Water and Watts: A new issue brief on energy and water in the Southeast

The World Resources Institute, Southface and the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance recently released a new issue brief about water and energy in the Southeast. Their basic conclusion? Thermoelectric power plants are responsible for nearly two out of every three gallons of freshwater withdrawals in the Southeast. Much of that water returns to the water body it was removed from, but some of it is evaporated or otherwise consumed and not returned.

The average kilowatt-hour of electricity produced in the Southeast consumes nearly a gallon of water.

Click here to read the issue brief.

Southeast coal plants put pressure on water supply (Wednesday, May 13, 2009)
E&E Daily

Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter

The Southeast's reliance on coal-fired power plants is threatening the region's water supply, according to a new analysis that says energy efficiency could alleviate the growing pressure on lakes and rivers.

The region uses 40 billion gallons of water every day in the production of electricity. That amounts to two-thirds of all its water use -- more than any other region -- and nearly matches the nation's daily draw of freshwater for public consumption, according to a report released today by the World Resources Institute and two regional conservation groups.

"The Southeast faces immense challenges in meeting the water and energy needs of a growing population," says the report, noting that climate change will strain water resources as more people tap the dwindling reserve.

The region is a focus for advocates of renewable energy and efficiency initiatives, in part because those states have historically trailed other regions in adopting strategies to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The economic signals there have been slower to push utilities and policymakers to adopt cost-saving -- and carbon-reducing -- policies. Several Southern states are some of the highest per capita energy users in the nation.

"There's no hiding the fact. The Southern states have been blessed, and cursed, with low energy costs," said Ben Taube, a contributor to the report and the executive director of the Southeast Energy Efficiency Alliance. "We've got a lot of opportunity ahead of us, and we've got to find ways to make that happen."

Those cheap prices have traditionally led to a reliance on coal. But the pressures on water -- now and in the future -- are one more reason to impose energy-cutting efficiency programs and shift to renewable power production, the report says.

New efficiencies can reduce the amount of water used to cool equipment in the production of electricity in plants powered by coal, nuclear fuel and biomass. Also, conserving water can reduce the amount of electricity needed to treat and heat water. The report says the warm region is an ideal place for solar hot water systems, which can provide 40 to 80 percent of the hot water used in homes and businesses.

That could reduce electricity consumption -- and the water needed for that process.

Less energy = more water

The report says utilities and regulators need to consider the relationship between energy and water when planning new power plants.

"Most states take a silo approach to energy planning and a silo approach to water planning," said Dennis Creech, a contributor to the report and the executive director of Southface, a conservation group. "They don't look at the two."

The report will be delivered to businesses and policymakers. It recommends that legislators offer financial incentives, like tax credits, to encourage energy efficiency practices and the purchase of low-energy equipment.

"Steps taken to minimize energy demands will help relieve pressure to construct new power plants, thus avoiding the need to divert additional freshwater resources," the report says.

It also suggests that states require public buildings to be energy efficient, and that they launch aggressive education campaigns to teach the public about the connection between water and energy.

But those efforts might be a challenge. At least two new nuclear power plants have been proposed in the region. Nuclear plants use more water than other types of facilities.

And there's still a dependence on traditional energy, with some regional power companies asserting that the Southeast has fewer renewable energy sources -- like wind -- than other areas. Clean energy advocates strongly dispute that perception, saying the region could produce 25 percent of its power from renewable energy sources, like biomass, by 2025.

"One of the key things that came out of our report was the fact that the conventional means of producing electricity -- coal power plants, nuclear power plants -- can be very water-intensive," said Eliot Metzger of the World Resources Institute. "And the fact that the business-as-usual path was to build more of those plants, [which] was clearly not the sustainable path."

Their two cents

The Washington Times recently released disturbing news that the clean energy and jobs bill currently before Congress will let some utilities get away with building new coal plants without having to equip the facilities with the technology to capture dangerous pollution.

Instead, coal and utility lobbyists want us to pay to clean up their dirty coal. According to the Center for American Progress, the companies that comprise the lead coal-industry front group spend less than $0.02 of every dollar they earn to research and develop the supposed "clean coal" technology they say justifies building new coal plants. However they do have a $40 million communications budget and are spending the most money on lobbying in Washington DC to weaken legislation to address climate change.

Read more at the Institute for Southern Studies.

Like Oil and Water: Coal and Climate Don't Mix

Last week, 60 Minutes on CBS aired a segment called "The Dilemma Over Coal Generated Power." The segment features Duke Energy CEO Jim Rogers and NASA climate scientist Dr. Jim Hansen discussing the urgent need to address climate change despite our addiction to dirty coal.

Rogers today announced that Duke Energy will not renew its membership in the National Association of Manufacturers partly because of differences over climate policy, but meanwhile he is building his own dirty coal plant in Rutherford County North Carolina.

Southern Alliance for Clean Energy's executive director Stephen Smith watched the segment and provides some context here. Or check out the Institute for Southern Studies' blog about how Duke Energy execs lose their cool over intensifying pressure to address climate change.

Canceling Coal: A Capital Idea

Recently the Architect of the U.S. Capitol announced that the Capitol Power Plant will be converted to run on natural gas instead of coal. The Capitol Power Plant marks yet another example of the trend against coal. Nearby, coal plants are being converted to run on renewable energy like biopower. Biopower and natural gas might not be perfect, but they demonstrate that there are viable alternatives to dirty coal.

