Advertisement

Climatic Change

, Volume 147, Issue 1–2, pp 91–106 | Cite as

Water demand for electricity in deep decarbonisation scenarios: a multi-model assessment

  • I. MouratiadouEmail author
  • M. Bevione
  • D. L. Bijl
  • L. Drouet
  • M. Hejazi
  • S. Mima
  • M. Pehl
  • G. Luderer
Article

Abstract

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.

Notes

Acknowledgements

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.

Supplementary material

10584_2017_2117_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (2.7 mb)
ESM 1 (PDF 2.73 MB)
10584_2017_2117_MOESM2_ESM.xlsx (31 kb)
ESM 2 (XLSX 30 kb)

References

  1. Bartos MD, Chester MV (2015) Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in the western United States. Nat Clim Chang 5:748–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauer N, Brecha RJ, Luderer G (2012) Economics of nuclear power and climate change mitigation policies. Proc Natl Acad Sci 109:16805–16810.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1201264109 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berndes G (2002) Bioenergy and water—the implications of large-scale bioenergy production for water use and supply. Glob Environ Chang 12:253–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bertram C, Luderer G, Pietzcker RC et al (2015) Complementing carbon prices with technology policies to keep climate targets within reach. Nat Clim Chang 5:235–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bijl DL, Bogaart PW, Kram T et al (2016) Long-term water demand for electricity, industry and households. Environ Sci Policy, Part 1 55:75–86.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2015.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bosetti V, Carraro C, Galeotti M et al (2006) WITCH a world induced technical change hybrid model. Energy J 27:13–37Google Scholar
  7. Brenkert A, Smith S, Kim S, Pitcher H (2003) Model documentation for the MiniCAM. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, RichlandCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Byers EA, Hall JW, Amezaga JM (2014) Electricity generation and cooling water use: UK pathways to 2050. Glob Environ Change 25:16–30.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2014.01.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chandel MK, Pratson LF, Jackson RB (2011) The potential impacts of climate-change policy on freshwater use in thermoelectric power generation. Sustain Biofuels 39:6234–6242.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2011.07.022 Google Scholar
  10. Edmonds J, Reilly J (1983) A long-term global energy-economic model of carbon dioxide release from fossil fuel use. Energy Econ 5:74–88.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0140-9883(83)90014-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Emmerling J, Drouet L (2016) The WITCH 2016 model—documentation and implementation of the shared socioeconomic pathways. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei, MilanGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischer D (2012) Challenges of low carbon technology diffusion: insights from shifts in China’s photovoltaic industry development. Innovation Development 2:131–146.  https://doi.org/10.1080/2157930X.2012.667210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fricko O, Parkinson SC, Johnson N et al (2016) Energy sector water use implications of a 2 °C climate policy. Environ Res Lett 11:034011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fthenakis V, Kim HC (2010) Life-cycle uses of water in U.S. electricity generation. Renew Sustainable Energy Rev 14:2039–2048.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.03.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gerbens-Leenes W, Hoekstra AY, van der Meer TH (2009) The water footprint of bioenergy. Proc Natl Acad Sci 106:10219–10223.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0812619106 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gleick PH (1992) Environmental consequences of hydroelectric development: the role of facility size and type. Energy 17:735–747.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0360-5442(92)90116-H CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Iyer G, Hultman N, Eom J et al (2015) Diffusion of low-carbon technologies and the feasibility of long-term climate targets. Technol Forecast Soc Change 90:103–118.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2013.08.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Koelbl BS, van den Broek M, Faaij APC, van Vuuren D (2014) Uncertainty in carbon capture and storage (CCS) deployment projections: a cross-model comparison exercise. Clim Chang 123:461–476.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-1050-7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Krey V (2014) Global energy-climate scenarios and models: a review. WIREs Energy Environ 3:363–383.  https://doi.org/10.1002/wene.98 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Krey V, Luderer G, Clarke L, Kriegler E (2014) Getting from here to there—energy technology transformation pathways in the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang 123:369–382.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0947-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kyle P, Davies EGR, Dooley JJ et al (2013) Influence of climate change mitigation technology on global demands of water for electricity generation. Int J Greenh Gas Control 13:112–123.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijggc.2012.12.006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Luderer G, Krey V, Calvin K et al (2014) The role of renewable energy in climate stabilization: results from the EMF27 scenarios. Clim Chang 123:427–441.