Energy vs Water: The Water Sacrifice (Part 1)

Water and energy will be deciding the fate of future sustainability in all human activities. The best of human accomplishment is the smart exploitation and exploration of all resources on this wonderful planet.

Energy, excepting for the cost and environmental draw backs is being shared via established distribution and sharing net works.

Water lines are based on gravity flow of the natural river streams, causing wealthy and draught prone areas on the planet.

Water need to be shared and distributed through out the planet, mainly preventing direct flow of rain water back to sea.

Two options are left before us

1]Gravity based diversion channels, piped conduction to remote locations

2]Powered water lift to remote areas

If we accomplish this, our direction path to sustainability will yield real fruits

Thanks Jaxy - I read all that.

The dichotomy is simply this;

"Despite all the talk of moving to greener energy sources, coal will be with us for the foreseeable future. It's just too cheap and plentiful."

This 'blinkered statement' is then followed by the actual cost of this "stupid view', in biosphere, "life style" cost, food production cost or shortfalls, and the path to a resource war. (not forgetting a bit of US Sino-phobia to add 'weight')

Coal/nuclear is therefore not cheap - just 'not yet payed for' when dug up.

Of course the other question on the geothermal idea is; why can't the water be used for agriculture after using it for the power process?

Perhaps look into that one?

Perhaps also look into why coal and nuclear "use water", rather than adopt a "one fill and recycle" methodology - like say a car engine.

Don't be too surprised when you run into the term "cheap water" (again and again).

Some of the newer (and safer) mini nuclear plants do not use cooling water...have a look at the Toshiba 4S

Yep - admitted - India has also made advances - but I see a lot of this problem as the biggest world user's refusal to upgrade from "power is cheap" thinking since 1880.

Everything has a true cost and it must be paid - somehow - in some way.

Whether it's the cost of doing it properly and paying the right price per KWh, or out of biosphere impact (current climate subsidy/debt) or any on the list of unpleasant possibilities - it will be paid for.

What do you do with 'old reactors' is part of that "cheap nuclear cost".

What you do with old reactors is paid for with each kW.

Blow down water from steam systems can be used for horticulture but the biggest loss is to the atmosphere. Ways around water consumption/loss are air cooling (less efficient and more costly but possible) and Heller cooling towers for two.

Actually, "loss to the atmosphere" is probably the cleanest way to recycle the used water- when it comes back to earth as rain, dew, snow or whatever, it is probably less contaminated with nasty stuff than what you would get if you tried to recover it from the site...

Well it is "estimated" in each kW - but as the Brits discovered, not quite realistically, as the assumption that they could be broken down and shipped to a hole in some other country, has proved an 'unwelcome assumption" in said countries.

So what the Brits did is 'extend the life' - A. to get a lot more "disposal money"

B. to hope some solution feel out out the sky.

Mind you this was about 5 years ago, when I had reason to research the problem. Might have changed.

Another way is the Chernobyl solution - fill it with concrete and move away.

Heller? yes indeed - since when? 1980's? - so only 100 years and still "cost" resisted in the US.

But the real "historical technology" question here is, which "heat" are they dumping? (and why)

And the answer to that is why the things are 20% efficient - or make 4 times the CO2 they aught to. Well 3 times if you accept 60% as 'good enough' - (like wind is, or PV's are likely max at).

But Heller is a huge step for these coal folk - and actually 'paves the way' to proper water use allocation to this 'obsolete art'. Or brings it somewhere towards 'car' or ' sealed nuclear cooling - "Oh the 'cost' per W of that! compared to coal"

Nor does "cheap coal" deal with the ash and toxins of coal. It's Another "can we find a place to put this?" issue. Though there has been talk of reprocessing coal waste for some isotopes and rare elements, it's yet to be 'approved' due to the 'hazardous nature' of the material. A somewhat 'revealing' mixed message? /unpaid for cost lurking?

