95

Universities Council on Water Resources

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education Issue 151, Pages 95-105, August 2013

Suitability Assessment of Non-Potable Water to Meet the Electricity Generation Demands in 2030 Katie Zemlick1, Vincent C. Tidwell1, Barry L. Roberts1, and Cesar R. Castillo2 1

Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM; 2 University of Texas, Austin TX

Abstract: Large amounts of water are required for electricity generation, and demand for thermoelectric power is predicted to increase significantly over the next several decades. Of concern, is that nearly half of this new demand is in regions currently subject to fresh water shortages due to over-appropriation, drought, and climatic drivers. This study explores the suitability of using non-traditional sources of water, namely wastewater and brackish ground water for future thermoelectric cooling in 22 continental Electricity Market Module Regions. Both sources pose unique financial, technical, and management challenges, but are widely available and in the majority of instances economically feasible. While neither resource can meet all future demand by thermoelectric generation, when added to the existing water supply and management portfolio, they provide significant augmentation to existing traditional water supplies. Keywords: Non-potable water, thermoelectric, electricity, municipal wastewater, brackish ground water

T

hermoelectric power accounts for nearly 90 percent of U.S. generating capacity and is the largest user of water, accounting for 200 billion acre-feet annually (Kenny et al. 2009). Demand for electric power is projected to increase 22 percent by 2035 and nearly half of the new 839 billion kilowatt-hours (kWh) demand will occur in the southern and western regions of the country (U.S. EIA 2012). The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) uses weighted averages to estimate that 23 gallons of water are withdrawn for each kilowatthour produced (Kenny et al. 2009). Juxtaposed with increasing energy demands, this could represent nearly 60 million acre-feet of additional water for energy generation. Water used in energy production peaked in the 1980’s (Kenny et al. 2009) and efficiencies in both water and energy use have been steadily increasing in domestic and industrial sectors (U.S. EIA 2012). However, population growth in regions of the country that are currently subject to water shortages as well as predicted effects on water resources due to climate change indicate that a business-as-usual approach to the management of water supplies to meet demands of future users may not be sustainable in the long term.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

The connection between water and energy is commonly referred to as the “Energy Water Nexus” and is of increasing interest amongst academics, industry and policy makers. This “Nexus” refers to water required for energy production and the energy required for the extraction, treatment and conveyance of water. The need for cooperative planning among these sectors was further stressed in the Department of Energy’s 2006 publication Energy Demands on Water Resources (U.S. DOE 2006) which stressed that “the U.S. should carefully consider energy and water development and management so that each resource is used according to its full value” (U.S. DOE 2006: 11) The report highlighted the need for collaborative management solutions as well as the need for innovation from industry supporting long-term sustainability of water and electricity supplies. This study addresses the first component of this nexus, and more specifically focuses on water required for electricity production. The impetus for this study came from the Western Electric Coordinating Council (WECC) where water for the first time has been considered in an integrated capacity in long term production and UCOWR

96

Zemlick, Tidwell, Roberts, and Castillo

transmission planning. Specifically, this work explores the possibility that increasing demands for power and resultant requirements for water might be addressed with the consideration of nontraditional water resources for cooling, namely wastewater and brackish ground water. In meeting the demands on water resources from the power sector, alternative water supplies could alleviate the increasing competition for traditional supplies from agricultural, environmental, municipal, and industrial sectors. (Chen et al. 2013) This analysis addresses the availability of wastewater and shallow brackish ground water in the contiguous United States and the costs associated with the extraction, treatment and conveyance of these water sources. Lastly, because these water sources have not traditionally been used in thermoelectric cooling applications, unique state and federal regulatory issues may influence their ability to offset growing demands on traditional water supplies.

Background Prior to the USDOE’s 2006 report to Congress, significant investment into water-energy research was instigated by the power industry. In recognition of the water requirements of the electric power industry and anticipated conflict between dwindling supplies of available freshwater and the demands of a growing population’s need for a reliable public supply of both water and electricity, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) conducted numerous investigations into future alternatives. As part of a ten-year research effort, EPRI has published seventeen additional water-energy reports since completion of its 2002 report: Water and Sustainability (EPRI 2002). Issues addressed included water use efficiency and conservation, alternate cooling technologies, non-traditional sources of water, and improved management and forecasting techniques (EPRI 2008). Preceded by several technical reports on the interdependence of water and power, their 2008 report Use of Alternate Water Sources for Power Plant Cooling focused on the availability and cost of utilizing non-traditional sources of water, including municipal wastewater effluent, agricultural runoff, brackish ground water, and produced water (EPRI 2008). They concluded that the need to supply existing plants,

UCOWR

as well as the ability to site new plants based on the availability of consistent supplies of fresh water that meets the standards of quality required for power plant cooling could considerably alleviate pressure on planners, policymakers, and water users to allocate water supplies in order to meet the needs of a growing population (EPRI 2008). Feeley et al. (2008) synthesized the connections between water and power, existing and anticipated future competition for the resource, and overall challenges to sustainability within the energy-water nexus While the authors emphasized competing physical demands on water for public, agricultural, and industrial supplies, their conclusion was that planners and officials needed to take more active roles in management of local and regional water resources (Feeley et al. 2008). They noted that trends in population growth and correlated electricity demand will most likely affect regions in which water resources are traditionally scarce. Lastly, while water withdrawals from the thermoelectric power sector peaked approximately thirty years ago, this trend is more a representation of increasing water use efficiency and environmental standards such as those dictated by the Clean Water Act (CWA) than of a decline in electricity demand. Although changes to the standards have not yet been finalized, the EPA’s §316(b) ruling will require that intake systems for thermoelectric cooling systems employ the best technology available in order to reduce deleterious environmental impacts on aquatic life. This ruling will have great import on cooling technologies employed, discouraging traditional once-through systems in favor of recirculating, hybrid and dry cooling technologies. While this would dramatically reduce withdrawal rates, water consumption rates would increase and in the case of dry cooling technologies, while realizing lost generation efficiency, particularly on hot days. (Feeley et al. 2008; Kenny et al. 2009) Currently, the Department of Energy’s (DOE) “Innovations for Existing Plants: Water-Energy Interface” (IEP) focuses on two main areas of research: water conservation in thermoelectric generation through plant modifications and other water conservation activities, and the investigation into viable alternative (i.e., non-traditional) sources of water for use in power plant cooling. IEP funded 12 projects (3 of which have been completed)

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

Assessment of Non-Potable Water Demands in 2030 that are investigating alternative sources of water such as treated municipal waste water, produced water, and brackish ground water. Of the projects mentioned, the spatial analysis of alternative water sources by ALLConsulting’s Alternative Water Source Information System (AWSIS) is most similar to this project. Their work identifies alternate sources of cooling water including produced water, abandoned coal mine water, industrial waste water and low-quality ground water within a fifteen mile radius of existing coal-fired power plants (U.S. DOE 2009). This study takes a supply or availability approach by

97

identifying, characterizing, and quantifying nontraditional sources of water; this information is used to assess the ability of these resources to meet growing demands from the electricity generation sector across fuel types.

Methods Identification of suitable non-potable water resources for cooling in future thermoelectric power plants was the primary driver of this study. For the purposes of this work, suitability is defined by the availability of resources, the cost to treat

Figure 1. Electricity market module regions (U.S. EPA 2010). Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

UCOWR

98

Zemlick, Tidwell, Roberts, and Castillo

and transport them, and the relative proximity of suitable siting locations for a new thermoelectric plant. The objectives of this study were to address four basic questions: 1. Are wastewater and brackish ground water available and if so, what is the quantity present? 2. What are the costs associated with these resources? 3. What are the legal and regulatory considerations pertinent to their application in thermoelectric cooling? 4. What potential do these resources have to meet future demand from the power industry? The simplicity of these questions belies the complexities associated with water demand into the future and required extensive data collection and analysis. For the purposes of this analysis, data were aggregated by sub-regions utilized in The Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) [U.S. EPA 2012] (Figure 1). The availability and related costs of these nontraditional water resources were compared to the Energy Information Agency’s (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook 2012 projections of energy demand and associated water requirements through 2030.

