Category Archives: Energy-Water Nexus

Is Desal the Answer?

By | Published: January 6, 2012

As concerns about water supply continue, more and more stories seem to point to desalination as the answer.  Until now, most Texas desal plants are small and regionally located, but a seawater desalination plant will open on South Padre Island in 2014 again opening conversations about importing water from the coast to Central Texas.  El Paso is the largest municipal user of desal technology in Texas.  The plant on Fort Bliss is capable of treating 27.5 million gallons of water a day for regional users.  Like other technologies, desalination can be a useful tool for water resources, but there are other important considerations to be made before it is hailed as the final solution. 

Price

To date, one of the stopping points for using desal as a water supply alternative is it's price.  Treatment of brackish groundwater can be 4 times as expensive as freshwater supply and the price increases considerably for salt water.  Of course price is also contingent on location.  Brackish groundwater often has the advantage of being local without additional pipeline costs, whereas some discussed projects such as hauling treated Gulf water instate would have exponential costs added for pipeline construction and transport.  Property owners along the way might also wonder where that pipeline is going to be located and through what legal means will it be placed there.

Energy

As we have mentioned here before, it takes energy to move and treat water.  This needs to be considered for these larger projects.  A city can increase its water sustainability while inadvertently decreasing energy sustainability.  Proposals for these projects need to include calculations of the associated energy footprint so that the big picture is considered.  Energy needs also increase based on the salinity of the water because additional treatment is required.  Long-haul projects also require large amounts of energy.  To bring water from the coast to San Antonio, 140 miles of pipelines would need to be installed with large amounts of power to push the water uphill.  

The key to desalination is to see it is as a part of a suite of solutions like El Paso has.  The city employed the new technology along with a host of other conservation, efficiency and water supply projects.  Because of the pricing and energy drawbacks of desalination, other supply options such as water efficiency programs should be fully implemented before additional treatment plants are built.  Regional brackish water treatment makes more sense, where possible, than piping treated water long distances.  Technology can provide some great solutions, but it is not a magic cure. It must be paired with common sense and evaluated with all the data to ensure a well rounded sustainable system.

Also posted in Central Texas, Corpus Christi, Water Planning | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Energy and Water Continue to Collide

By | Published: November 28, 2011

As the drought drones on, energy is a growing topic.  Of course, this isn't new to our readers, but it is definitely interesting to see the conversation getting more coverage and with some good results.  Texas is often touted as the energy state. While this is a title we wear with pride, the reality is that we can't maintain it if there isn't enough water.  Texas currently has 19 water guzzling coal-fired plants and 9 more in the planning stage.  Sadly, almost none of these utilize water saving cooling technologies.  In the past, the decision of cooling technology has been up to the company building the plant, but necessity and reality are changing all that.

LCRA says NO to White Stallion

After months of debate, the White Stallion power plant has finally been denied a water contract by the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA).  You may recall in August White Stallion significantly changed the terms of the contract and sent the negotiations into purgatory.  Even after White Stallion announced they would reduce their water usage to "only" 1 billion gallons  of water a year (something proponents advocated from the beginning), it seems that reason, and perhaps the law, prevailed.  It turns out, that Texans agree that there are some places where there just isn't enough water for a coal plant.

More Problems to Come

A new report from the Union of Concerned Scientists echoes this sentiment.  The report warns of possible rolling brown or blackouts due to either lack of water or water returning to waterways at a temperature higher than that permitted by the EPA.  It also highlights the fact significant data gaps in water use by power plants.  This lack of reporting by plants of their actual water withdrawals and consumption makes it impossible to effectively plan for all water needs.  Legislation at state and/or federal levels need to require better data collection and reporting to state agencies.

The drought has started a bigger conversation on the how energy relates to water.  It is important that we use this to make important policy changes for the next time it stops raining.

Also posted in Austin, Climate Change, Drought, Texas Rivers, Water Conservation | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

More Holes To Be Filled In the 2012 Draft Texas State Water Plan

By | Published: October 19, 2011

 This post was co-written by Sachin Shah, an intern in EDF's Austin Office.

Source: Texas Water Development Board

Last night, the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) conducted a formal public meeting in Austin to get input on the recently released 2012 Draft State Water Plan.  The plan is the product of the State’s five year water supply planning process. Considerable funding decisions are based on the projections and supply strategies proposed in this plan.

Upon review of the plan, many of the same concerns from the 2007 State Water Plan were left in the minds of citizens, environmental organizations, and industry officials alike.  While a laudable effort, some key issues still need to be addressed more effectively in state and regional water planning.

The Water Plan at Work

The State Water Plan, developed every five years, is based on a consensus-driven process involving 16 Regional Water Planning Groups (RWPG), which are composed of various stakeholders.

Within TWDB guidelines, each RWPG reviews water use projections and water availability volumes to meet the needs of all water users under dry or drought-of-record conditions. When a shortfall between supply and projected demand is identified, the planning groups recommend water management strategies to meet this need. If existing supplies cannot meet future demand, specific management approaches such as water conservation, new reservoir or groundwater development, water reuse, or others approaches are recommended.

Source: Texas Water Development Board

Once the planning group adopts the regional water plan, the plan is sent to the TWDB. The TWDB then compiles information from the regional water plans and other sources to develop the State Water Plan. Because water is vital to all aspects of our economy and environment, the plan, which directs state funding for water development, affects all Texans. Currently, Texas is in the worst drought since 1950and the State Water Plan is essential to create a framework to alleviate the drought’s long-term effects.

“Texas Has a Long Way to Go.”

The 2007 State Water Plan, sounded many alarm bells when it predicted several water availability shortfalls created by increasing demand coupled with decreasing supply. The lack of serious discussion regarding drought contingency, conservation and efficiency left many stakeholders feeling that some of these extreme scenarios were unfounded and could be cured with a few simple solutions.

 While an improvement on 2007, the 2012 Draft State Water Plan has many of the same weaknesses.  It focuses on one message: in serious drought conditions, Texas does not and will not have enough water to meet demand.   The 2012 draft plan estimates that under drought conditions, without ANY water supply development, Texas will be short 2 million acre-feet of water in 50 years (a decrease of 10 percent).  It proposes to remedy many of these shortfalls with antiquated and expensive solutions. For example, in addition to the 26 proposed reservoir sites (up from 14 in 2007), there is a series of proposed long-haul pipeline projects, which would create expensive and potentially environmentally damaging impacts, while still not being a reliable resource.

 Perhaps, the most dramatic change between the 2012 and the 2007 plan is the cost of implementation. Carolyn Brittin, of TWDB, who oversees the publication of the Plan, says that the cost for implementing the State Water Plan will rise from $31 billion (in 2007) to $53 billion due to increased construction cost, water purchasing costs, and increasing land costs related to mitigation.

Addressing Inadequacies

Ken Kramer, Director of the Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club, believes that although Texas water policies have evolved dramatically over the past decade and a half, it still “has a long way to go in devising a state water plan that will meet the needs of our people in the 21st century.”

Mr. Kramer says that in many respects the draft 2012 State Water Plan is a mere “place holder” for incorporating new data in the 2017 plan. In fact, the current plan was “unable to incorporate new information such as the results of recent joint groundwater planning efforts and the standards for instream flows and freshwater inflows” currently in process. Other important data sets, such as the increased water use for hydraulic fracturing seem to be missing all together.

Here are a few recommendations made by Mr. Kramer at the meeting to improve the plan:

  1. Enhance the role of water conservation as a water management strategy. The plan needs more aggressive conservation initiatives like the ambitious and effective water conservation program San Antonio Water System has implemented over the last 15 years. Conservation shouldn’t just be maximized in areas without an alternate water supply, it should be used everywhere. 
  2. Incorporate drought management as a water management strategy for all water user groups who are preparing drought contingency plans. The state water plan continues to ignore the reality that the Texas Water Code requires the preparation and submittal of drought contingency plans by a large number of water suppliers and water rights holders. These plans usually rely mainly on supply management practices allowing people to use as much water as they would in a normal year without any consequences instead of requiring dry climate reductions.
  3. Water use and demand for hydraulic fracturing needs to be incorporated into the planning process for areas with increasing natural gas development. Although the draft 2012 plan acknowledges this issue, the Barnett Shale region and now the Eagle Ford Shale region are being impacted at an unprecedented rate by the expansion of hydro-fracking water use that was not addressed in previous water plans. Accurate predictions and management of future water supply is not possible if significant users are quantified.
  4. The energy-water nexus is not well understood in the draft plan. This nexus may actually lead to a decrease in water demand for steam-electric generation. The current draft plan does not take into account the push for energy efficiency and non-water-using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power. These alternative energy sources may lead to decommissioning existing coal-fired power plants and prevent the build of new ones, for which water has traditionally been the cooling source. This must be addressed in the plan to re-evaluate the projection in the draft that steam-electric water use is expected to increase by 121 percent over the next 50 years.

Water supply decisions motivated by the Texas State Water Plan are critical to our natural environment, economy, livelihood, and any effects from climate change.  For that reason, we need to ensure that we are as innovative as possible.  Texas should not plan with the assumption that we will use the water the same way 50 years from now. The Environmental Defense Fund knows Texans can do better.

Also posted in Drought, TWDB, Water Planning | Leave a comment

Drought from the Power Perspective

By | Published: October 13, 2011

We have said it before and we will say it again — NO ONE is immune from drought and the latest group feeling the pinch is the power producer. This should be no surprise as we have written extensively on the energy water relationship. Drought not only limits the water available for our water needs, it may also limit our power.

Texas' record breaking drought reduces the amount of available water power plants require for cooling.  If that water is not available, the plant must stop running.  Despite this critical co-dependency, power and water are still planned separately.  In times of limited water supply, this can cause big problems.  So what is the solution?  Well in the short term, the options are somewhat limited.

Maximizing conservation and efficiency by all users will help protect water for power use.  Private landowners are also seeing an opportunity.  One landowner wants to sell almost 400 million gallons of water per year to the newly permitted White Stallion plant.  White Stallion has encountered challenges in obtaining water rights because of public opposition and limited water availability.  While potentially serving a short-term goal, approval of the sale of groundwater for these purposes will cause significant problems for nearby land owners sharing in this resource, particularly in times of drought.   Simply selling water and re-purposing it will not work for the long term.

For the future, we must think beyond the short term because one thing is certain, after this drought there will be another one. We need to learn from this one and put policies in place to be ready for the next.  The power and the water sectors need to come together in their planning.  New power plants, particularly those being built in drier areas, need to use water efficient cooling technologies and companies need to complete a water availability study for the life of the plant which takes into consideration existing users and drought scenarios. Water must be discussed and planned in the beginning so we don't get caught later.

When we discuss energy security, water must be a integral part of that conversation so we don't end up sitting in the dark craving a glass of water.

Also posted in Central Texas, Drought, Water Planning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Can LCRA “just say no” to White Stallion?

By | Published: September 1, 2011

This post was coauthored by Nadine Orrell and Marita Mirzatuny of the EDF Austin Office.

The battle for Colorado River water continues with a new move against White Stallion.  To recap – the issue is whether the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) has the discretion to deny a water contract with the proposed White Stallion Coal Plant even if the water is “available” under normal conditions.   The problem is – what is normal these days?  In all too familiar dry conditions, other users such as the downstream rice farmers would have to reduce or stop their water use.  Since we do not know if the current drought conditions will continue, is now the time to make long-term commitments of “firm” water by granting the White Stallion Water Contract?

The Argument

LCRA’s position is that if water is available to meet a request for supply and an applicant complies with LCRA rules, LCRA must complete the contact.  The LCRA Board believes that it lacks discretion to deny the White Stallion water contract for water from “firm” supplies if those supplies were available, even if such action would force rice farmers to not have water in low water years.  However, new information indicates that the LCRA Board may have more discretion than they previously thought. 

The New Twist

 An August 29, 2011, letter from attorneys (and former Texas Commission for Environmental Quality commissioner Larry Soward) for the advocacy group No Coal Coalition to the LCRA Board of Directors, explained that the law gives the LCRA broad authority and discretion to deny the While Stallion Water Contract.  In its letter, the No Coal Coalition explained that the Texas Constitution, LCRA’s Enabling Legislation and its Water Management Plan (WMP) give LCRA the power to say no to water contracts even if the water is available under normal conditions. 

Section 59, Article XVI of the Texas Constitution gives LCRA the ability to “control, store, preserve and distribute” the waters of its rivers and streams.   LCRA’s Enabling Legislation § 8503.004, states that LCRA “may control, store, and preserve” and “may use, distribute, and sell” its waters.   Its Enabling Legislation § 8503.004(u) actually gives LCRA plenary authority to “do any and all other acts or things necessary or convenient… to the exercise of all…authority or functions conferred …by the constitution, this chapter, or any law.”   LCRA’s WMP further requires LCRA to act as a steward and exercise discretion in its role as a water manager, overseeing firm and interruptible users, and engaging in long-term planning.  In this case, that might not include the committed 25,400 acre-feet (or 8 x 109 gallons!) to a new coal plant.

Although the vote on White Stallion is currently postponed, similar issues still remain. Considering the drought conditions that we have experienced here in Texas, LCRA should exercise its broad authority and discretion to control its water contracts and just say no to White Stallion Water and others like them.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, LCRA, Texas Rivers, Water Conservation, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

It's Back to the Drawing Board for White Stallion

By | Published: August 4, 2011

Just a quick update on something we have been following.  It seems that the vote on the contract to provide White Stallion coal plant with Colorado River water has been indefinitely postponed. 

The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) vote, which had been previously postponed until August 10 is now back at the negotiating table.  It seems that White Stallion has significantly changed the terms of the contract. 

The proposed changes include extending the amount of time White Stallion officials would have to pay LRCRA $55 million, which was to be used for water infrastructure development.  The new proposal also includes lower fees for White Stallion. 

It is unclear how long this will deltay the vote, but we will keep our eyes on it and let you know.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, Houston, LCRA, Texas Rivers, Water Planning | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Water Hurdles for Renewables in Texas

By | Published: July 21, 2011

This post was written with Elena White, a Leadership Rice intern working with EDF's Energy Program this summer and Colin Meehan, Clean Energy Analyst with EDF's Energy Program.

Recently, we wrote about water use in hydraulic fracturing, a process that has been under close scrutiny by the environmental community. But the Texas drought has not only called attention to water use in the oil and gas industry; electric generation of all stripes in Texas now sees water use as a key issue in future expansion. The connection between water and energy shouldn’t be new to our readers. Renewable energy is no exception, although in most cases it doesn’t have to be water intensive.

A recent paper by the US think tank, the World Policy Institute, stresses the importance of adding water to the energy agenda.  We couldn’t agree more!!!  As we have written,  up to 20% of water used for non-agricultural purposes is consumed by energy generation. The paper’s largest concern is that both traditional and new energy technologies are becoming more water-intensive.

The Southwestern United States is singled out for being an area of particular concern because of water shortages. Areas of the Southwest, such as much of Texas, New Mexico, and Nevada, have ideal conditions for solar plants but do not have enough water to support  thermal generation that uses substantial amounts of water for cooling.

However, many alternative technologies are virtually water free, such as wind energy and solar photovoltaic. And, in fact, wind energy production is growing rapidly in Texas. In 2010, Texas wind generated 24,713,265 MWh, or 7.8% of total energy on ERCOT, the grid system that covers nearly all of the state. That was up from 6.2% in 2009 and 2.9% in 2007. By increasing wind energy production and decreasing nuclear and natural gas as a share of its energy portfolio, the state saved over 900 million gallons of water. Read More »

Also posted in Uncategorized, Water Planning | 2 Comments

Drilling Down Deep on Fracing Water Consumption

By | Published: July 6, 2011

 This post was written with Elena White, a Leadership Rice intern working with EDF's Energy Program this summer.

As drilling companies flood shale plays in North, South and East Texas, Texas farmers and municipalities are praying for rain. We have blogged about how water and gas are inextricably linked in hydraulic fracturing or fracing. But how much water is actually used? Can that amount be reduced? Today’s post is the first in a series of posts about hydraulic fracturing and how it impacts water resources.

How much water is used in fracing?

Fracing is the process of injecting water with fluid additives into a tight formation to open and enlarge fractures allowing the product to flow out. The water contains a proppant, such as sand, that remains in the fractures, keeping them open during the production phase. Water use varies from well to well depending on the nature of the shale formation.

According to Chesapeake Energy, the typical deep shale play use is between 4 to 6 million gallons per well or 0.8 – 1.6 gallons per MMBtu of energy produced.  Proponents of fracing argue that the water amount per unit of energy in fracing is less than most other energy sources. Although this may be true, it is no consolation to a region with insufficient water to go around. Just like in real estate, the key is location, location, location.

This can create large issues in Texas, particularly because the oil and gas industry is regulated by the Railroad Commission, but water resource planning is the domain of the Texas Water Development Board.  According to the Texas Water Code, oil and gas wells are exempted from regulation by groundwater districts meaning that although a district can limit pumping by an agricultural user, they may not have the tools to do the same to industry.  Oddly enough, the Texas Water Development Board did not mention this in a recent message from Melanie Callahan, the Interim Executive Administrator, in which they advised readers to contact their districts for information regarding oil and gas water use. Further, the State Water Plan, upon which water planning decisions are based, does not even include oil and gas water projections in their fifty-year forecast.  All of this means that we really don’t know what the impact of fracing will be on our water resources over the long term. 

What about recycling?

Water usage for drilling is consumptive.  Water removed from local sources and used for drilling or fracing will not return to the local water cycle.   Once the water has been mixed with additives and run through the formation, the resulting produced water contains remaining chemicals as well as contaminants released from the parent formation.  Some of the water remains in the shale, and about 10 to 40 percent resurfaces in the first few weeks.

Recycling can mean a couple of different things.  It can mean that a large portion of the water is treated and made available to fracture additional wells.  It can also mean that the water is treated and then returned to the normal water supply or to a surface water body.  Some states, such as Ohio, have banned the latter practice because scientists are unsure whether traditional water treatment facilities are able to handle all of the contaminants contained in produced water. In many states, water that is not recycled or cannot be treated to a safe quality for release is injected deep below the surface for permanent storage. 

