Water and Energy: Altering Our Current Collision Course 

Summary of a report commissioned by the Civil Society Institute

From the first wooden waterwheels that powered the grist mills of the colonists to water turbines that powered the mills of the American industrial revolution, water has been an integral part of American energy production. Today, water's role in energy production has changed, but it is still a vital part of modern U.S. energy.

In a recently released report commissioned by the Civil Society Institute, Synapse Energy Economics Inc. examines the multiple water-related issues facing the U.S. electricity industry. The report, Water Constraints on Energy Production: Altering our Current Collision Course, looks closely at the relationship between water and energy production in terms of volume requirements, water quality, and a lack of data on water use and future availability. The study reveals that diminishing water resources are limiting the nation's energy supplies and that water quality is being threatened by power plant operations and fuel production. These findings indicate that policymakers must take action to address these major risks from energy-water interactions.

Water turbines once powered the Boott Mill Weave Room machines. Lowell National Historical Park, Massachusetts IMAGE: National Park Service

The U.S. electric power system was built on traditional, water-intensive thermoelectric and hydroelectric generators that command enormous water requirements. The extraction and production of fuels for these generators - coal, uranium, and natural gas - require large volumes of water and also threaten to contaminate water resources during the process. As water resources come under increasing pressure through demand from population growth, industrial use, agricultural needs, drought and climate change, water issues will increasingly become a limiting factor on U.S. energy production and a key obstacle to maintaining both electricity output and public health and safety.

According to the report, the amount of water available to meet the increasing needs of the United States is of growing concern. Consider the following:

• Thermoelectric plants withdraw 41 percent of the nation's fresh water, more than any other sector
• On an average day, water withdrawals across the nation amount to an estimated 85 billion gallons for coal plants, 45 billion gallons for nuclear plants, and 7 billion gallons for natural gas plants
• Coal mining consumes between 70 million and 260 million gallons of water per day
• Natural gas hydraulic fracturing requires between two and six million gallons of water per well for injection purposes

The report concludes that under current usage, water supplies will not be able to keep up with these demands. Other factors - climate change, water shortages, carbon capture  and sequestration - will only serve to make matters worse.

Impacts on water from the energy sector are significant, states the report, and are likely to increase if the U.S. continues to rely heavily on current-style thermoelectric power plants. Negative impacts associated with fuel production and use include drinking water contamination from coal mining, uranium mining and milling, and natural gas production, while thermal pollution of rivers, lakes, and estuaries from discharged water from cooling systems disrupts aquatic habitats.

A drilling rig in Bradford County.  IMAGE: Ann Pinca

While the above factors foretell a coming 

collision between growing water demands and dwindling water supplies, not enough information is available to fully understand the challenges energy production faces. In the report, the authors identify several critical data deficiencies that need to be addressed to support successful energy planning and policy-making. Also included are recommendations based on the report's findings that continued reliance on current water-intensive electric generation technologies puts the burden of risk on consumers and regional economies.   

The report maintains that energy policy and federal research/development funds should be used to support an electric generation mix that: minimizes risk associated with water dependency, fuel costs, and capital costs; produces the least amount of pollution; and addresses climate change cost-effectively. These criteria would provide policymakers a framework to systematically assess the design, construction and operational risks of grid-related technologies.

The report contains several recommendations for regulators and policymakers to consider in terms of future water needs and possible impacts when planning additional electric generation facilities. It recommends that: information about and regulation of the water quality impacts of fuel extraction and wastewater disposal must be strengthened; calls for more information regarding the chemicals present in treated wastewater and hydraulic fracturing fluids, with tightened regulation of use and storage of these chemicals; and demands high standards in restoring or replacing previously existing ecosystems during mine reclamation.

There is no denial that compliance with the report's recommendations will increase the market price of fossil fuels and uranium, but the authors suggest the popular thought that low-cost energy "trumps" environmental protection is mistaken. When viewed in terms of the overall costs of widespread health and extensive damage to the environment, they conclude that energy efficiency and renewable energy are "bargains by comparison." The cost of compliance would shift the true cost of energy production to all users, instead of subjecting the host communities of fuel production to bear the real costs while others enjoy the benefits of cheap energy. As the report concludes:

"Once the environmental costs of conventional fuels are recognized, it becomes clear that energy efficiency and renewable energy are bargains by comparison. These clean alternatives cause little if any harmful environmental impacts. On a full-cost accounting basis, clean energy would win out as the least-cost solution and the solution that harbors the least risk, as our energy system would no longer threaten (or be vulnerable to) the quantity and quality of our water."