Municipal Wastewater Of the over 16,000 municipal wastewater treatment facilities currently in operation in the country, less than 60 thermoelectric plants utilize this wastewater for cooling purposes; plants in Arizona, California, and Texas use significant quantities (Kenny et al. 2009; U.S. DOE 2009). Two of the primary criteria of water for thermoelectric cooling, volume, and quality of the source water, can be met by treated municipal wastewater (EPRI 2008; Levine and Asano 2004; Schmidt et al. 1975; U.S. EPA 2012; Vidic and Dzombak 2009; Veil 2007). In addition, while municipal wastewater effluent is widely available, markedly so in urban areas where demand for electricity is also concentrated, the volume available can be expected to grow in accordance with population. The Clean Water Act (CWA) requires entities that discharge water into waters of the United States to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit with general

UCOWR

oversight from the EPA. States with guidelines more stringent than those provided in the CWA have primacy over the issuance of NPDES permits, otherwise permits are issued directly by the EPA. Information regarding the location, outfall points, discharge volume, water quality characteristics and compliance information of NPDES permitted facilities is catalogued within the EPA’s Permit Compliance System (PCS) and Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) internet-based databases. The Clean Water Needs Survey (CWNS) database is compiled by the EPA’s Office of Wastewater Management and contains information similar to that reported in PCS/ICIS. Additional information such as the level of current and projected treatment as well as a characterization of end user or discharge location (i.e., irrigation, ocean discharge, or reuse) is provided. The primary function of the CWNS is to fulfill §205(a) and §516 of the CWA, providing infrastructure funds for the improvement of water treatment (Copeland 2010). As such, not all NPDES permit holders participate in the survey. Unlike the riparian doctrine that governs water law in many eastern states which allows for the use of water among those who have access to it by means of land ownership, water in many western states is governed by the doctrine of prior appropriation in which land and water ownership are not inherently connected. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that all wastewater effluent would be available for appropriation or that the siting of a power plant in close proximity to a wastewater treatment plant would guarantee access to its wastewater if it is already being put to beneficial use. In addition, the priority of a water right is is determined by the date of appropriation rather than its relative location (i.e., upstream versus downstream) of each appropriation. In this study, all wastewater plants whose effluent was designated as reuse to another user were eliminated as potential sources. In order to rule out plants whose effluent was likely already appropriated by a downstream user, it was important to classify the receiving water body as either a perennial or non-perennial stream (i.e., dry creek bed). It is reasonable to assume that in states adhering to the doctrine of prior appropriation, water in a perennial stream, whether in quantity or for conveyance purposes is already spoken for by a downstream user. The National Hydrography Dataset

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

Assessment of Non-Potable Water Demands in 2030 Plus (NHDPlus) contains flow data of water bodies in the U.S. For the purposes of this work, a mean annual flow of 10 cubic feet per second or greater was determined to be an indication of perenniality; wastewater treatment plants with discharging to such a water body were eliminated from consideration. The costs associated with using wastewater in future thermoelectric cooling applications influences the amount of water available, the level of treatment used, conveyance distance and the cost to purchase or lease the water. California is the only State in the study area that specifically requires that water used in thermoelectric cooling be treated to advanced standards (U.S. EPA 2012) due to concern over the aerosolization of biological material as well as decreased quality of blowdown water. It is probable that wastewater will be used in greater frequency in the future. Because of public health concerns and because higher quality water increases both water use and power production efficiency, it was assumed that other states will follow California’s lead. As such, existing plants applying less than advanced treatment technologies to wastewater were assumed to require no additional treatment costs; treatment costs for all remaining plants were assumed to require reverse osmosis (RO) and disinfection to bring their water quality to advanced standards. (Woods et al. 2012) Capital costs associated with the conveyance of the water in the form of pipeline construction and pump station costs as well as the ongoing energy requirements to move the water were also calculated (EPRI 2008). The land footprint requirement for power plants is largely dependent on both generating capacity and fuel type. For each wastewater treatment plant in the study area, the number of available footprints or potential power plant locations were analyzed geospatially using ArcGIS and land classification available from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). For each treatment plant, the number of footprints were aggregated and incorporated in a rank distribution statistical analysis in order to estimate the distance water would need to be transported to a receiving thermoelectric plant. This distance was incorporated into capital and ongoing expenses associated with water from a specific plant. The cost to purchase or lease treated wastewater was averaged from data originally reported in EPRI 2008 and verified using current water pricing data.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

