Water demand for electricity in deep decarbonisation scenarios: a multi-model assessment
This study assesses the effects of deep electricity decarbonisation and shifts in the choice of power plant cooling technologies on global electricity water demand, using a suite of five integrated assessment models. We find that electricity sector decarbonisation results in co-benefits for water resources primarily due to the phase-out of water-intensive coal-based thermoelectric power generation, although these co-benefits vary substantially across decarbonisation scenarios. Wind and solar photovoltaic power represent a win-win option for both climate and water resources, but further expansion of nuclear or fossil- and biomass-fuelled power plants with carbon capture and storage may result in increased pressures on the water environment. Further to these results, the paper provides insights on the most crucial factors of uncertainty with regards to future estimates of water demand. These estimates varied substantially across models in scenarios where the effects of decarbonisation on the electricity mix were less clear-cut. Future thermal and water efficiency improvements of power generation technologies and demand-side energy efficiency improvements were also identified to be important factors of uncertainty. We conclude that in order to ensure positive effects of decarbonisation on water resources, climate policy should be combined with technology-specific energy and/or water policies.
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Union’s Seventh Framework Program FP7/2007-2013 under grant agreement no. 308329 (ADVANCE). We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.
- Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M et al (2006) WITCH a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 27:13–37Google Scholar
- Emmerling J, Drouet L (2016) The WITCH 2016 model—documentation and implementation of the shared socioeconomic pathways. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
- Luderer G, Leimbach M, Bauer N, et al (2015) Description of the REMIND model (version 1.6). Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, GermanyGoogle Scholar
- Luderer G, Pehl M, Arvesen A, et al (in review) Environmental co-benefits and adverse side-effects of alternative power sector decarbonization strategies.Google Scholar
- Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC (2011) A review of operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies. National Renewable Energy Laboratory, GoldenGoogle Scholar
- Mouratiadou I, Biewald A, Pehl M et al (2016a) The impact of climate change mitigation on water demand for energy and food: an integrated analysis based on the shared socioeconomic pathways. Environ Sci Pol 64:48–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2016.06.007
- Mouratiadou I, Luderer G, Bauer N, Kriegler E (2016b) Emissions and their drivers: sensitivity to economic growth and fossil fuel availability across world regions. Clim Chang 136:23–37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1368-4
- PBL (2014) Integrated assessment of global environmental change with IMAGE 3.0: model description and policy applications. PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, The HagueGoogle Scholar
- Srinivasan S, Kholod N, Chaturvedi V, et al (2017) Water for electricity in India: a multi-model study of future challenges and linkages to climate change mitigation. Appl Energy (in press). doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.04.079
- Tavoni M, De Cian E, Luderer G et al (2012) The value of technology and of its evolution towards a low carbon economy. Clim Chang 114:39–57. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0294-3
- Torcellini PA, Long N, Judkoff R (2003) Consumptive water use for US power production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, COGoogle Scholar
- Vickers AL (1999) Handbook of water use and conservation. American Academy of Environmental Engineers, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar