Michigan Energy Forum - Energy/Water Nexus

713 views
502 views

Published on

Published in: Environment, Technology, Business
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
713
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
3
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • http://www.nrdc.org/air/mercury-in-the-great-lakes.asp (2012)
  • Reference: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), Climate Change, Water, and Risk: Current Water Demands Are Not Sustainable (July 2010), available at http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/watersustainability/files/WaterRisk.pdf.
  • Largest freshwater system on the earth. Bordering 8 states, 2 provinces. Approx. 21% of the world’s freshwater supply. Drinking water for tens of millions of people. 10% of US population, 30% of Canadian population live in the Basin. World class fishery, over 250 species of fish. Manufacturing, tourism, argiculture. Many threatened and endangered species call the Lakes home.

  • The following slides present an overview of the Great Lakes Energy-Water Nexus Initiative, a 21-month effort led by the Great Lakes Commission. The information has been compiled from several supporting/background documents:
    Energy and Water in the Great Lakes (V. Tidwell, B. Moreland, Sandia National Laboratories)
    Environmental Rules to Classify Basins for Sensitivity to Future Energy Development (M. Bain, Cornell University)
    The Confluence of Power and Water: How Regulation of the Electric Power Grid Affects Water and Other Natural Resources (J. Moore, Environmental Law and Policy Center)
    Great Lakes Energy Facility Siting (N. Schroeck, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center)
  • Based on what we know about the strong linkages between energy and water in the Great Lakes basin, we designed the GLEW project to:
    Examine water resource use for power production in the basin
    Examine potential aquatic resource impacts and ecological vulnerabilities in tributary watersheds associated with power production
    Lay out a series of future power generation scenarios to examine changes in water use and aquatic resource impacts
    Examine potential changes in energy policy and power production facility siting associated with a changing Great Lakes power profile
  • 24 watersheds exhibited high vulnerability
    21 exhibited moderate vulnerability
    57 exhibited low vulnerability
    5 watersheds along the St. Lawrence River were excluded from analyses  102 HUC8s were examined for this portion of the project
  • 29 watersheds exhibited high vulnerability
    29 exhibited moderate vulnerability
    29 exhibited low vulnerability
    15 exhibited extremely low vulnerability
    Only 15 (14.7%) regions have extremely low threat, meaning that 85.3% of regions have some threat due to thermal loading and coldwater resources
    5 watersheds along the St. Lawrence River were excluded from analyses  102 HUC8s were examined for this portion of the project
  • 18 watersheds exhibited very high water quality threat
    19 exhibited moderately high threat
    19 exhibited moderate threat
    43 exhibited low threat
    3 exhibited no (extremely low) threat
  • Great Lakes Compact (2008)
    Thresholds provided by Compact:
    100,000 GPD (gallons per day) = withdrawal threshold for reporting and registration
    Withdrawals over this amount are subject to possible legal action by any aggrieved citizen
    5 MGD = consumption threshold (over 90 day period)
    Most GL states have passed legislation setting consumptive use thresholds at 2 MGD, with varying consequences for exceeding this amount
    GLEW scenarios examined result in varying projections of water uses due to changing thermoelectric demands; potential for varying regulatory implications for power producing facilities pursuant to Compact guidelines
  • Figure used as reminder of how various scenarios affect watershed vulnerability
    Points to keep in mind:
    Several watersheds are on the verge of ecological vulnerability
    Thus, even water use below the Compact thresholds could adversely impact these areas
    The “registration and reporting” required by the Compact do not preclude a user from withdrawing the resource
    States should consider requiring prior approval of withdrawals, especially in these vulnerable areas
    The GLEW Model can help to, at a minimum, identify where the most vulnerable areas are
    Additionally, the Compact requires “cumulative impact assessment,” every five years OR when the basin experiences an increase in water losses greater to 50 MGD (over 90 day period)
    The GLEW model can be used to help prevent excessive water use (i.e., to trigger timely assessments!) throughout the basin; can help to highlight where losses are occurring (at HUC8 watershed scale)
  • Michigan Energy Forum - Energy/Water Nexus