99

Currently, no federal laws exist pertaining to the use of wastewater in thermoelectric cooling (Li et al. 2011; U.S. EPA 2012). However, the EPA’s Guidelines for Water Reuse (2012) cited their original 2004 publication as a possible impetus for states to create their own guidelines and regulations regarding wastewater reuse including irrigation, aquifer storage and recovery, commercial, industrial, and environmental sectors. According to their report, 14 of the 17 states in the study area have established regulations or guidelines pertaining directly to water reuse in industrial applications (U.S. EPA 2012). In addition, Bracken (2011) addressed regulatory issues unique to individual states and compiled reuse data where available.

Brackish Ground Water Brackish water is characterized by total dissolved solids (TDS) concentrations greater than 1,000 mg/l but less than 10,000 mg/l (Watson et al. 2003) and is widely distributed across the United States. “Saline” water by contrast is considered to be of a quality approaching that of seawater (30,000 TDS). Feth et al. (1970) published maps of the distribution and generalized chemical type of brackish ground water in the country. Historically viewed as a liability rather than a resource, Feth noted that brackish ground water could represent a cost-effective alternative to treating and transporting the significantly more saline ocean water. (Feth 1970; Watson et al. 2003) In a prophetic statement about the resource in his 1970 paper entitled Brackish Groundwater Resources of the United States, J.H. Feth stated “[it’s] importance in the national economy will probably grow to major proportions within the next few decades” (Feth 1970: 1454). More than four decades later, brackish ground water as well as lower quality produced water from oil and gas production have reemerged as a possible alternative to surface water for thermoelectric cooling, especially in states with limited water resources or predisposition to drought. (Dennehy 2004; EPRI 2008; Veil 2007) More recently, the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) National Carbon Sequestration Database (NATCARB) has identified deep brackish aquifers as potential storage sites for sequestered carbon, and has considered the possible reclamation

UCOWR

100

Zemlick, Tidwell, Roberts, and Castillo

of very brackish water displaced by carbon sequestration. However, many of these sites are characterized by very deep deposits (more than 2500 ft.) that are considered to be stable storage locations with high TDS concentrations (more than 15,000 TDS). Both qualities would make these supplies expensive to extract and to treat. By far, the majority of brackish water withdrawn (93 percent) is used in thermoelectric applications (Kenny et al. 2009). However, this water typically comes from sea water sources and constitutes 28 percent of total annual surface water withdrawals (Kenny et al. 2009). Only four States (Florida, Hawaii, New Jersey and Utah) in the contiguous U.S. report saline ground water withdrawals for thermoelectric cooling and all but Utah have coastal boundaries (Kenny et al. 2009). However, EPRI (2008) noted that New Mexico and Texas have, likely due to their tenuous supplies of freshwater, more exhaustively explored brackish ground water resources (EPRI 2008). They estimate that Texas overlies 2.7 billion acre feet of brackish ground water and New Mexico overlies up to 15 billion acre feet (EPRI 2008; Huff 2004; LBG-Guyton Associates 2003). Compared to present thermoelectric withdrawals of fresh water, these brackish supplies potentially constitute several hundred years’ worth of alternate supplies (EPRI 2008). The USGS maintains the National Water Information System database that contains both historical and real-time data of ground and surface water levels and quality. In lieu of a comprehensive national dataset, this site provides information on ground water levels and quality on a state level and will be utilized to assess the presence, quantity, and quality of brackish ground water in the southern and western states addressed in this report. For the purposes of this study, all wells with concentrations of TDS measured to be greater than 1,000 mg/l but less than 10,000 mg/l were included in the database. Wells with depths in excess of 2500 ft. were discarded. Wells with high TDS and depths greater than 2500 ft. are included in the NATCARB database and hence not included in this database. Lastly, only the most current well measurements were included, leaving one entry per well in the database. Three states in the study area have estimated the

UCOWR

distribution and volume of brackish ground water: New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas (Huff 2004; LBG-Guyton Associates 2003; McGavock 2009). While these resources are not currently being utilized extensively, the threshold for allowable depletion of brackish ground water was assumed to be 25 percent over a period of 100 years. For states reporting brackish ground water use (Kenny et al. 2009), it was assumed that twice the amount being used at present with a maximum volume of 10 MGD would be available for future development. The depth and quality of brackish ground water are the main determinants in the cost to use this resource in new thermoelectric plants. This is in contrast to the importance of siting plays in the costs of using wastewater; it was assumed that plants using brackish ground water could site in very close proximity to their water source. Well construction and completion costs as well as the cost to extract the water were calculated based on the average depth to saline water obtained in the analysis of USGS National Water Information System well data database (USGS 2012). The Desalting Handbook for Planners, 3rd Edition (Watson et al. 2003) describes all costs associated with construction of desalination facilities, treatment and disposal expenses, and ongoing operation and maintenance costs. Many thermoelectric plants in coastal areas of the U.S. rely on seawater for cooling and typically employ oncethrough cooling technologies which require large amounts of water but consume very little. Brackish ground water on the other hand, would typically be applied at inland plants where water supply is constrained and efficiency in cooling is paramount both in terms of water conservation and in parasitic energy losses. While higherquality brackish ground water deposits may not require treatment for thermoelectric application, for the purposes of this study it was assumed that would require both desalting and treatment of additional constituents that affect overall water quality in order to improve efficiency and reduce volume of waste product. No federal laws currently exist pertaining to the use of brackish water in thermoelectric cooling. However, it is assumed that state and federal laws, particularly the CWA, Safe Drinking Water Act

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

Assessment of Non-Potable Water Demands in 2030 (SDWA), and NEPA will be of particular importance regarding the disposal of the highly concentrated salt solution waste resulting from the desalination process (Watson et al. 2003).

101

in energy generation to 2030 was calculated for the 20 contiguous EMM subregions for both renewable and non-renewable fuels and the results are listed in Table 1. Although coal generation is anticipated to experience the steepest declines (nearly 77 Giga-watt hours), only five subregions show a net decline in energy generation through 2030. The range of water withdrawn for electricity generation varies greatly according to cooling technology and fuel type. Due to the increased standards of 316(b) ruling, it was assumed that

Electricity Demand Projections The U.S. Energy Information Administration publishes the Annual Energy Outlook (AEO) which contains energy generation by fuel type and Electricity Market Module (EMM) Region through 2035 (U.S. EIA 2012). The increase

Table 1. New energy generation in 2030 by EMM region and fuel type.

2,583

883

26

EMM Region

0

0

687

-

467

TOTAL

Distributed Generation

Pumped Storage

Nuclear

Natural Gas

Petroleum

Coal

Offshore Wind

Wind

-

NON-RENEWABLES Solar Photovoltaic

394

Solar Thermal

Wood and Other Biomass

Water Use (gal/MWh)1

Biogenic Municipal Waste

Fuel Type

Geothermal

RENEWABLES

672

0

0

-

Generation in Mega-watt hours2

ERCT

0

120

1,880

0

70

530

0

8,900

540

42,860

2,000

-1,490

170

55,580

FRCC

0

-250

4,090

0

90

0

0

370

-4,230

33,770

10,580

0

680

45,100

MROE

0

0

-70

0

0

40

0

-7,160

-170

600

-310

0

0

-7,070

MROW

0

-910

420

0

0

7,750

0

600

160

1,050

2,790

0

10

11,870

NEWE

0

-460

-250

0

10

7,260

0

-9,040

-390

8,180

630

40

0

5,980

NYCW

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

270

2,720

400

0

0

3,390

NYLI

0

-20

0

0

40

40

0

0

30

-2,410

0

0

0

-2,320

NYUP

0

90

350

0

0

130

0

-3,360

-480

-3,160

4,450

340

0

-1,640

RFCE

0

-130

3,900

0

140

130

750

-8,470

-440

4,340

3,640

-340

260

3,780

RFCM

0

-110

60

0

0

590

0

-2,770

-90

11,530

3,100

270

0

12,580

RFCW

0

-50

7,380

0

-10

4,860

0

240

430

8,490

3,480

460

0

25,280

SRDA

0

-70

490

0

0

0

0

6,890

-80

22,040

570

-280

0

29,560

SRGW

0

0

750

0

0

2,390

0

-4,420

200

-530

740

-540

0

-1,410

SRSE

0

40

11,220

0

0

0

0

-6,620

380

23,150

18,760

-760

0

46,170

SRCE

0

20

3,490

0

0

140

0

8,880

-1,910

-3,760

24,860

-270

0

31,450

SRVC

0

350

5,400

0

120

3,200

0

-14,170

-250

26,290

25,500

470

60

46,970

SPNO

0

20

400

0

0

7,210

0

-3,720

140

-1,500

-330

0

0

2,220

SPSO

0

-70

530

0

0

2,930

0

2,390

-1,600

20,270

0

-530

0

23,920

AZNM

-170

-30

90

540

1,800

4,570

0

3,990

200

-19,620

1,770

-280

1,070

-6,070

CAMX

21,560

-430

140

1,490

3,190

16,670

0

-8,980

-40

32,620

5,240

-140

0

71,320

NWPP

2,790

90

4,160

0

0

11,990

0

-8,200

90

6,980

-520

-360

40

17,060

RMPA TOTAL

0

-40

1,140

0

260

4,650

0

2,610

190

-6,370

0

40

930

3,410

24,180

-1,840

45,570

2,030

5,710

75,080

750

-42,040

-7,050

207,540

107,350

-3,370

3,220

417,130

1. Average water use by fuel type assuming recirculating cooling, modified from Macknick et al. 2011. 2. Figures modified from the Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (U.S. EIA 2012).

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

UCOWR

102

Zemlick, Tidwell, Roberts, and Castillo

withdrawal factors associated with recirculating cooling systems would be representative of future thermoelectric requirements. Based on the work of Macknick et al. (2011), water withdrawal rates were averaged by cooling type for recirculating systems and are used in projecting water demands by fuel type in Table 1. Note that hydroelectric generation was not included in the table as its consumptive use generally occurs as evaporation due to water impoundments.

Results Wastewater resources determined to be available within the study area are widespread and seemingly ubiquitous, especially when aggregated at the EMM Region scale. The highest volumes of wastewater are present in the Eastern and Midwestern United States, where municipal populations tend to be larger and more concentrated than in the west (Figure 2a). Brackish ground water is not as uniformly distributed as wastewater, and is present in large volumes in the western portion of the country where estimates of this source’s availability exist (Figure 2b). When both sources are aggregated, they easily meet new demand from the power generation sector. While many of the more developed Eastern regions of the country show a decline in overall generation through 2030, the availability of the water sources analyzed here may be of particular import to existing facilities whose transition to more efficient recirculating cooling may be required pursuant to 316(b). These results are of particular importance in the southern and western regions of the country where traditional supplies are extremely limited, fully appropriated, or subject to extreme seasonal variability. Yang and Lant (2011) noted that although freshwater withdrawals constitute only a small portion of total withdrawals in the southwest, a small increase in demand on these resources could “pose a significant dilemma.” In addition, the change in volume and timing of runoff in areas of the country where water has been historically abundant as a result of climate change, could to impact instream flow requirements, environmental obligations under the Endangered Species Act, federally reserved and priority water rights. This

