AMBIO

, Volume 39, Issue 1, pp 30–39

Burning Water: A Comparative Analysis of the Energy Return on Water Invested

Review Paper

Abstract

While various energy-producing technologies have been analyzed to assess the amount of energy returned per unit of energy invested, this type of comprehensive and comparative approach has rarely been applied to other potentially limiting inputs such as water, land, and time. We assess the connection between water and energy production and conduct a comparative analysis for estimating the energy return on water invested (EROWI) for several renewable and non-renewable energy technologies using various Life Cycle Analyses. Our results suggest that the most water-efficient, fossil-based technologies have an EROWI one to two orders of magnitude greater than the most water-efficient biomass technologies, implying that the development of biomass energy technologies in scale sufficient to be a significant source of energy may produce or exacerbate water shortages around the globe and be limited by the availability of fresh water.

Keywords

Biofuels EROEI Water Energy production Ethanol Energy crops 

References

  1. Alcamo, J., et al. 2005. Changes in nature’s balance sheet: Model based estimates of future worldwide ecosystem services. Ecology and Society 10(2): 19.Google Scholar
  2. Berndes, G. 2002. Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Global Environmental Change 12: 253–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndes, G. 2008. Bioenergy—a new large user of scarce water? In Food and water, ed. J. Förare. Formas: Forskningsrådet för miljö, areella näringar och samhällsbyggande.Google Scholar
  4. Berndes, G., C. Azar, T. Kaberger, and D. Abrahamson. 2001. The feasibility of large-scale lignocellulose-based bioenergy production. Biomass & Bioenergy 20: 371–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Börjesson, P. 2008. Good or bad ethanol—what determines this? Report no. 65, Environmental and Energy Systems Studies, Department of Technology and Society, Lund University, Sweden.Google Scholar
  6. Cleveland, C.J. 1992. Energy surplus and energy quality in the extraction of fossil fuels in the US. Ecological Economics 6: 139–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cleveland, C.J. 2005. Net energy from oil and gas extraction in the United States. Energy 30: 769–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cleveland, C.J., R. Costanza, C. Hall, and R. Kaufmann. 1984. Energy and the US economy: A biophysical perspective. Science 225: 890–897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Drought threatens crop catastrophe. The Guardian, Apr 20, 2007. www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,,2061761,00.html.
  10. Farrell, A., R. J. Plevin, B. T. Turner, A. D. Jones, M. O’Hare, and D. M. Kammen. 2006. Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals. Science 311: 506–508.Google Scholar
  11. Flynn, H., and T. Bradford. 2006. Polysilicon: Supply, demand, and implications for the PV industry. Cambridge: The Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development.Google Scholar
  12. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1973. The entropy law and the economic problem. In Toward a steady state economy, ed. H.E. Daly. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
  13. Giampietro, M., S. Ulgiati, and D. Pimental. 1997. Feasibility of large-scale biofuel production. BioScience 47: 587–600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gleick, P.H. 2000. The world’s water. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  15. Goldemberg, J. 2007. Ethanol for a sustainable energy future. Science 315: 808–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hagens, N.J., R. Costanza, and K. Mulder. 2006. Energy returns on ethanol production. Science 312: 1746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hall, C.A., C. Cleveland, and R. Kaufmann. 1986. Energy and resource quality: The ecology of the economic process. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  18. Hill, J., E. Nelson, D. Tilman, S. Polasky, and D. Tiffany. 2006. Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 103: 11206–11210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hutson, S.S., N. L. Barber, J. F. Kenny, K. S. Linsey, D. S. Lumia, and M. A. Maupin. 2004. Estimated use of water in the United States in 2000. US Geological Survey, Circular 1268.Google Scholar
  20. Kannan, R., C. Tso, R. Osman, and H. Ho. 2004. LCA-LCCA of oil fired steam turbine power. Energy Conversion and Management 45: 3093–3107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kennedy, D. 2007. The biofuels conundrum. Science 316: 515.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lynd, L., and M.Q. Wang. 2004. A product-nonspecific framework for evaluating the potential of biomass-based products to displace fossil fuels. Journal of Industrial Ecology 7: 17–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Mann, M.K., and P. Spath. 1997. Life cycle assessment of a biomass gasification combined-cycle system. NREL/TP-430-23076. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  24. Mortimer, N.D., M.A. Elsayed, and R. Matthews. 2003. Carbon and energy balances for a range of biofuel options. Sheffield: Resources Research Unit, Sheffield Hallam University.Google Scholar
  25. Mulder, K., and N. Hagens. 2008. Energy return on investment—towards a consistent framework. AMBIO 37(2): 74–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Research Council. 2008. Water implications of biofuels production in the United States. Report prepared by the Committee on water implications of biofuels production in the United States, National Research Council, ISBN: 978-0-309-11361-8.Google Scholar
  27. Odling-Smee, L. 2007. Biofuels bandwagon hits a rut. Nature 446: 483.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Odum, H.T. 1973. Energy, ecology, and economics. AMBIO 2: 220–227.Google Scholar
  29. Oki, T., and S. Kanae. 2006. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313: 1068–1072.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pimentel, D., et al. 1997. Water resources, agriculture, the environment and society. BioScience 47: 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ragauskas, A.J., C. K. Williams, B. H. Davison, G. Britovsek, J. Cairney, C. A. Eckert, W. J. Frederick, Jr., J. P. Hallett, et al. 2006. The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials. Science 311: 484–489.Google Scholar
  32. Renault, D., and W. Wallender. 2006. Nutritional water productivity and diets. Agricultural Water Management 45: 275–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rijsberman, F.R. 2006. Water scarcity: Fact or fiction. Agricultural Water Management 80: 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sanderson, K. 2007. A field in ferment. Nature 444: 673–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sheehan, J., V. Camobreco, J. Duffield, M. Graboski, and H. Shapouri. 1998. An overview of biodiesel and petroleum diesel life cycles. NREL/TP-580-24772. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  36. Smil, V. 2006. 21st century energy: Some sobering thoughts. OECD Observer 258/59.Google Scholar
  37. Soddy, F. 1933. Wealth, virtual wealth and debt; the solution of the economic paradox, 2nd ed. New York: E.P. Dutton.Google Scholar
  38. Spreng, D.T. 1988. Net-energy analysis and the energy requirements of energy systems. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  39. Tainter, J.A., T. Allen, and T. Hoekstra. 2006. Energy transformations and post-normal science. Energy 31: 44–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tilman, D., P. Reich, and J.M.H. Knops. 2006a. Biodiversity and ecosystem stability in a decade-long grassland experiment. Nature 441: 629–632.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tilman, D., J. Hill, and C. Lehman. 2006b. Carbon negative biofuels from low impact high diversity grassland biomass. Science 314: 1598–1600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. United States Department of Agriculture—National Agriculture Statistics Service. 2007. http://www.nass.usda.gov/index.asp.
  43. Vorosmarty, C.J., P. Green, J. Salisbury, and R.B. Lammers. 2000. Global water resources: Vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289: 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Webber, M., and C. King. 2008. The water intensity of the plugged-in automotive economy. Environmental Science & Technology 42(12): 4305–4311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Additional Data References for Tables 2 and 3

  1. Alberta Chamber of Resources. 2006. Calgary, Alberta, Canada.Google Scholar
  2. De Oliveira, M.E.D., B.E. Vaughan, and E.J. Rykiel. 2005. Ethanol as fuel: Energy, carbon dioxide balances, and ecological footprint. BioScience 55: 593–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. deBoer, I. 2003. Environmental impact assessment of conventional and organic milk production. Livestock Production Science 80: 69–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Griffiths, M., A. Taylor, and D. Woynillowicz. 2006. Troubled waters, troubling trends: Technology and policy options to reduce water use in oil and oil sands development in Alberta. Drayton Valley: The Pembina Institute.Google Scholar
  5. International Standard Organization. 1997. Environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. Geneva: ISO.Google Scholar
  6. Kidd, S. 2004. Nuclear: Is there any net energy addition? Nuclear Engineering International 49: 12–13.Google Scholar
  7. No author. 2006. Deer Creek Energy Limited: Joslyn SAGD Project—phase 2 application for approval. Environmental Impact Assessment.Google Scholar
  8. Pimentel, D., and T. Patzek. 2005. Ethanol production: Energy and economic issues related to U.S. and Brazilian sugarcane. Natural Resources Research 14: 65–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Rafaschieri, A., M. Rapaccini, and G. Manfrida. 1999. Life cycle assessment of electricity production from poplar energy crops compared with conventional fossil fuels. Energy Conversion and Management 40: 1477–1493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Shapouri, H., J. Duffield, and M. Wang. 2003. The energy balance of corn ethanol revisited. Transactions of the ASAE 46: 959–968.Google Scholar
  11. Smeets, E., M. Junginger, A. Faaij, A. Walter, and P. Dolzan. 2006. Sustainability of Brazilian bio-ethanol. NWS-E-2006-110. Utrecht: Copernicus University.Google Scholar
  12. Stiegel, G.J., et al. 2006. Estimating freshwater needs to meet future thermoelectric generation requirements. Pittsburgh: DOE/NETL-2006/1235, National Energy Technology Laboratory.Google Scholar
  13. Tyson, S.K., C.J. Riley, and K.K. Humphreys. 1993. Fuel cycle evaluations of biomass—ethanol and reformulated gasoline. NREL/TP-463-4950. Golden: National Renewable Energy Laboratory.Google Scholar
  14. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2005. Oilseed yearbook.Google Scholar
  15. U.S. Department of Energy. http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/.

Copyright information

© Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Green Mountain CollegePoultneyUSA
  2. 2.Gund Institute for Ecological EconomicsUniversity of VermontBurlingtonUSA
  3. 3.Program in Science, Technology and Environmental Policy Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International AffairsPrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations