I thought readers would find this article very interesting about the carbon footprint of water, that is is moved around and used in greater volumes than most of us realize, as part of most energy generation systems. This is very thought provoking -- how much energy is used to move water around -- when generating energy!

Check your water footprints at the door

By Tom Rooney

From the Boulder Colorado Daily Camera

Carbon gets all the press. But more and more scientists are starting to figure out that it takes so much water to create energy, and so much energy to move water, that whenever we talk about the carbon footprint of energy, we really should be talking about its water footprint as well.

Here`s why: Except for wind and photovoltaic solar found on rooftops, most power plants big or small do one simple thing: They boil water. That`s it.

The water then makes steam, which spins a turbine, which runs a generator, which creates electricity in a way that is almost miraculous.

But with that miracle comes a price: Water. Lots and lots of it.

No matter if it is coal powered, or nuclear, or oil or even large scale solar, all that heat has to be cooled down. Thus the water. It takes at least a gallon of water to create one kilowatt hour of power -- enough to run your air conditioner for one hour.

The numbers tell the tale: Rachelle Hill and Dr. Tamim Younos of Virginia Tech University estimate that "fossil fuel thermoelectric plants use between 8 to 16 gallons of water to burn one 60-Watt light bulb for 12 hours per day.

Over the duration of one year this one incandescent light bulb would consume about 3,000 to 6,300 gallons of water."

That`s a lot of water for a little bit of light. Other household appliances are just as thirsty: A central air conditioner running for 12 hours a day will drink up 16,800 gallons of water every year at the power plant. A laptop computer uses 200 gallons a year. A coffee maker perking two hours a day needs 672 gallons of water every year to brew that cup of Joe.

Different types of power plants require different amounts of water. Coal and oil plants need about a gallon or two per kilowatt hour. Hydropower plants in the Northwest, for example, need 18 gallons for the same amount of energy. Power plants in Arizona use seven gallons per kilowatt hour.

In California, 49 percent of all the water withdrawn in the state is used for energy. Much of the water used to cool power plants is returned to the river or ocean whence it came, true enough. But not before killing billions and billions of fish and marine mammals every year. Not before a lot of it evaporates.

All that happens just at the power plant. Take one step back to the mine or the oil field, and every day, billions of gallons of water are consumed coaxing energy from beneath the earth. The amount varies from the one gallon of water it takes to extract a gallon of oil from conventional means, to up to 350 gallons of water for every gallon when the oil is harder to find.

That is still only half the picture. It also takes a tremendous amount of energy to move, treat, and ultimately dispose water.

In California, 20 percent of the energy in the state is used to move water.

So we use water to create energy, and we use energy to create water -- to create more energy to create more water. And on and on and on it goes in a downward spiral that completely distorts the way we think and act about water and power.

Whenever we waste energy, we waste water. Big transmission lines, for example, that carry energy from the thirsty power plants to energy-hungry refrigerators and light bulbs hundreds of miles away leak energy like a sieve. They lose seven percent of their juice before lighting a single bulb.

That`s not just wasting power, it’s wasting water too.

Not all power plants create heat. Photovoltaic solar panels -- the kind found on roofs and backyards and schools and wineries and farms and roads and office buildings and hotels -- create electricity, not heat.

So except for a few spritzes to wash them off, they do not need water. But they do need a magnifying glass if you want to see their water footprint.

Tom Rooney, of California, is the chief executive of SPG Solar Co.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 4:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Troy Media sent me the following op-ed piece on climate change that I thought readers might enjoy.

Commentary
November 6, 2009

What are the “Deniers” denying?

By Dr. Stephen MurgatroydColumnist
Troy Media

There is a growing anxiety amongst the supporters of a climate change treaty that the “deniers” are exerting an undue influence over the Copenhagen negotiations and are sowing the seeds of confusion and doubt in the minds of the general public.

But what are the deniers denying? Basically, the deniers are denying four things:

1. They are denying that CO2 is the primary cause of climate change. They do not doubt that climate change is occurring, it always has and always will and it is nature's response to a complex array of conditions. While emitting CO2 in ever-growing volumes is not a desirable thing, reducing these emissions, even dramatically, will not unduly influence climate.

2. The deniers deny that there is a consensus within climate science that man is the primary cause of global warming. There are many areas of dispute amongst the scientific community with respect to climate, including explanations for changes in Arctic and Antarctic ice, the role of the sun in determining climate and the validity and robustness of computer models of climate change. As Einstein noted, it takes a single set of observations linked to an alternative theory to trigger a shift in thinking in science. The theory that humans are the primary cause of climate change is not, like Newtonian laws of mechanics, a closed theory – it is still open to question.

3. The deniers deny that many of the events attributed to climate change – the melting of the ice on Mount Kilimanjaro, hurricanes, the spread of malaria in Africa and so on – are connected to climate change. For each of these events there are other, more plausible explanations. For example, the melting of the ice cap on Kilimanjaro is strongly linked to deforestation of the area in close proximity to the mountain, which results in a lowering of moisture levels which impact ice formation.

4. Finally, the deniers deny that taxing carbon and developing carbon markets will have an impact on the climate. Indeed, the economists who are deniers are skeptical about the economics of many green “solutions” – wind farms, solar farms, cap and trade, carbon taxes and emissions control. They do not deny that reducing CO2 emissions may be desirable for other reasons – air quality being the most important. But they are not convinced that all of these investments will produce the return expected – a cooler planet.

To support their denials, deniers use peer reviewed scientific papers which call into question the currently dominant scientific view and comprehensive economic analysis. There are many such papers by experts in climatology, including some who are or have been part of the scientific team used by the UN to create the technical documents which are said to inform the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports. They also make extensive use of observational data and measurements of temperature, ocean level, emissions and so on. They do not put their faith in computer models, which in any case produce contradictory findings: rather they rely heavily on direct measures.

Because the deniers have been very vociferous, they have also come under attack. The attacks take three basic forms. The first is to question the scientific credentials of those why deny the man-made global warming thesis. The same standards are not applied to the IPCC itself or to many “warmists” – the head of the IPCC (a former railway engineer), David Suzucki and Al Gore, for example, have no qualifications in climatology. Second, there is the standard accusation that deniers are funded by big oil or the coal industry. This ignores the funding granted to the “warmists”, which runs into billions, by interest groups and governments which should not be regarded as neutral sources of funds. The final accusation is that they ignore the human suffering their denials may cause. This is not at all the case – the primary action plan suggested by the deniers is that we should focus our actions on adaptation and technologies to combat warming, cooling and the other effects of the natural cycle of climate change.

Skepticism is healthy and necessary condition of science. It is also a necessary condition of public policy development. Trying to weigh evidence and make decisions is tough, but the warmists refuse to debate with the deniers and the policy makers have their minds set on a course of action, despite growing evidence that it will make little difference to the climate over time.

As we get near to the December meeting of world governments in Copenhagen, now less than four weeks away, frantic attempts are being made to salvage something from the meeting. What now looks likely is a high-level political agreement to be followed by more talks. The deniers will be blamed for derailing what could have been a powerful moment in Copenhagen, leading to the creation of a powerful global governance organization for climate change strategy management. The deniers certainly influenced public opinion, but the failure of Copenhagen to produce a binding agreement is as much a failure of the intellectual quality of the argument for such an agreement as it is about the politics surrounding it.

Posted by Guy Crittenden at 7:06 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)