To be sure, not all of the decisions coming out of Washington are praiseworthy, but I think this one is.

Read the Capitol Architect's letter to Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid here.

Capitol Power Plant to stop use of coal

By Jordy Yager

Posted: 05/01/09 06:10 PM [ET]

House and Senate leadership formally announced on Friday that coal would no longer be used to heat and cool the Capitol and surrounding office buildings – for the most part. Coal will continue to be used in three different scenarios as “emergency backup,” according to the leaders. “For years, the Capitol Power Plant has been the largest source of carbon emissions on the Capitol Complex,” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) in a statement. “The Architect’s switch to cleaner burning natural gas shows that the House and Senate are leading by example in reducing our emissions. I look forward to working with the Architect’s office to achieve even greater energy savings and efficiency through our greening programs.” Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) previously announced they intended to stop the plant’s use of coal. In explaining situations where coal would still be used, Pelosi and Reid in a joint statement referenced a letter sent to them last week by the overseer of the Capitol Power Plant (CPP). If the heating needs of the Capitol and surrounding office buildings exceed the capacity of the natural gas pipeline currently serving the complex, which still needs to be enlarged to allot for the increased usage of natural gas, coal may have to be used, acting-Architect of the Capitol Stephen Ayers wrote in the letter. Also, if abnormally cold conditions place larger than normal demands on the CPP or if any of the gas burning equipment breaks and needs repair, the plant may have to revert to burning a percentage of coal during that interim. In February, Pelosi and Reid requested the Capitol Power Plant switch to natural gas – a more environmentally friendly form of energy – for all of its energy production by the end of 2009. In their announcement on Friday however, they did not set a firm timeline. As part of the transition to using only natural gas, Ayers has requested $10 million to redesign and convert the remaining coal burner to be natural gas capable, a process that he said could be complete as early as November, 2010. The CPP has traditionally used a combination of fuel, natural gas and coal to create steam energy to heat and cool the Capitol and the House and Senate office buildings. The plant is currently the largest source of pollution in Washington. Ayers said in his letter that the AoC was still in the process of refining the “master plan” for the future of the Capitol Power Plant and has asked the U.S. Department of Energy and the National Academies to review it for feedback.

Furman Neuroscience Professor: Coal mercury is toxic

Yesterday, Dr. Judy Grisel, associate professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Furman University, joined a growing list of scientists, physicians and other healthcare professionals who have been speaking out about the dangers of mercury from coal plants. Even outside of the state's Mercury Traingle, where Santee Cooper wants to put a new significant source of mercury, professionals are making clear that more mercury is a bad idea.

April 13, 2009

State should reject new coal-fired plant

The state of South Carolina should not support Santee Cooper's plans to build a new coal plant on the Pee Dee River. While there are many dangerous pollutants released by coal plants, mercury is probably the worst. This chemical is highly neurotoxic and especially harmful to children, where brain damage is likely to be irreversible.

Coal-fired power plants are the largest source of toxic mercury pollution in the United States and emit 42 percent of the country's industrial mercury pollution. Cleaner sources of energy should be promoted and developed in South Carolina, in order to keep the state beautiful and the population healthy.

Judy Grisel

Associate Professor of Psychology and Neuroscience Furman University

http://www.greenvilleonline.com/article/20090413/OPINION/904130318/1010

Santee Cooper Agrees to Test Ash - Why Not Mercury?

From the Charleston Post and Courier:

Wells near ash-topped road to be tested
By Tony Bartelme
Wednesday, April 8, 2009

ST. STEPHEN — Santee Cooper has hired a consultant to test drinking water wells along Tobacco Road, an unpaved lane that Santee Cooper used as a demonstration project in 2004 to determine whether coal ash should be used on dirt roads.

Santee Cooper supplied 425 tons of fly ash from its Jefferies Station coal plant for the 1.5-mile road project. A recent Watchdog report revealed that the Jefferies Station fly ash contained traces of arsenic, barium and other toxic chemicals.

In a community meeting March 30, residents said they felt like Santee Cooper used them as guinea pigs and demanded that the utility test their water and air.

Earlier this week, a top Santee Cooper official began notifying residents that the company had hired a consultant, GEL Engineering of Charleston, to test residents' water. The consultant has analyzed numerous samples at Santee Cooper's facilities over the years.

Laura Varn, Santee Cooper vice president of corporate communications, described the costs of the testing as "nominal," with the final tally dependent on how many residents want their water tested. She said the testing will take about 10 days.

In addition to fly ash, Berkeley County crews have spread limestone on the road over the past few years, a common practice on dirt roads in South Carolina. Varn said Santee Cooper asked GEL Laboratories to test two samples of limestone from a nearby quarry and found they contained arsenic and selenium.

Residents were pleased with Santee Cooper's decision. "I think this water needs to be tested, and I think they need to get it moving," said the Rev. Julius Barnes, who lives on Tobacco Road. "I'm not sure how they're going to test the air, though. We'll see how it goes."

Why doesn't Santee Cooper cooperate with the state's other coal polluters and pay for DHEC's study of mercury poisoning in Palmetto State residents? The "nominal" costs of such an endeavor would surely be cheaper than all the millions of dollars of P.R. our state-owned utility has bought in support of its coal plant.