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0924-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Luderer G, Pietzcker RC, Bertram C et al (2013) Economic mitigation challenges: how further delay closes the door for achieving climate targets. Environ Res Lett 8:034033.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/034033 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loew A, Jaramillo P, Zhai H (2016) Marginal costs of water savings from cooling system retrofits: a case study for Texas power plants. Environ Res Lett 11:104004.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/10/104004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Macknick J, Sattler S, Averyt K et al (2012) The water implications of generating electricity: water use across the United States based on different electricity pathways through 2050. Environ Res Lett 7:045803CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mathioudakis V, Gerbens-Leenes PW, van der Meer TH et al (2017) The water footprint of second-generation bioenergy: a comparison of biomass feedstocks and conversion techniques. J Clean Prod 148:571–582.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.032 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mekonnen MM, Hoekstra AY (2012) The blue water footprint of electricity from hydropower. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:179–187.  https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-179-2012 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Meldrum J, Nettles-Anderson S, Heath G et al (2013) Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates. Environ Res Lett 8:015031.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/1/015031 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Mima S, Criqui P (2015) The costs of climate change for the European energy system, an assessment with the POLES model. Environ Model Assess 20:303–319.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10666-015-9449-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 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
  35. 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
  36. Pietzcker RC, Ueckerdt F, Carrara S et al (2017) System integration of wind and solar power in integrated assessment models: a cross-model evaluation of new approaches. Energy Econ 64:583–599.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eneco.2016.11.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Schwanitz VJ (2013) Evaluating integrated assessment models of global climate change. Environ Model Softw 50:120–131.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2013.09.005 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sovacool BK (2009) The intermittency of wind, solar, and renewable electricity generators: technical barrier or rhetorical excuse? Util Policy 17:288–296.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jup.2008.07.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 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
  40. 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
  41. Torcellini PA, Long N, Judkoff R (2003) Consumptive water use for US power production. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Golden, COGoogle Scholar
  42. Toth FL (2008) Prospects for nuclear energy in the 21st century: a world tour. Int J Global Energy 30:3–27.  https://doi.org/10.1504/IJGEI.2008.019855 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. van Vliet MTH, Wiberg D, Leduc S, Riahi K (2016) Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nat Clim Chang 6:375–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. van Vliet MTH, Yearsley JR, Ludwig F et al (2012) Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nat Clim Chang 2:676–681.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1546 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vickers AL (1999) Handbook of water use and conservation. American Academy of Environmental Engineers, AnnapolisGoogle Scholar
  46. von Stechow C, Minx JC, Riahi K et al (2016) 2 °C and SDGs: united they stand, divided they fall? Environ Res Lett 11:034011.  https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/11/3/034022 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Webster M, Donohoo P, Palmintier B (2013) Water-CO2 trade-offs in electricity generation planning. Nat Clim Chang 3:1029–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams JH, DeBenedictis A, Ghanadan R et al (2012) The technology path to deep greenhouse gas emissions cuts by 2050: the pivotal role of electricity. Science 335:53–59.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1208365 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wise M, Calvin K, Thomson A et al (2009) Implications of limiting CO2 concentrations for land use and energy. Science 324:1183–1186.  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1168475 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK), Member of the Leibniz AssociationPotsdamGermany
  2. 2.Copernicus Institute of Sustainable DevelopmentUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei (FEEM) and Centro Euromediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici (CMCC)MilanItaly
  4. 4.Joint Global Change Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National LaboratoryCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.Laboratoire d’économie appliquées de Grenoble, CNRS, Grenoble INP, INRA, Univ. Grenoble-AlpesGrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations