The Energy-Water Nexus
The U.S. has long been reliant on its ability to produce low-cost energy and water. Globalization, weather issues, and emissions concerns, combined with increases in energy consumption and the urbanization of formerly agricultural lands have shifted the energy-water nexus. Today, many scientists and economists believe that the energy-water nexus will force the U.S. to change the ways in which we use energy to pump, treat, and distribute water; and how we rely on water to develop energy sources and to produce electricity. This post will share presentations, articles, and briefings on this challenging topic.
This presentation explains the link between energy and water; and details the water consumption of different electric generation sources. It presents the different water needs of oil, gas, natural gas, and hydrogen production. It gives a quick overview of water scarcity issues in the U.S. to highlight where the energy-water nexus will soon become problematic. Finally, it gives a brief look at the two ways to increase water supply: desalination and wastewater reuse.
"Arizona's Energy Water Crisis Beginning?"
In August 2009, the U.S. EPA announced proposed rules for NOx emissions controls at two Arizona coal-fired electric generation facilities - one of which produces all the power that Arizona uses to pump Colorado River water to over 3 million residents in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas.
Catch-22, The Energy-Water Nexus, April 2009
Posted by Paul Walker at 17 Dec 2010 
Categories: Third Party Papers and Presentations, Regulatory Analysis, Insight Papers and Presentations, Summaries of Articles
Tags: Electricity Water Infrastructure Energy
Categories: Third Party Papers and Presentations, Regulatory Analysis, Insight Papers and Presentations, Summaries of Articles
Tags: Electricity Water Infrastructure Energy
The EIA energy production numbers cited above are monthly totals and are apparently continually updated. January 2009 data were retrieved by your link on May 3, 2009 and don't match the numbers you cite.
Assuming Professor Pasqualetti's consumption calculations are accurate, the ~14,000 a-f consumed is a monthly amount for a likely low energy use month in the winter.
That would render spurious by a factor of 12 your comparison to the annual water consumption for households.
If NPR is to be believed at http://www.npr.org/news/graphics/2009/apr/electric-grid/ Palo Verde alone produces 25.8 thousand MWh annually. Given Palo Verde's outage problems in recent years this number correlates well enough with the monthly figure you quote.
The bottom line is this, water is too valuable to consume for power generation. Arizona is not being adequately compensated for water consumed in the production of power for California and we don't charge enough for power used in state. This is happening at the expense of our future growth. How attractive will Arizona remain when there's a shortage on the Colorado and those shortages trickle through the water providers?
Concentrating solar power plants with wet cooling are not a part of the solution either. They may consume less water than alfalfa but they still consume unsustainable quantities of water.
It's time to bite the bullet and start paying more for power that is produced from plants using dry cooling or non water consuming renewables.
Great catch - the post has been modified to reflect annual data; and I apologize for the error. As the commenter rightly points out, the error was egregious and resulted in a several factor miscalculation.
As to the argument that "water is too valuable to consume for power generation", I have to disagree.
Power generation and affordable electricity are indispensable to our lives and our economy. That said, I do believe that potable water is very valuable and is not sufficiently factored into the price of power.
Also worth noting is that Arizona's nuclear generation uses reclaimed water - which is treated wastewater. That seems to me the path we should aggressively pursue first - reclaimed water is the only source of water that increases with population; and all too often it is priced at the level of a nuisance. Many communities simply dump it into washes while at the same time pumping groundwater, treating it to drinking water standards, and using that water for grass and outdoor irrigation.
I also agree entirely with the concern about concentrating solar power plants; they use more water than any other thermal generation source, cost much more than natural gas generation, and require enormous amounts of land.
Many policy leaders explain that solar thermal uses less water than agriculture - but frequently these plants are placed on land with water rights but without actual agriculture. So while the landowner has the right to pump water for farming, they often aren't actually farming or using water.
Dry cooling technology, increased use of reclaimed water, and non-water consuming renewables are my preferred approach with one more element - a massive commitment to demand-side management and distributed solar photovoltaics.
Many thanks for the excellent comment.
-Paul