UCOWR

increase in competition amongst growing demands for traditional supplies could make alternative water sources attractive to the perennial demands of the electric power industry. In spite of the broad scale of this analysis, the results show some regional variation in the cost of both waste and brackish ground water. Wastewater costs range between $400 to nearly $3,000 per acre-foot of water with an average of just over $1,000. The spectrum of brackish ground water costs is much larger, which should be expected given the estimated volumes of brackish ground water in New Mexico, Arizona, and Texas. On average however, brackish ground water cost is over $4,000 per acre-foot. The difference in costs between these two resources is reflective of both the availability of data and higher costs of desalination operations. While these regional costs are not inherently prohibitive, they do represent a significant increase in comparison to traditional water supplies. This analysis demonstrates that non-traditional sources are generally available and in many cases, not cost-prohibitive for the purposes of thermoelectric cooling and could represent a valuable addition to a more sustainable water management portfolio. It is important to note that variations in local generation are difficult to capture at the EMM region scale. For example, EMM Regions cross and encompass multiple state boundaries, which would inherently complicate the regulatory schema of non-traditional water utilization. In addition, the specific siting requirements for new power plants occurs at a much more localized scale, one cannot assume that the generalized costs and availability will hold true for any given plant. However, current regional water availability does shed some light on how trends in population growth and associated power generation might be addressed with non-traditional water resources. In addition this work does address, albeit briefly, the unique technical, financial, and institutional considerations associated with their widespread application. Because these resources represent pieces of the existing hydrologic pie and cannot be considered new, it is likely that as traditional resources are further constrained by competition, supply, and climatic factors, nontraditional water resources will eventually be subject to competition from other sectors as well.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

Assessment of Non-Potable Water Demands in 2030

103

Figure 2a. Wastewater availability by EMM region.

Figure 2b. Brackish ground water availability by EMM region.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

UCOWR

104

Zemlick, Tidwell, Roberts, and Castillo

Acknowledgements

References

The work described in this article was funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Sandia National Laboratories is a multi-program laboratory managed and operated by Sandia Corporation, a wholly owned subsidiary of Lockheed Martin Corporation, for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration under contract DE-AC04-94AL85000.

Bracken, N.S. 2011. Water reuse in the West: State programs and institutional issues. Western States Water Council. Available online at: http://www. westgov.org/wswc/water%20reuse%20report%20 %28final%29.pdf. Chen, L., S.B. Roy, and R.A. Goldstein. 2013. Projected freshwater withdrawals under efficiency scenarios for electricity generation and municipal use in the United States for 2030. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 49: 231-246. Copeland, C. 2010 Clean water act: A summary of the law. National Council for Science and the Environment. Available at: http://www.cnie.org/ nle/crsreports/10May/RL30030.pdf.

Author Bios and Contact Information Katie Zemlick is a contracted Environmental Scientist at Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, NM. She earned her Master’s Degree in Water Resources from the University of New Mexico in 2011. Her Master’s work focused on non-potable water resources in the western United States and their suitability for thermoelectric cooling application. Her current work focuses on water and energy as well as alternative energy modeling. She may be contacted at [email protected]. Vincent Tidwell is a Distinguished Member of the Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories. He has over 20 years of experience conducting and managing research on basic and applied projects in water resource management, nuclear and hazardous waste storage/remediation, and collaborative modeling. Currently he is leading several studies that address issues concerning the energy-water nexus including support for long-term transmission planning in the Western and Texas interconnections, carbon capture and sequestration impacts on water use, regional study in the Great Lakes Watershed, and support of DOE’s Office of Policy and Solar Program. Dr. Tidwell is also a Lead Author for the Land-Water-Energy cross-sectorial chapter for the 2013 National Climate Assessment. Barry Roberts is a Principal Member of Technical Staff at Sandia National Laboratories. He has B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. degrees in geology, with a focus on mathematical geology. His work at Sandia National Laboratories is centered on the spatial and statistical analysis of surface and sub-surface processes and features. Cesar Castillo is a master’s student in the Water Management and Hydrological Sciences Department at Texas A&M University. His master’s thesis has focused on modeling how land-use/land-cover changes and precipitation variability affect the hydrology of the coastal Aransas Watershed in Texas. He is scheduled to finish his master’s degree in Summer 2013; he will then begin pursuing a doctorate degree from the Department of Geography at Texas A&M University in Fall 2013. He may be contacted at [email protected].

UCOWR

Dennehy, K.F. 2004. National perspective on saline aquifers. Water Desalination and Reuse Strategies for New Mexico. New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. Ruidoso, New Mexico, 11-16. EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute. 2008. Use of alternate water sources for power plant cooling. Final Report 1014935. EPRI, Electric Power Research Institute. 2002. Water & sustainability: U.S. water consumption for power production - The next half century. Topical Report 1006786. Feeley, T.J. III, T.J., Skone, G.J Stiegel Jr., A. McNemar, M. Nemeth, B. Schimmoller, J.T. Murphy, and L. Manfredo. 2008. Water: A critical resource in the thermoelectric power industry. Energy 33: 1-11. Feth, J. 1970. Saline groundwater resources of the conterminous United States. Water Resources Research 1454-1457. Huff, G.F. 2004. An overview of the hydrogeology of saline ground water in New Mexico. Water Desalination and Reuse Strategies for New Mexico. New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute. Ruidoso, New Mexico, 21-34. Kenny, J.F., N.L. Barber, S.S. Hutson, K.S. Linsey, J.K. Lovelace, and M.A. Maupin. 2009. Estimated use of water in the United States 2005. USGS Circular 1344. LBG-Guyton Associates. 2003. Brackish groundwater manual for Texas regional water planning groups. Report prepared for the Texas Water Development Board, Austin, Texas. Available at: http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/RWPG/rpgm_ rpts/2001483395.pdf.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

Assessment of Non-Potable Water Demands in 2030 Levine, A. and T. Asano. 2004. Recovering sustainable water from wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology 201A-208A. Li, H., S.H. Chien, M.K. Hseih, D.A. Dzombak, and R.D. Vidic. 2011. Escalating water demand for energy production and the potential for use of treated municipal wastewater. Environmental Science and Technology 45: 4195-4200. Macknick, J., R. Newmark, G. Heath, and K. Hallet. 2011. A review of operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Colorado. McGavock, E. 2009. Opportunities for Desalination of Brackish Groundwater in Arizona. Errol L. Montgomery & Associates, Inc. Schmidt, C.J., I. Kugelman, and E.V. Clements III. 1975. Municipal wastewater reuse in the U.S. Journal of the Water Pollution Control Federation 47: 2229-2245. U.S. DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 2006. Energy demands on water resources. Report to Congress on the Interdependency of Energy and Water. U.S. DOE, U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Use of non-traditional water for power plant applications: An Overview of DOE/NETL R&D efforts. National Energy Technology Laboratory. U.S. EIA, U.S. Energy Information Administration. 2012. Annual energy outlook: With projections to 2035. EIA. U.S. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID). Version 1.0. U.S. EPA, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Guidelines for Water Reuse. EPA/600/R-12/618. USGS, U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. National Water Information System. From USGS Groundwater Information. Available at: http://water.usgs.gov/ogw/. Veil, J. 2007. Use of Reclaimed Water for Power Plant Cooling. Argonne National Laboratory. ANL/ EVS/R-07/3. Vidic, R.D. and D.A. Dzombak. 2009. Reuse of Treated Internal or External Wastewaters in the Cooling Systems of Coal-Based Thermoelectric Power Plants. USDOE/NETL. DE-FC26-06NT42722. Watson, I.C., O. Morin, and L. Henthorne. 2003. Desalting Handbook for Planners, 3rd Edition. Denver: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

Journal of Contemporary Water Research & Education

105

Woods, G.J., D. Kang, D.R. Quintanar, E.F. Curley, S.E. Davis, K.E. Lansey, and R.G. Arnold. 2012. Centralized vs. decentralized wastewater reclamation in the Houghton Area of Tucson, AZ. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management 139(3): 313-324. Yang, X. and C. Lant. 2011. A geographical and temporal analysis of U.S. thermoelectric withdrawals in comparison to renewable water supplies. Applied Geography 3: 1154-1165.

UCOWR