Abstract
Generating electricity places stresses on our planet’s limited supply of fossil fuels while also creating pollution in the form of greenhouse gases and local air pollution, but many readers may not realize that current electrical generation plants also consume significant quantities of water that is placing stress on global freshwater resources. We have shown in previous chapters that producing electricity by integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) coal plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) will reduce GHG emissions. In this chapter we show that coal-powered IGCC plants with CCS would also require approximately 39 % less water than the current U.S. mix of electricity generation technologies. We also show that the water required to produce hydrogen is much 20–25 times less than the water required to produce gasoline.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Of course the evaporated water is not lost, but returns as precipitation at a later time; however the precipitation will not usually occur in the areas that lost the water, and often not in the areas most in need of water.
- 2.
The coal plant water use in Fig. 8.2 is for an integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) power plant.
- 3.
Alkaline electrolyzers require water cooling, but proton exchange membrane (PEM) electrolyzers may not require cooling water.
- 4.
The “energy ratio” is the ratio of energy in the hydrogen divided by the energy in the biomass input to the plant; since this measure does not include other gasification plant energy inputs such as electricity, it is not a measure of total plant efficiency.
- 5.
IGT = Institute of Gas Technology; MTCI = Manufacturing and Technology Conversion International; BCL = Battelle Columbus Laboratory.
- 6.
One gallon of gasoline has an energy content of 113,602 (LHV) and 121,848 (HHV), compared to one kg of hydrogen at 113,725 (LHV) to 134,510 (HHV).
- 7.
The Highlander FCEV has a curb mass of 1880 kg, while the conventional gasoline Highlander had a curb mass of 1581 kg. We infer that the difference of 299 kg is due to the fuel cell system (including the fuel cell stack itself, the hydrogen storage system and the peak power battery, net any decreases due to eliminating the internal combustion engine, transmission, etc. Adding this 299 kg net increase for the fuel cell system to a Prius with a curb mass of 1380 kg yields a Prius-body FCEV curb mass of 1679 kg.
- 8.
However, the current Toyota Mirai FCEV, which is a smaller sedan, has an estimated fuel economy of 66 miles/kg, much lower than the fuel economy of their FCEV on a Highlander platform.
References
The United Nations World Water Development Report (WWDR) (2014) vol 1 Water and energy. Available at: http://www.unesco.org/new/en/natural-sciences/environment/water/wwap/wwdr/
Meldrum J et al (2013) Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates. Environ Res Lett 8 015031. Available at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/015031/article
Macknick J, Newmark R, Heath G, Hallett KC (2012) Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ Res Lett 7:045802. Available at: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/7/4/045802/article
Ruth M et al (2009) Hydrogen pathways: cost, well-to-wheels energy use, and emissions for current technology status of seven hydrogen production, deliver and distribution scenarios. Technical report NREL/TP 4A1-46612, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Sept 2009
Gerbens-Leenes P et al (2009) The water footprint of energy from biomass: a quantitative assessment and consequences of an increasing share of bio-energy in energy supply. Ecol Econ 68:1052–1060
Williams R et al (1995) Methanol and hydrogen from biomass for transportation, with comparisons to methanol and hydrogen from natural gas and coal. Center for Energy and Environmental Sciences, Princeton University, PU/CESS Report No. 292, July 1995
Wu M, Chiu Y (2008) Consumptive water use in the production of ethanol and petroleum gasoline—2011 Update. Argonne National Laboratory, Dec 2008 (updated July 2011) ANL/ESD/09-1-update. Available at: https://greet.es.anl.gov/publication-consumptive-water
Wipke K et al (2009) Evaluation of range estimates for the Toyota FCHV-adv. Under open toad driving conditions. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory and the Savannah River National Laboratory, Report # SRNL-STI-2009-00446, 10 Aug 2009. Available at: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2014/03/f9/toyota_fchv-adv_range_verification.pdf
Thomas CE (2000) On future fuels: a comparison of options. In: C-J Winter (ed) Chap. 5 of On energies-of-change-the hydrogen solution. Gerling Akademie Verlag, Mϋnchen, Germany
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Thomas, C.E.(. (2017). Water Consumption. In: Stopping Climate Change: the Case for Hydrogen and Coal. Lecture Notes in Energy, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31655-0_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31655-0_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-31654-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-31655-0
eBook Packages: EnergyEnergy (R0)