Reducing water and energy tradeoffs by increasing water and energy productivity
Reducing water and energy tradeoffs by increasingwater and energy productivity:Case study from the lift irrigation areas of theSyrdarya River midstreamA.Karimov, V.Smakhtin, A. Platonov, A. Korydjumaev, Kh. KhodjievInternational Conference: Water in the Anthropocene: Challenges forScience and Governance. Indicators, Thresholds and Uncertainties of theGlobal Water SystemBonn 21-24 May 2013
Water for Food and Energy Nexus in the Aral Sea Basin020004000600080001000012000140001600018000010000200003000040000500006000019801985199019952000200520072008200920102011Intakeperarea(m3/ha)/percapita(m3)Population/Irrigatedarea(ha)Population Irrigated area Water intake per capitaIncreasing population in the Aral Sea basin: Increased demand for food crop production, produced mainly under irrigation Increased demand for energy (the upstream states rely on hydropower or energy trade withthe downstream states) The shift of the upstream reservoirs operation from irrigation to hydropower generationregime caused uncertainties in water management New upstream reservoirs are under consideration
Water for Food, Energy of both?Current status:AgricultureAlternative: Power generationImprove water andenergy productivityFor both:Agriculture andPowergeneration
Competition for water for irrigation and hydropowergeneration in the Syrdarya River basin0204060801001201992 1995 1998 2001 2004Drainageflow,Mm3/moTotal drainage flow to Syrdarya riverDrainage flow in the northern Tajikistan012345678192519301934193819421946195019541958196219661970197419781982198619901994199820022006yearsQsummer/Qwinter010203040501968197719931995199719992001200320052007Storages,km301000200030004000Area,haStorages Discharge AreaSyrdarya River basinRatio of summer flow to winter flowof Naryn River at entry point to theFergana ValleyRiver flow discharge to Arnasai depression
Water and energy depletions under lift irrigation (А) andgroundwater irrigation (B) in the Syrdarya River midstreamA. Lift irrigation B. Groundwater irrigationItem Water EnergyMm3/yr MKwh/yrWater lift from the river (А) 1355 786Losses in the lift irrigationcanals (Pc)230 134Supply to WUAs 1125 652Losses at farm levels (Pf) 337 196Evapotranspiration (ETc) 787 457Crop transpiration (Tc) 583 338Evaporation (Е) 204 139Total losses(L = E+ (Pc+Pf)*0.3)375 448Energy expenses(Kwh/м3)0.58Process fraction of availableresource, (Tc/A)0.43 0.43Non-process fraction ofavailable resource (L/A)0.28 0.57Item Water EnergyMm3/yr MKwh/yrGW extraction (A) 111 53Losses at farm levels(Pf)33.3 15.9Evapotranspiration(ETc) 77.7 37.1Crop transpiration (Tc) 57.6 27.5Evaporation (Е) 20.1 9.6Total losses(L= E +Pf *0.3)30.1 25.5Energy expenses(Kwh/м3)0.48Process fraction ofdepleted resource, (Tc/A)0.52 0.52Non-process fraction ofavailable resource (L/A)0.27 0.48
Water and energy productivity under lift (LI) andgroundwater (GWI) irrigation at Samgar irrigation systemCrop Water productivity,kg/m3Energy productivity(kg/Kwh)LI GWI LI GWICotton 0.19 0.21 0.25 2.1Vegetables 0.59 1 1.65 7.93Maize for silage 1.99 1.46 2.61 14.17Sorghum 0.55 1.66 1.54 3.3Alfalfa 0.59 0.78 0.78 1.56Apricots 0.16 0.51 0.44 4.92Grapevines 0.11 0.7 0.15 1.3702468101992 1997 2002 2007 2012Numberofnewwells051015202530Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecСток,Mм3/месWater witdrawal Karamazarsai Return flowGW irrigation Water Lift and return flowInstallation of new wellsby farmersLI – lift irrigation; GWI – groundwater irrigation
Water productivity (WP) and energy productivity (EP) under liftand groundwater irrigation at Kushatov Production Cooperative00.40.81.21.62CottonApricotGrapevineSorghumMaizeforsilageAlfalfaQuienceWP,kg/m3Crop LI GWI00.40.81.21.62ApricotatfrutingstageVegetablesSorghumRiceMelonWP,kg/m3Crop LI GWI02.557.51012.5ApricotatfrutingstageVegetablesSorghumRiceMelonEP,kg/kwhCrop LI GWI03691215CottonApricotGrapevineSorghumMaizeforsilageAlfalfaEP,kg/kwhCropLI GWIFirst lift zoneThird lift zone
Improving water and energy productivity by improvingfarming practicesConventional crop managementpractices and lift irrigation:WP = 0.11 kg/m3;EP = 0.70 kg/KwhConventional practices and GWirrigation:WP = 0.15 kg/m3EP = 1.37 kg/KwhWP = Y / (I + P) ; EP = Y / ECrop WP EPkg/m3 kg/KwhGrapevines of 2d year 0 0Grapevines of 2d year andinter-row water melons 1.43 3.13Grapevines of 3d year 0.19 0.67Grapevines of 6th year 2.14 4.63Grapevines of 6th year andminimal tillage 1.91 4.11Pistachio 0.04 0.16Improved crop production and GW irrigationWP – water productivity; Y – yield, I+ P – irrigationand precipitation; EP – energy productivity;E- power consumption
Expenses of farmers for access to water(Kushatov Production Cooperative)0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.0April May June July AugustTajiksomoni/haTogaevErmatovElmirzoevUsmonalievTogaev farm located in the 1t lift zoneErmatov farm located in the 3d lift zoneElmirzaev and Usmonaliev farms use GW for irrigation
Conclusions Improving water and energy productivity on the lift irrigated areas of theSyrdarya River midstream will make coherent needs for water foragriculture and and energy; Groundwater development within lift irrigation areas will reduce energyconsumption and increase energy and water productivities; Other measures, such as improved crop and soil management andintroducing water saving technologies should be also considered
Conclusion :Improving water and energy productivity, recovery water losses for irrigation within their area of origin and MAR can reducedemand for water, by decreasing non-productive water depletions, and using additional storages. This way suitableenvironment can be created for converging competing interests in to cooperative actionsThank You
A particular slide catching your eye?
Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.