Drilling companies in the Barnett Shale practice both of these techniques. The Texas Railroad Commission expects companies in the Eagle Ford and Haynesville shale plays to submit approval for similar recycling methods as drilling activity increases, particularly because water is becoming more expensive. However, recycling is no cure-all.  Even with recycling, large amounts of water are necessary and it requires energy.

What are the water-energy trade-offs?

As in most energy related endeavors, there is a water component and visa versa and there are tradeoffs in this relationship. If you want to use less of one, you almost always need more of the other.  Most of the water is used not in the fracing process, but in delivering the proppant. The more pressure behind the water, the less water is necessary.  However, water pressure requires energy. Thus, yet again, we see how water use and energy are inextricably linked. We must make a decision between more surface energy use and using more water.

Recycling of the water can also have a large energy footprint. Produced gas is often used to power onsite treatment; however the quantity needed is not actually measured by gas companies. Energy needed would certainly fluctuate based on the content of the water. Higher concentrations of total dissolved solids would require more energy, particularly if the goal is to get the water to drinking water quality or “clean” enough to discharge into a surface water body.  For all of these processes, decisions should be made based on local needs and limitations.  Areas with low water availability may be willing to sacrifice more energy use for less water demand.  Each region will be different and drilling should be tailored accordingly.

Also posted in Resources, Texas Economy, Uncategorized, Water Conservation, Water Planning | Tagged , | 1 Comment

NPRs Lake Travis Story Not Completely Fair

By | Published: June 29, 2011

There was an interesting NPR story today about Lake Travis depletion and how  the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) appears to rank their users.  Folks with houses and businesses on the lake claim that no one cares about them.  Similar pronouncements can heard around other depleted water reservoirs around the state.  It all brings up the question of which use is more important?  Do cities trump recreation, do jet skis override agriculture?  Only we can decide.

We do have one small bone to pick with the story.  If you have been reading our blog, you probably already know that the rice farmers aren't sitting as pretty as the story would have you believe.  Most farmers have an interruptable contract, which means that during drought or times of high demand, their water can be reduced. This is not true of the contracts with City of Austin or power producers who have firm contracts – or a guaranteed amount.  It is a bit unfair to imply that Lake Travis businesses are suffering while rice farmers are not.  The problems at Lake Travis are a result of all the water users along the Lower Colorado including municipal and industrial users who were hardly mentioned in the piece.  In fact, Austin is still only in Stage 1 watering restrictions.

As we have said before, the issue is management and how we calculate "available" water.  Don't forget the White Stallion Water Contract is up for discussion again in August.  Who knows that Lake Travis will look like then.

Also posted in Austin, Central Texas, LCRA, Water Planning | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Water For Gas: A Tradeoff Texas Needs To Consider

By | Published: June 15, 2011

If you still need proof of all the ways water and energy are inextricably linked, you don’t need to look any further than hydraulic fracturing or fracing.  Fracing is the process of enhancing gas or oil production in a tight formation by injecting water with chemical additives at high pressure.   The pressure is greater than the rock strength so fractures in the rock are opened and enlarged by the fluid.    Once the fractures have been opened and extended, a propping agent is injected to keep the cracks open and natural gas is produced.   While not a new process, hydraulic fracturing has increased exponentially with the development of new technologies and its greater economic viability created by oil prices and domestic fuel needs.

Water and Fracing: A Love Affair

A single natural gas well can require millions of gallons of water during extraction.  When you consider that and the fact that Texas ( a state suffering from the worst drought since data was collected) has vast reserves of natural gas in shale deposits, you begin to appreciate the complicated marriage of resources places like the Eagle Ford shale are dealing with.

South Texas is not blessed with an abundance of water; in fact San Antonio ranks near the top of the list of cities facing serious water resource concerns.  The Eagle Ford shale covers a vast territory south of San Antonio where jobs can be as scarce as water.  Drought is only making it worse.

Farmers are already often at odds with companies looking to sell water supplies to cities like San Antonio, so when oil and gas operators come shopping for water people get worried.

The Eagle Ford’s difficult geology makes the “fracing” process more intense than in other parts of the country and requires enough water to meet the day-to-day water needs of 240 adults for a year to extract gas for a single well.

The University of Texas Bureau of Economic Geology estimates that the demand for fracing-water is to grow 10 times over the next decade.  With Texas’ best chance of rain hinging on an active hurricane season the situation in South Texas is only going to get more tenuous.  Read More »

Also posted in Resources, Texas Economy | 2 Comments