So lets make more by burning more coal to capture CO₂? - clever offset? Or lousy math? - Or just refusing to 'pay the proper cost', come Heller or high low water?

Beats me why they are so determined to keep fighting innovation.

But then again reading CR4 when it comes to "cost" of fuel, fossil power etc, vs "un-viable, too expensive, alternate", and "Evil Communist Subsidies", has been illuminating.

But so far as the coal power producers, it beats me why they refuse to listen to 'more efficient' = "less coal" = less CO2 , and R&D always go's to "burn more to solve the problem of burning twice as much needed".

"They" in this case being 95% of the coal converters world wide - but particularly deaf are the US lot, as it's a cutthroat business to be 'cheapest'.

"Cheapest" is why Jaxy has need to post this "water problem" - and "still the biggest dry cooled power station in the World" is the one in South Africa commissioned in 1986. (Kendall, ^{_{a Heller joby}})

South Africa, Turkey, and other are 'doing their bit' - unfortunately it's all one biosphere.

So - full circle (pun intended) - it has to be payed for - and somehow, it will be.

That was a cheap shot about the great Tomas Edison. Do they still use candles where you are from?

"great Tomas Edison"

no, they probably use Tesla technologies (ac power, fluorescent lighting)

From what I read, Edison stole as much as he invented... but lets just leave that one alone for now... we can call him 'inventor Tomas Edison'.. and just leave all the 'great' alone.

Chris

Most all inventors have that problem - a little from here and a little from there.

What genius type have you ever known that thought all ideas were not from him somehow?

If a guy can't handle the PR, business side and politics he has no real claim except to being a loser - maybe a genius but overall still a loser.

I have trouble understanding the current desire to beat on poor old Edison. I doubt that it concerns him all that much and certainly most of us don't care.

First and foremost, Edison was a businessman. Never invented anything for which there wasn't already a huge market.

His winter laboratory and home are here in Fort Myers so I grew up in his 'shadow'.

They still have one of his first ORIGINAL light bulbs burning in his lab after nearly 100 years! It's not very bright but it's still got the original element in it...there is also one in Connecticut lit for 105 years!

How many have you bought in your lifetime?

What advances in India?

Probably this link as overview

I do like this bit in that link.

"Ironically, had the NSG sanctions not been in place, it would have been far more cost effective for India to import foreign nuclear power plants and nuclear fuels than to fund the development of Indian nuclear power generation technology, building of India's own nuclear reactors, and the development of domestic uranium mining, milling and refining capacity."

www is not cooperating on what I had in mind when typing, which I'm 90% certain was regular media. Seems it's all transformed into general PR.

A good friend of mine in India worked on the first reactors - sharp guy. The nuclear energy group only hired the best and brightest out of the universities.

When hiring people a background with the nuclear program meant they were probably very good. There were only a couple of other government companies that I considered as equals when recruiting people.

One of the heavy water plants was located within a few 10 or 15 kilometers of where I was for many years. Some of my people were from that plant as well.

It all still comes down to reasonable population controls. If we were in a man made space craft traveling through space with fixed resources we would not want the population of the space craft to exceed the available resources. The earth is currently our space craft with fixed resources. We need to work on educating people world wide about the dangers of ever increasing populations. All other efforts are short term solutions.

Chemical CO2 capture will double fresh water consumption at coal-fired power plants. Sequestration of CO2 will cause brine intrusion into groundwater, leading to famine. Yes, CO2 is a growing menace, but the effects of water shortages will be felt much sooner and more severely. So neither element of CCS makes sense from the water perspective. Here is my proposal for reducing fresh water consumption at thermal power plants by means of a dynamic pre-condenser for turbine exhaust steam: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/y2009/0241545.html The exhaust steam expands between counter-rotating coaxial radial turbines, causing them to spin and turn a generator for waste heat power harvesting and thereby lose enthalpy, while the low enthalpy fraction of the steam (the low speed molecules in the Maxwellian speed distribution) are stripped out in radially inward sink flow to the turbine axis and exhausted to a condenser. The thermal separation is like what happens in a vortex tube.

The bottom line of all this:

- Nature has the best solution for energy renewables:

Trees, Trees and All the Greens that absorb CO2 + Water + Sun light ==> O2, Carbon storing.

This is a renewable energy source and the most efficient to date.

We try to copy this cycle and might get some result if we do it properly, but we are still clumsy doing it.

The earliest possible solution might be Nuclear fusion IF WE CAN SUCCEED IN THE NEAR FUTURE. We have been expecting a breakthrough since the 1950's, with promises every 10 years... Still hoping. But Trees and the likes that nature developped over billions of years are still the most efficient and We Should Be Looking At ways to Increase them against them being depleted all over the world without a second thought!

Well actually - what you really need to do is clear fell and bury all the old trees, replant new trees, because 'new growth' stores new carbon - old growth is carbon idling ready for sequester, or building stuff.

Problem is the 200 years of climate debt is now like "bury the Amazon" scale - and if you tried that you'd end the 'local climate' - and it would become a Sahara.

What all 'growth solutions' lack is enough water. Do the numbers 6 CO₂ + 6 H₂O make one sucrose /glucose. Now work out the tonnage of water/ton (1000 kg) of carbon.

Now multiply that by the tons of coal burnt since the age of steam (forget the oil for this exercise) - and now you see why all the central Asian lakes are missing (and the amazon is failing).

Can't bring back growth where the water has disappeared.

Or good theory, even good plan, but you're about 100 years too late for that 'tipping point'.

In fact preventing 'dams', or restitution of fresh water (or power storage enabling Alternate to replace fossil) and hugging old growth, so preventing new - is totally counterproductive to salvaging, or slowing, the biosphere collapse.

GA from me too - mostly for your conclusion.

Not properly managing water is a huge issue. Easily equal to re-releasing carbon, and unfortunately has matched that 'bungle by bungle'.

But vast amounts do just "go back into the ground" through irrigation 'waste' - rising water tables and salt problems killing growth - so expiration - so atmospheric levels - in a warming atmosphere - "hungry for water".

Vast amounts go into cities and straight to 'waste'.

Though as "engineers" we may see this as all addressable - many see what should/could be done to rectify, as "environmental vandalism".

Or having 'miss managed' - Man should 'now not manage at all', (but keep on doing it so there is fuel for the zodiacs, a website to donate on, and PC's, media equipment for coverage, cold beer and good looking dedicated female interns)

A lot of resistance "commercially and politically", is also down to 'stubbornness' admitting; A. there were mistakes. B. digging up carbon is the biggy. C. money has to move, as from 'out of old technology, into new" (which tends to hurt those heavily invested in 'old')

Key to "C" not happening, is keeping those who can solve out of the picture.

Or what needs to happen to save the biosphere is "ask engineering" - which has never happened in any "debate" or "conference" or "advisory panel" of "decision makers" charged with 'solving the problem'.

Question for all of you. What is the amount of water necessary per Kilowatt in a basic Solar installation? I have heard it starts to interfere with bottom line costs of this technology, also. Again, Honda is using individual solar installations to produce hydrogen for re-charge stations for their hydrogen fueled cars. Anything there for future consideration?

If you are speaking of a concentrator and steam turbine system; "good ones" are substantially a closed loop - just as "good geothermal" systems are (unless tapping a natural steam vent, which is releasing water anyway)

The over arching principal of an alternate power assessment is "time line"

"Alternate" uses 'now arriving energy' and moves it to use "immediately" in biosphere heat terms.

"Alternate" does not dig up and re-release "old solar", that by being sequestered:

A. because that enabled a Man compatible climate to evolve.

B. if you use "old solar" - including nuclear stored at coalescing of the planet - you need 'additional water' to current biosphere levels, because you are only bringing one part of that old biosphere "balance" forward.

Or "B" is our "drying climate" case - By not also bringing forward the atmospheric water, then present, just the carbon and heat, we do not have the '3 growth conditions' then present, so can't resolve the 'now' imbalance. (short of turning a body of water the size if the Mediterranean to water vapour without recourse to fossil fuel use.)

So looking at hydrogen fuel - if what is happening is water is being broken by 'now arriving' energy - be that wind, PV, or even recent growth (firewood or bio fuel) - then recombined in combustion to water vapor - it's all 'immediate enough to be called "climate neutral". That bit of solar went in here and came out over there - it's just moved from A to B, total energy biosphere has not changed.

The same applies with 'plug in' electric vehicles - 'old solar' = imbalance. Now solar = climate neutral.

And the same for the manufacture equations - Bio based plastics and hydro power in metals.

And perhaps one day; "now carbon" for steel, concrete and glass making, to which anyone still around might exclaim "do you know what that will cost!", and the answer well be "yes - it's called the real price"

Possibly what you want out of that for this topic is;

On reading through, it's clear you need a background in the game to understand what they actually mean.

In Coal/Nuclear "once through" refers to a pond you pump out of and put back into at that volume per MWh. It's more of a pump HP thing than "use". The loss is evaporation increase due to returning water at a higher temperature.

This "thermal use" loss is about the same as "evaporative" which in the table is referred to as "Recirculating" (for some reason), or 400 - 700 gal/MWh (assuming efficiency is the same - the latent heat requirement is the same)

However the 'water demand' of a pond system is in addition to "thermal use", and seems 'overlooked'. The make up for natural evaporation in the pond, which is necessary plant infrastructure, is an additional load on supply.

Or a truer comparative figure of "once through" is (guessing because of location variables) around 600-1000 gal/MWh

"Air cooling" is the Heller solution Russ raised - and water there, is system makeup and cleaning.

The rest looks about right - except for the absence of 'cost' or 'efficiency' penalties - like 'pond make up' and descaling in 'evaporative' (recirculating) systems, which somehow applies to solar, but not coal/nuclear.

"Fresnel" I have no idea, I've had nothing to do with it, but there is something badly wrong if something solar uses that much water.

Perhaps where it says "estm" it means "pick a number" because no one has been stupid enough to do this?

But if you pop in 600 - 1000 in place of 23-2700, and delete numbers "estimated", it's not too bad a representation on "water demand".

So it ranges from 1000 gal/MWh (say 4000 l or 4 tons/MWh)

To roughly put that in math free 'scale';

Liddell, a "state of that art" 2000 MW pond technology station - requires roughly the same volume of water as Adelaide, a city of ~1 million people.

Through various less thirsty technologies (that happen to be non-fossil) to choices where incredibly enthusiastic washing seems the big water demand.

If you took a mid-range option, that is running, "parabolic through+hybrid parallel" a 2000 MW capacity would require the equivalent of say 220,000 people. Or save water enough for 3/4 of a million.

--------------------------------------------

Personally;

I don't quite grasp all this boiling water and then wasting heat 'cooling'.

Why 'adapt' that water media loss and sillyness to something that won't work at night anyway?

Why not use PV and wind, to put said water up a hill, remains a mystery.

You could still eat the fish and drink the stuff.

No matter how many times you store gravity in it, it seems unchanged.

As far as wind--It doesn't blow all the time.. The sun doesn't shine all the time and you have to worry about that latitude thing.--How hard is it to link to existing grids that need to supply reliable power 24/7? What about flywheels? They were hot a while back, and can take energy and "move it forward", with little input, and not much degradation, until needed. Comments, all?

Flywheels (such as Beacon) are useful only for momentary frequency control. Take the time to calculate the size of a flywheel required to store one mWh of power - huge!

Flywheels were only hot among the screw loose bunch that jump on any new pronouncement and declare it to be the greatest yet based on their desires and feelings - rather than science and engineering.