    1. 1. Michigan Energy Forum: Energy & Water Nexus June 5, 2014
    2. 2. Building Michigan’s “Green and Blue” Economy Michigan’s Opportunity to Lead in the Sustainable Economy of the Future John Austin, President, Michigan State Board of Education Brookings Institution Non-Resident Senior Fellow Director, Michigan Economic Center at Prima Civitas Foundation THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM Michigan Energy Forum SPARK – Ann Arbor June 5, 2014
    3. 3. GLEI BROOKING First, our natural resources and our water were used to grow and transport the rich bounty of our region – people flocked here…
    4. 4. GLEI BROOKING Food, livestock, timber, and rich raw materials were converted; energy produced, water used and abused as input to great agro-industrial enterprises that grew here…We ruled the factory economy!
    5. 5. What is our future past Factory Economy? Late Ned Gramlich, University of Michigan provost and Federal Reserve Board Governor summarized nicely our hopes and the reality of Michigan’s economic promise when he said: “The opportunity for the Great Lakes States to thrive economically, as a center of innovation, and as an environmentally sustainable, clean-green playground for our nation’s people to live and work is unrivaled.”
    6. 6. In a global economy, where top talent, and firms can be anywhere…Michigan’s communities have to be special places….a place people choose… to live, work, and do their business Today Quality of Life and Place Matter
    7. 7. “Green” communities have a higher quality of life, better economy, residents spend more time on amenities, and they attract and keep talent (Bieri, U of M, “Are Green Cities Nice Places to Live?”)
    8. 8. GLEI BROOKING Why don’t we solve world problems here? Meet global needs for energy, water, food, and mobility solutions in Michigan – huge new markets…
    9. 9. Provide leadership in the coming “green” and “blue” sustainable economies based on smart energy and water use…
    10. 10. GLEI BROOKING Become the “silicon valley”of new mobility-need to link people and goods movement with IT, develop sustainable integrated systems here… The Energy We Use The Infrastructure We Build The Products We Buy The Places We Live and Work In
    11. 11. GLEI BROOKING Leverage rich agriculture base to feed growing urbanizing populations, locally and globally…
    12. 12. GLEI BROOKING And build on ‘Pure Michigan’ – making it more of a reality…
    13. 13. Blue Economy Water cleaning, monitoring, conservation technologies Building retrofits, water infrastructure repair, turbine machining, “blue-collar” jobs “Blueways”,wetland preservation, waterfront renewal, water trails Rain gardens, ‘grey-water systems: new “Blue” culture Green Economy Wind, solar, battery, bio-mass, next energy technology creation Building retrofits, turbine machining, solar panel production, transit-building: “green collar jobs” “Greenways”, parks, open-space: “green” places Green roofs, recycling, local food: “green” culture ‘Blue is the New Green’
    14. 14. GLEI BROOKING We have the assets to lead in the Blue - Green Economy Location: Sustainable platform for population and economic growth Water and green outdoors is a place–definer…“magic”…PURE MICHIGAN Economic attractor: recreation, tourism, quality of life advantage, outdoors (green) and water (blue)-based economic development New “green and blue jobs”: Water: 1 Million “Blue Economy” jobs already – 4th highest share in nation, freshwater work is growing $74 trillion global business Clean Energy: Michigan 12th in nation in green’jobs– 9th in biomass energy production, 10th and 4th largest wind and solar states Clean energy market is a $260Billion market, worldwide Nationally employs 2.7 million and growing – bigger than bio-med Innovation hub: public-private research and learning centers can grow here to drive sustainability revolution
    15. 15. GLEI BROOKINGS John Austin www.MiEconomicCenter.org jcaustin@umich.edu @John_C_Austin
    16. 16. Water & Energy Nexus Jamie Scripps 5 Lakes Energy, LLC
    17. 17. www.5lakesenergy.com WATER/ENERGY NEXUS
    18. 18. MOST ENERGY RESOURCES REQUIRE LARGE QUANTIES OF WATER Thermal electric technologies • Coal • Natural Gas • Nuclear • Biomass • CSP (Concentrated Solar Power) • Geothermal 144 coal plants on Great Lakes and 38 operating nuclear plants • 76 percent of water withdrawals in GL Region • 41 percent of water withdrawals nationally
    19. 19. Water Use for Energy Production Includes upstream water use (coal mining, hydraulic fracturing for natural gas) and electric generation.
    20. 20. Thermal Electric Generation More than 90 percent of U.S. power plants need cooling. Thermoelectric – use a heat source to produce steam for generating electricity.
    21. 21. Withdrawal vs. Consumption Water withdrawn - total volume removed from a water source. Often, a portion is available to be used again. Water consumed – removed for use and not returned to its source.
