(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’ve talked a lot about the connection between energy and water, but here’s another perspective courtesy of Telegraph UK. In a commentary posted in the Finance section, Commodities Editor Garry White discusses the possibility that switching to nuclear energy could help solve our water crisis. White points to the Middle East as an example of how countries like UAE (which will see it's electricity demand double by 2020) and Saudi Arabia (which is already planning to use nuclear power for 25% of its electricity needs) are looking to nuclear power as the best way to meet their future power demands. While it's true that nuclear energy will reduce dependence on fossil fuels, there is—as White points out—an added benefit: Nuclear reactors not only generate electricity, they can also desalinate water.
In fact, nuclear desalination is already being used successfully in Kazakhstan, where one nuclear reactor sits on the shore of the Caspian Sea. During that reactor's lifespan (1972–1999), it produced 135 MW of electricity and 80,000 cubic meters of potable water every day. And nuclear desalination is not confined to the middle east—Japan and India are both using nuclear reactors to desalinate water.
So what do you think? Desalination in general is energy intensive, so does pairing it up with nuclear power make it a more viable option? And although nuclear power reduces dependence on fossil fuels—and as a result contributes to a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions—does that benefit outweigh the risks? And is this just a niche solution suitable for only certain hard-pressed environments (like the Middle East), or could nuclear desalination make sense for any coastal region?
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
What does a worst-case scenario look like?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
We’re all aware that we are smack dab in the middle of an infrastructure crisis, and those in the know are constantly warning us that, without proper funding and implementation of large-scale repair and rehabilitation of our conveyance systems, we are all headed towards a water resource management Armageddon. There have been some high-profile examples of what can happen when water conveyance systems start to fail, including a series of water main breaks that peppered Los Angeles earlier this year.
But this week in Kalama, WA, I think we’ve finally found an example of exactly what a worst-case scenario looks like. The facts, as reported in The Seattle Times, are as follows: On December 14, 2009 a frozen water main ruptured, resulting in a 15-foot gash and a complete draining of the municipal reservoir—over 1 million gallons lost. Adding insult to injury, the city’s other reservoir—which normally holds about 2 million gallons—is undergoing a series of repairs and is also empty. As a result, Kalama found itself completely bereft of a local water supply for several hours. Thanks to emergency measures, water service was restored to Kalama by the end of the day, but with all the attendant safety notices and boil-water alerts. Nevertheless, the Emergency Management Director for Cowlitz County, Grover Laseke, says it could take days to refill the reservoirs using wells in the area.
There’s no indication that anything other than the weather undermined Kalama’s water main, but be it Mother Nature, structural failures, or even sabotage, the result is the same: a broken pipe, a dry faucet, and a community without water. So what can Kalama, WA—population 2,000—teach us about water resource management and aging conveyance systems? Was this situation avoidable? Is the weather (and other environmental factors) a significant threat to existing pipelines and water mains, or are only aging or poorly maintained conveyance systems vulnerable? And was the situation in Kalama, two drained reservoirs, just an example of bad timing, or the canary in the gold mine, warning us all that our local supplies are always in jeopardy?
Monday, December 7, 2009
All Bark and No Bite?
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Earlier this year, California’s Department of Water Resources released its Pre-Final Draft of California’s Water Plan Update 2009. While the California Water Plan itself has been around since 1957, this latest version is intended to be viewed as an all-encompassing framework designed to efficiently manage California’s water resources. The 2009 plan builds upon what was originally established in the 2005 version; the two major points of which were integrated regional water management and improved statewide water management systems. The former focused on enabling individual regions within the state to implement self-sufficient strategies, while the latter focused on infrastructure upgrades and improvements. The 2009 updates goes further, listing specific areas of action and focus, including:
* Acknowledgement that the Water Plan is a living document that needs to continue to evolve in future updates
* Improved data, analytical tools, and information management and exchange
* Climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies
* Integrates information and recommendations from many state agency planning documents, particularly those represented on the Water Plan Steering Committee
* Integrated flood management
* Updated resource management strategies and regional reports
* Updated regional water balances to include eight years
* Consideration of uncertainty, risks, and resource sustainability into planning for the future
According to the Department of Water Resources, the 2009 update has “13 objectives that will help us achieve the Water Plan goals. Meeting these objectives, and planning and investing in their 110 related actions, will help California deal with a changing climate and other uncertainties and risks, and provide more adaptive and resilient ecosystems and more sustainable water and flood systems.”
One of the most talked about portions of this state water plan is the mandate for urban water conservation—20% by 2020 to be exact. But the vagueness of that mandate is raising eyebrows—specifically, the fact that the reduction is not based on total water used, that the regulation for reduction lacks viable enforcement methods (water districts that fail to meet the 20% goal risk eligibility for government grants and loans, but do not face fines or penalties), and the focus on urban water management without also including agriculture—which uses almost 80% of all water consumed in California.
So what do you think? Is this water plan another broad mandate with no real teeth? As critics have pointed out, regions measure water use in many different ways, and with no real baseline for usage that 20% reduction becomes meaningless. And what about failing to address the elephant in the room: California’s large water buffalos and agricultural use
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Subsidized Water
(Originally posted on waterefficiency.net)
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con
By Elizabeth Cutright
Editor
Water Efficiency
Water and Energy—two forces forever bound together … it’s a relationship we’ve discussed many times. Because of the delicate balance between these two elements, conservation of one ultimately leads to conservation of the other (usually with the added bonus of reduced operational costs). But when there’s disturbance in this interplay, inefficiency takes hold, and we are left with a costly and wasteful delivery system. At other times, a surplus at one end of the spectrum can supplement a shortfall: But, does this kind of overcompensation really serve our ultimate goal of an efficient system that promotes conservation of all our precious resources?
Case in point: Arizona’s Salt River Project (SRP). The SRP—one of the state’s largest water suppliers—supplies water to farmers and 10 cities in and around the Phoenix area. But the SRP’s water delivery system has been operating with a financial deficit for years. According an article published this week in the Arizona Republic, the SRP ended the last fiscal year with a $33 million deficit. How does the SRP make up the difference? Electricity.
It costs the SRP $47 million deliver all of its water, and, while SRP customers pay $14 million of that bill in water assessments, electricity customers pick up the remaining $33 million. Using an energy surfeit to subsidize water delivery is nothing new for Arizona—for the past 100 years, power revenue has filled the gap between the cost to deliver water and the amount customers are charged on the receiving end. This quid-pro-quo started in 1909, when the Roosevelt Dam was paid for, in part, by the electricity revenue received from the energy generated by the dam. Once the SRP took over dam operations from the federal government, three more dams were built downstream using the same sort of energy-funding setup (with the added bonus of water storage). In fact, SRP officials have said that it’s this ability to store water and sell electricity that’s allowed for widespread development in Arizona.
So what do you think? Should electricity revenue subsidize water delivery? By artificially stabilizing water rates (and keeping those rates low despite increased demand or reduced supply), is the SRP encouraging water waste? According the SRP, only 1.4% of a customer’s energy bill goes funds water operations, but that figure does not take into account that all water users are not created equally—a single-family home, for example, uses less water than a even the smallest farm. It’s a complex issue, with many competing interests, but, in the end, as long as water customers are not paying the true cost for the resources they are con
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
