycles. Each of course is progressively less
efficient because of the difference in the temperatures. You
can't extract as much heat each time through as the water
gradually warms and warms and warms, and then you exhaust it to
a cooling pond, if you will, where the water can then
equilibrate with the atmosphere before being discharged back in
the ocean. Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act actually puts
limits on the thermal differences in the water that you
discharge back into the environment, whether it is a lake or an
ocean body. Having thermal shock can be just as impactful on
organisms as the physical shock of going through the system. So
we have to work on getting as much cooling value out of that
water but ultimately discharging it back into the environment
in largely the same state in which we took it. And it is a
matter of cost. In many cases, it is a matter of performance of
the unit. As you use more and more of the water, you leave
behind more and more of the stuff that was in the water, and so
it can cause scaling and fouling and different impacts on the
plant itself which are an issue of operations and maintenance.
There are no easy solutions, sadly. Otherwise, we may not
be having this hearing.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Inglis. Mr. Lujan had a
question he wanted to follow up on. I'll recognize him for the
opportunity to do so.
More on Efficiency Practices
Mr. Lujan. Dr. Hannegan, along the same lines of the
question to Mr. Murphy and Mr. Stanley?
Dr. Hannegan. If you could just recapture that for me?
Mr. Lujan. Some of the benefits associated with the
efficiency practices and I guess in your instance, the
efficiency practices that invest your own utilities or
generation or transmission companies are adopting, and even
with how firm the utility commissions around the country are
being with adopting those practices and to future generation
and the possible benefit associated with utilities moving
forward with more efficient approaches with consumption of
water as they are generating power.
Dr. Hannegan. Right. Thank you, Congressman. That is a very
important issue for siting a new generation of plant. You hear
it coming up more and more with utility commissions and even
local communities. When you look at new generation in your back
yard, one of the impacts in addition to the myriad others that
are of concern is the water consumption and where is that going
to come from. I think this is an opportunity for looking at co-
benefits. As I mentioned, these plants are also looking at a
bunch of other different obligations in terms of their
environmental footprint, and there are a number of technologies
that can be employed in a new plant which give you multiple
benefits: reducing air pollution, improving the efficiency of
the thermal plant as far as greenhouse gas emissions is
concerned, and then water consumption as well. Even as I
mentioned before, if you've got a fossil unit with CO2
capture and storage or if you have got nearby oil and gas
operations that are creating produced waters, there is the
possibility for new technologies to be involved there. Through
some of the work that Mr. Stanley is working on with
desalinization, it would be quite possible to use those
produced waters or to use degraded sewage from the nearby
community. The Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant in Arizona does
just that. It runs entirely off of the treated sewage waters
coming from the nearby communities.
So I think there are a lot of opportunities. Sometimes the
challenge though is the utility commissions, as Mr. Murphy
indicated, look at it strictly through the lens of lowest-cost
power, and they are not looking perhaps at the whole lifecycle
cost when you think about the impacts and the overall impact
both economically and environmentally.
Mr. Lujan. Thank you very much, Dr. Hannegan. Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I yield back my time.
Chairman Baird. Excellent line of questioning. Thank you
very much.
Water in Coal Carbon Sequestration
My understanding is Mr. Tonko, we hope, is returning. We
have got yet another vote call, but what I will do is ask a
brief question on coal carbon sequestration. Hopefully Mr.
Tonko will return, and then we will actually probably adjourn
the hearing because there is a long series of votes and rather
than making you folks wait that unpredictable amount of time.
With that, talk to us a little bit about what the likely
water demands would be if we had widespread coal carbon
sequestration, and help us understand the distinction between
use and loss of water in that process.
Dr. Hannegan. I will take that one, Mr. Chairman. The
likely impact, if you add in CO2 capture
technologies on today's power plants, you are looking at about
a 30 percent reduction in both the power production and the
thermal efficiency of that unit. And so as a result, you have
to combust more coal or more natural gas to create the same
amount of power output. That means you are pushing more heat
overall through the system which results in a greater use of
water for cooling. When you then talk about the compression,
the clean-up of the gas on the back end, all of the other
things that you have to do to get the CO2 that has
been captured ready for pipeline-quality specifications for
transport and ultimately, you know, the kinds of specifications
we are looking at in the underground injection program for
disposal in the geologic reservoir, you are looking at about a
doubling of current water use throughout that process. Now,
much of that water goes through the normal cooling cycle, so it
is ultimately recoverable. And if you are condensing out the
evaporated water and reusing that in the plant, the consumption
doesn't go up nearly as much. It is not a one-to-one
relationship. But certainly the widespread adoption of CO2
capture and storage, which we think is a key part of any
climate mitigation program, is going to lead to increased
demands by the electric sector for water in the decades ahead.