It's not hard at all to store alternate via re-pumping. Most countries have mountains or oceanic cliffs of 400 meters or more. A lot have dams in deep valleys and just need to put in a top pond. Design it properly and it's 80% recovery of inputs.

But the key to why not in the US case is fairly well encapsulated in your words; "How hard is it to link to existing grids that need to supply reliable power 24/7?"

"Existing grids" The "grid" is the most flexible of all elements in the power system - yet somehow more sacrosanct in Gov-speak than anything else.

The bigger it is, the more losses in synchronising - particularly with "boiling water over a fire" run up times - and demand matching/planning in a bidding-for-blocks "free market".

China, for example does not have a National Grid. Europe is busy making International grids. If you like, "smart grids" that get the best out of both generation where it's needed and storage capacity where it's efficient.

Or nobody making inroads, is opting for the US "grid centric" limitations on 24/7 reliable power.

England is now seeing Borough's aim 'climate neutral' with PV and tri-gen. Or the grid is moving away from monster providers, to linked local semi autonomous supply/contribution.

So, can the US do re-pump store near the main uses regions?

Or is it automatically painted as 'the Rockies' - though 400 meters is all you really want? (i.e ~half the 1000m increments as an elevation difference)

Home of the handy tool above. Draw your own line (from left to right, or it reverses the section)

If you add in the Sun traverse (time) to the 8.3 hours of 'useful solar'; who can cook who's breakfast is an interesting 'saving/generation progression'.

But , bottom line; it's all there - if you want it.

The chart from NREL shows well that water consumption in power generation can drastically curbed - power costs a bit more but not that much even.

The solar plants in California have been forced to go to the reduced water consumption type of cooling by the state.

Not at all unacceptable to use a well to get the water closer to the water table

the efficiency of the geology is widely variable

Here's a project I've been following for a few years. What the report doesn't say is the property can absorb more than 400mm's of water per day! The porosity makes the land nearly useless for agriculture. The water table being fairly shallow, a below ground reservoir.

Excellent, Garthh- but your link only gives some FAQ's from the appendix. It would be nice to see more detail. It is my understanding that the amount of available agricultural land in the San Joaquin Valley has been shrinking dramatically because of the use of brackish ground water for irrigation, which results in unacceptable levels of salt accumulation in the surface soils- and the fact that Los Angeles sucks an awful lot of water out of central California. It's been a few years since I have traveled through the valley, but I still retain an image of white fields where nothing can grow...

California has been sucking too much water out of the Western US for too many years, and recently they have put serious restrictions on agriculture in the Imperial Valley as well, just to keep the golf courses in Palm Springs and the lawns in LA proper green. Seems this attitude has to change...

Any more information available on the Madera Ranch project?

here's the environmental assessment

I went to a few of the irrigation district meetings, living very close to this project.

the land is within 5 miles of 2 major canals & the San Joaquin river. The geology also does a good job of improving the water quality. I long suspected that was the underlying purpose of the project. there was certainly controversy about the way the irrigation district purchased the land.

Still it does seem like a very good project.

Wells are going to hold a quite small volume.

Depending on the geology of a site small dams can do much. For example, in my yard you could leave a hose running 7*24 all summer and have no runoff. The fractured limestone underground allows water to easily go down.

Anything that slows the runoff is useful. Same in Western Indıa - when they get rain they get lots and then none.

Amazing indeed!

But its so true that something will always have to be sacrificed for the existance of humanity. This time its water. I believe, its not harmful to capitilize on sources like these at present, but we'll always have to be on look out for sources of energy, which demand less sacrifices. Because we wont be left with a lot to sacrifice a litlle down in time.

The always controversial answer may still be the best. And it's not my idea, it's James Lovelocks. And he is quick to admit he may be wrong about many things. His take from the following link is as brilliant as it is controversial and is well worth reading to understand energy, positive and negative feedback cycles and global warming, which while the data is inconclusive the disappearance of the ice caps and other empirical data is not: http://www.countercurrents.org/goodell291007.htm

Lovelocks take, ""Nuclear Power Is the Only Green Solution." Lovelock argued that we should "use the small input from renewables sensibly" but that "we have no time to experiment with visionary energy sources; civilization is in imminent danger and has to use nuclear -- the one safe, available energy source -- now or suffer the pain soon to be inflicted by our outraged planet."

He goes on to say that we need to use nuclear to power desalination plants around the world and . .

"The inertia of humans is so huge that you can't really do anything meaningful."

Which is very similar to these discussions in that there is never a call to action or nothing is ever done to make any progress no matter how many good ideas are posted. Anyone can point out these obvious problems, but we need to systematically start addressing them. Otherwise, we just go from one important topic to the next with nothing to show for it.

Remember, I digress because I love. . .

Much behind "Nuclear Power Is the Only Green Solution" was prompted by the assumption that nuclear was the only current technology could solve the problem.

In the background huge numbers were yelling "innovation" or "invention" of wild schemes - still are.

His involvement in the "pipes" is a good example of "we just go from one important topic to the next with nothing to show for it" but another 30 years of scientists arguing theory and confusing governments out of adopting 'practical options' based on known technology.

To these guys "known" can't be the answer - because the answer is always "out there". It's their 'never ending' job.

However he is one of the few that tried to establish a "cut off point".

I've run some numbers based on current global demand for energy and predicted demand, and there is no "green tech" that could solve the energy crises without bankrupting the world. The numbers aren't there. Prove me wrong, and I will eat my humble pie, and gladly thank you for the slice.

Would you like to show me the numbers that aren't there?

Sorry! I just quickly glanced at it and assumed it was the same graph as earlier.

The only problem I have with solar (PV or CSP) or wind is the lack of a storage method - meaning conventional power plants must be built to backup the solar or wind for lousy weather or no wind periods. That will come I suppose but not quickly enough - we need it 50 years back.

The hazardous waste thing for nuclear is blown all out of proportion. The governments inability to come up with politically acceptable storage is a problem that politicians don't want to admit so they tend to scream about hazardous waste.

Water consumption can be much much lower as the other table points out - just a bit more costly which should be acceptable. We are already getting screwed collectively to pay for the solar or wind systems of a few - why not pay extra for water saving cooling systems.

The screwer is a power industry dead against the main threat of 'alternate technology', namely; diluting their ownership of power generation. Power companies will still make their money on every bill - they just get to do it the easy way.

PV power should sell back to the grid at the wholesale rate - the utilities are not really a progressive group so lots of prodding is required.

The new plants in CA will not use traditional cooling towers - the state is not willing to allow cooling towers.

Repumping - again where? Try to build new dams for it and it ain't possible.

You are on the rag today! Hope it gets better for you!

Russ

IMHO we blew it decades ago when we p***ed away our money - at least in the USA - by putting a man on the moon. We should have put our cash into a project proposed by Parsons Engineering. The initial costs would have been similar. It is/was known as NAWAPA ( North American Water and Power Alliance) Do a Google on it. This project would have replaced hundreds of thousands (at least) of fossil fuel generated megawatts with hydroelectric generated power as well as creating a "green belt" some 2500 miles long from the Canadian wheat belt well into Mexico. Countless acres of land that was useless for farming would now be irrigated. We would use a lot less natural gas and oil to generate power. Electricity would be cheap - so cheap that homes could be heated electrically further reducing air pollution by eliminating the need to burn something to heat our homes. Food would be plentiful. Most likely we would not be dependent on middle eastern oil and we would be able to leave much of our coal in the ground where it belongs. The Aswan Dam Project would be dwarfed by this one. We would not be over pumping the Ogallala Aquifer - which is going to be a huge problem in the future. Ed