    22. 22. Trade-Offs Closed-cycle cooling systems consume more water, up to 70% of water withdrawn due to evaporation, but they withdraw between 95 and 98 percent less water than once-through cooling systems.
    23. 23. RE and Energy Efficiency Renewable energy systems like wind and solar PV don’t rely on thermoelectric power generation and consume very little water. EE - Reducing demand for energy will reduce demand for water.
    24. 24. Integrated Resource Planning (IRP) • A plan developed by an electric power provider that defines the short and long term capacity additions and demand side management programs that it will undertake to meet projected energy demands. • Reflect fuel cost and volatility, the effects on air and water, national security, climate change, etc.
    25. 25. IRP in Michigan • Public Act 286 requires an IRP to be prepared and filed by utilities when filing an application for a certificate of necessity with the Michigan Public Service Commission. • PA 286 developed 2007-2008, passed in 2008.
    26. 26. Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool • PA 188, 189 of 2008 - created framework for management of water withdrawal and diversion from the Great Lakes basin. • Developed 2007-2008, passed in 2008.
    27. 27. 2007-2008 • Water Withdrawal Policy Discussion – Sen. Patty Birkholz – Bottled water, agriculture • Energy Discussion – Sen. Patty Birkholz – PA 295 of 2008 – renewable energy standard – PA 286 of 2008 – Integrated Resource Planning
    28. 28. Source: Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC)
    29. 29. IRP in Arizona IRP must address: –load-serving data regarding air emissions, water consumption, and tons of coal ash produced –environmental impacts related to air emissions, solid waste, and other environmental factors and reduction of water consumption
    30. 30. www.5lakesenergy.com JSCRIPPS@5LAKESENERGY.COM
    31. 31. Water and Energy Nexus Nick Schroeck Director, Transnational Environmental Law Clinic, WSU Law Executive Director, Great Lakes Environmental Law Center Photo Credit: Jeff Schmaltz, MODIS Rapid Response Team, NASA/GSFC
    32. 32. WWW.GLELC.ORG GLELC on Facebook
    33. 33. About the Great Lakes
    34. 34. Water Quantity • Common Law is inadequate to safeguard water quantity • Reasonable Use Doctrine • Oil and Gas Development
    35. 35. Great Lakes Compact • Background and brief discussion of what the Compact does and does not require • 100,000 GPD threshold only applies to registration and reporting • 100,000 GPD threshold may be too high • Compact does not require states to establish consumptive use thresholds
    36. 36. Example of State Implementation: The Michigan Water Withdrawal Act • Ensures compliance with Compact’s Decision- making Standard • Defines adverse resource impact • Water Withdrawal Assessment Tool
    37. 37. Suggestions to Strengthen the Compact’s Water Quantity Protections • Condition approval of withdrawals on environmental review, not just registration and reporting • Consider lowering threshold level • Set Consumptive Use ceiling • Increase sanctions for non-compliance
    38. 38. http://www.glangler.com/ Integrating Energy and Water Resources Decision Making in the Great Lakes Basin An Examination of Future Power Generation Scenarios and Water Resource Impacts Great Lakes Energy-Water Nexus Initiative
    39. 39. Project Goals and Objectives • Water and Energy = inextricably linked • http://glc.org/projects/energy/glew/ • Thermoelectric Power Production: – Great Lakes basin water use – Aquatic resource impacts and ecological vulnerabilities in tributary watersheds – Future power generation scenarios – Potential policy & regulatory implications
    40. 40. Metric 1: Low-flow Vulnerability • Scale: 0 (high vulnerability)  1 (low vulnerability)
    41. 41. Metric 2: Thermal Vulnerability • Scale: 0 (high vulnerability)  1 (low vulnerability)
    42. 42. Metric 3: Water Quality Impairment • Scale: 0 (high vulnerability)  1 (low vulnerability)
    43. 43. Policy Implications The Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact • Thresholds for Reporting and Registration: – Withdrawal: 100,000 GPD – Consumption: 5 MGD (subject to regional review) • States may set their own thresholds! • GLEW Scenarios: – Result in varying projections of water use and, thus, varying implications for compliance with Compact guidelines
    44. 44. Policy Implications, cont. • Compact threshold violations vs. vulnerable watersheds – What’s the connection? 24 30 27 18 27 24 + 6 + 3 -6 + 3 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 2007 BAU 2035 NNOLC 2035 OLCP 2035 RPS 2035 CCS 2035 NumberofWatersheds Change from 2007 Remember: a number of watersheds straddle a “tipping point” on the verge of vulnerability… …Even withdrawals below current Compact thresholds could have adverse impacts in these areas …Registration and Reporting do not preclude a user from withdrawing the resource
    45. 45. Questions? • Nick Schroeck • nschroeck@wayne.edu
    46. 46. Next Michigan Energy Forum Program: Brewing with Clean Energy Moderator: Nick Cucinelli September 11, 2014

    ×