Some of that can be mitigated through the new technologies that
we have been talking about, but there again, it is the matter
of getting those cooling technologies integrated with the new
technologies we are employing for pollution control, the new
technologies we are employing on the turbines themselves and
the balance of the plant. I mean, we have a lot of things that
work separately, but it is really the integration challenge
that I think would be a center pole tent to any aggressive
research program going forward.
We have outlined in EPRI documents, which I am happy to
provide for the record,\1\ you know, a fairly modest, if you
look at other research activities going on presently throughout
the Federal Government, a fairly modest $40 million that would
get us started on those things, and we think that that would be
a good investment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See Dr. Hannegan's submission for the record, the EPRI report
program on technology innovation: An Energy/Water Sustainability
Research Program for the Electric Power Industry [Appendix 2:
Additional Material for the Record).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman Baird. I will personally look into that given the
importance of the issue before us today and the relative amount
of $40 million versus NextGen costs.
My own personal belief is that we have staked a tremendous
amount of our wager on first of all biomass in the area of
ethanol which has huge, to my knowledge of the issue and it
sounds like the GAO report confirms that, huge water
consumption issues to grow the crops. And given the graph we
saw earlier of the amount of water that goes through
irrigation, that is not going to be reduced if we put ethanol
from corn base with switchgrass as the Secretary mentioned. But
I also think we have staked an awful lot on coal carbon
sequestration, I personally think too much, and I will point
for the record that we had testimony in our committee
suggesting that likely commercial feasibility was not going to
happen for 25 years and that a much more optimistic scenario is
banked on as a predicate for the energy bill we passed. And I
have really quite a bit of concern about that. And then when
you add this water notion, 50 percent increase? Did I get that?
Dr. Hannegan. Well, in some cases. There is a chart in my
written testimony that is a result of some work that we have
done with the National Energy Technology Lab. In some cases,
particularly for an ultra super-critical pulverized coal plant,
it is almost a doubling.
Chairman Baird. I will be certain to look at that. I will
ask the staff to make sure I get that. Mr. Inglis had a
question.
Pricing Carbon
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stanley, GE was in
favor of the cap-and-trade bill as I understand it, and of
course, it may have the advantage of changing the economics,
some of the economics, around. That is my hope. If it doesn't
make it through the Senate, I hope we can talk about an
alternative which is a revenue-neutral tax swap. It can be done
in 15 pages, whereas this one is 1,200 pages. But in both
cases, what we are attempting to do I suppose is attach a price
to carbon because what I am gathering is you have got a lot of
products that you could sell but the economics don't work
because if you can belch and burn for free, why pay for the
more sophisticated machinery, right? So IGCC, for example, why
pay for that if you can get a freebie in the air and there is
no accountability for the emissions, then belch and burn. I
guess that is more of a statement than a question. It will give
you an opportunity though to say that, yeah, we have got
products that we can sell if the economics work, but you have
got to attach a price to carbon in order to make the economics
work. And that is a conservative concept it seems to me because
what you are saying is no, we are not going to allow people to
have a free good in the air that causes a market distortion. If
you insist on accountability and say, listen, be accountable,
this is a conservative concept. Then what you have is the
economics change, and we sell a lot of product I think from
Greenville which would be exciting.
Mr. Stanley. We do, Congressman, and you are right. The
theory I think that you are talking about is buying carbon,
much as you have to buy fuel if you have a power plant that
produces electricity. And if that becomes the case, whether it
is a carbon cap or other means, if there is a value with
producing carbon dioxide that we want to reduce, we have a
broad range of products that make that a better situation,
economic situation. IGCC, certainly one of those, it is a way
to use our vast resources of coal and still be able to use that
resource in a less water-intensive way and less CO2-
producing way than a pulverized coal plant, which as you say
produces quite a bit of carbon dioxide. Gas turbine and gas
turbine technology, for sure. Wind turbines, absolutely. Solar,
and the next generation of solar which we haven't talked about
today, but thin film solar which is coming and will be as my
belief as pervasive as flat-panel TVs that you see today in the
store, is coming. That technology is coming, and again, as the
costs come down with scale, that will be affordable, and carbon
policy will drive that even more rapidly. So we are absolutely
in favor of some type of value for carbon.
Mr. Inglis. That is great. Thank you. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Baird. I thank Mr. Inglis. We are down to about
5:48, but Mr. Tonko has got such an interest in this, I want to
recognize him for some final questions if we can.
Greatest Impact Technologies
Mr. Tonko. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the
panelists. Your information is of great assistance to us as we
go forward with sound policy, and thank you, Mr. Stanley, for
your kind comments.
My question to you is, Mr. Stanley, of the energy
technologies that you are ready to utilize, embrace, if the
funding comes the way of GE. Are there ripple effects that you
can imagine in those technologies that will come even beyond
those first plans that you have for efficiency with the natural
gas turbines?
Mr. Stanley. There are ripple effects in many of the
technologies. There are effects if we advance for example gas
turbine technology. There are improvements that cannot only and
not only will help land-based gas turbines but will also help
aerospace turbines which use a lot of turbines and increase
fuel efficiency.
As we develop new materials, such as carbon matrix
composites, a new material that we can use in the turbines, as
was mentioned earlier today, turbines become more efficient the
hotter that they operate. So the hotter that we can operate the
turbine in temperature, the more efficient it becomes. Now, I
will give you an example. Today's turbines, the metal inside
the turbine bucket of a current generation turbine operates in
an exhaust gas that is 500 degrees hotter than the melting
point of the metal itself. So heat-transfer technology is
vitally important just to make today's turbines survive. We
want to push that temperature even higher, 500, 600, 700
degrees higher than it is today. New materials like ceramic
matrix composites will be the way there. Now, today they are
very expensive, they are hard to make, they are hard to
develop. We know very little about them, really. But if that
technology succeeds, and it will, I fully believe that it will,
that is not only good for land-based gas turbines, but it has
direct application to aircraft turbines in aircraft around the
world. Higher temperatures, better efficiency for aircraft as
well as for land-based power plants.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. So what I am hearing here is that
this may be a down payment for a lot of lucrative investments
that can be made for efficiency sake or for development of
emerging technologies that can be applied to the broader
turbine environment?
Mr. Stanley. That is correct, Congressman. The many other
ripple effects will help the United States to maintain our
leadership in high-temperature gas turbine design and aircraft
turbine design. Jobs that are created at GE--we have an
estimate, every job that we create in gas turbine technology
manufacturing leads to five more jobs in our suppliers and
contract engineering and other places in the economy. So it is
a very powerful ripple effect, not just economically but also
with jobs and----
Mr. Tonko. Well, the energy self-sufficiency and job count
is what is driving this great legislation, and I am just happy
to hear the feedback from the industry and from those who will
help lead us in this effort. So thank you so much. Thank you,
Mr. Chair.
Closing
Chairman Baird. Thank you, Mr. Tonko. We have got two
minutes to go. We are going to have to hurry. I want to thank
our witnesses for outstanding input today. The record will
remain open for two weeks for additional statements for the
Members and for answers to any follow-up questions that the
Subcommittee may ask of the witnesses. I thank you for your
testimony and for your indulgence as we were interrupted by
votes. I appreciate very much your expertise and insights.
Thank you, and with that the hearing stands adjourned.
Mr. Inglis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
Appendix:
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Kristina M. Johnson, Under Secretary of Energy, U.S.
Department of Energy
Question submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. One cane effect of global climate change is a declining level of
fresh water availability. How is DOE addressing the anticipated impacts
of an increasingly burdened water supply and the consequent challenges
to energy production?
A1. Much of the current domestic energy resource development and
production depends heavily on the availability of adequate water
resources, and it will take a concerted effort to address the impacts
of climate change on water quality and availability. Legislation in the
last thirty years has limited the thermal discharges and other
environmental impacts from power plants, which has already placed a
premium on regulatory agencies mandating--and industry adopting--lower
fresh water usage technologies for new generation capacity. Climate
change and even decadal scale climate variability (e.g., El Nino and La
Nina cycles, which bring periodic droughts to different areas of the
United States) also place a premium on fresh water usage. DOE is
assessing energy efficiency measures and the role of alternative energy
technologies, such as wind and wave power, that require less water
resources in order to augment the traditional sources of domestic
energy supply that require more water-intensive development and
production.
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Bryan J. Hannegan, Vice President, Environment and
Generation, The Electric Power Research Institute
Question submitted by Chairman Brian Baird
Q1. During our discussion on the water use of carbon capture and
sequestration technologies, you referred to an EPRI $40 million
research and development proposal to address the adoption and
integration of new pollution control technologies with existing power
plant cooling technologies. Please provide this information for the
Committee record.
A1. In response to the Chairman's question for the record, please see
EPRI's report outlining a $40 million, 10-year research program focused
on reducing water consumption in thermoelectric power plants:
Electric Power Research Institute. ``Program on Technology
Innovation: An Energy/Water Sustainability Research Program for
the Electric Power Industry,'' EPRI Report #1015371. Palo Alto,
CA: July 2007.