Bioenergy or Hydropower: Implication for Water and Food
Bioenergy or Hydropower–Implication for Water and FoodGauthier PitoisInternational Food Policy ResearchInstitute―Water in the Anthropocene‖GWSP ConferenceMay 2013, Bonn, Germany
Motivation Growing energy demands of wealthier, more urbanpopulations Demand can be met from HP, biofuels, or other traditionaland nontraditional energy sources—all energy developmentrequires some water; and some energy sources need a lot In addition, agriculture is increasingly energy-intensive(including about 40% of food produced from groundwater)and biofuel development competes with food for land andwater Climate change is a further complication on the water-energy picture The result is increasing competition for water acrosssectors under growing uncertainty
Growing water intensity of energy productionSource: World Energy Outlook, 2012HP is not considered to withdraw or consume water, but this energy sourcehas a multitude of water impacts
Price Linkage (Food – Biofuel)Source: D.K. Albino, C. Freidman and Y. Bar-Yam, Global Security and the RFS. NECSIReport 2013-04-01
Total and per Capita Storage05101520250100200300400500600700800Storage (bcm) Per-Cap. Ratio (bcm/cap)Source: GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). Map 81: GRanD Database (V1.0)Note: Storagecurrentlyincreasing inAsia, SSA andsome LAC.
Hydropower Generation (20% of total energygeneration)0100200300400500600700800050100150200250Capacity (mil. kW) Generation (bil. kWh)Source: U.S. EIA, 2013
Linkage Storage-Hydropower CapacitySources: GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). Map 81: GRanD Database (V1.0)U.S. EIA, 2013
Scenarios linking water with energy and food1) Business as usual (BAU) versus Bioeconomy scenario:economic growth driven by the development of renewablebiological resources and biotechnologies to producesustainable products, employment and income-> Increase in agricultural R&D / crop productivitygrowth; Impact of faster technological change -commercial scale second generation biofuels start 5years earlier--reducing demand for first generationfeedstocks; increased WUE across irrigation, HHs &industry); lower fertilizer input2) BAU versus increased storage & irrigation, gradual changeout to 2050: 50% more storage; 25% more storage + 12.5%more irrigation; 50% more storage + 25% more irrigation
IMPACT – Partial Equilibrium AgriculturalSector Model
S.1-- Percent Change in World Prices ofCereals between 2010 and 2050, BAU0102030405060Rice Wheat Maize Other Grains Millet SorghumPercentChangeSource: IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2012 Simulations
S.1 --Irrigation water supply reliability under BAU andBioeconomy in 2000, 2030, 2050Region 20002030 2050BAU BIO BAU BIOEast Asia & Pacific 0.754 0.631 0.714 0.554 0.675Eastern Europe & Central Asia 0.668 0.617 0.666 0.515 0.655Latin America & Caribbean 0.911 0.933 0.954 0.936 0.973Middle East & North Africa 0.986 0.975 0.978 0.972 0.975South Asia 0.706 0.622 0.679 0.517 0.645Sub-Saharan Africa 0.825 0.747 0.785 0.715 0.780North America 0.978 0.984 0.990 0.987 1.000NAFTA 0.983 0.988 0.993 0.991 1.000Europe Developed 0.974 0.997 0.999 0.994 0.996Developed 0.958 0.961 0.972 0.956 0.982Developing 0.749 0.670 0.728 0.592 0.705World 0.766 0.692 0.747 0.619 0.726IWSR - ratio of annual irrigation water supply to demand.Source: IFPRI IMPACT projections (2012).
Source: IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2012 Simulations-20-15-10-505Rice Wheat Maize OtherGrainsMillet SorghumPercentChangeS.1--Percent Change in World Prices of Cerealsbetween BAU and Bioeoconomy Scenario, 2050
Percent Change in World Market Prices UnderIncrease in Irrigation (+12.5%) and Storage (+25%)Source : IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2013 simulations-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Rice Wheat Maize Soybean Cotton
Percent Change in World Market Prices Under Incr.Irrigation (+25%) and Storage (+50%) by 2050-25%-20%-15%-10%-5%0%5%10%2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050Rice Wheat Maize Soybean CottonSource : IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2013 simulations
Conclusions Bioeconomy scenario—conserving energy andwater in agriculture (here reduced fertilizerinput; and water use efficiency improvements)can be achieved through agricultural R&D andknowledge-intensive agriculture Increase in storage alone has limited impactson global food prices; but storage developmenttogether with irrigation expansion significantlyreduces global food prices Additional benefits from storage through energygeneration and reduction of price volatility
Policy Recommendations Rise in real prices of natural resources increasesimportance of market-based approaches formanaging environmental services (waterpricing, water markets, PES) Increased and better-managed investment inhydropower development Modernize crop water productivity breedingprograms in developing countries through provisionof genomics, high throughput gene-sequencing, bio-informatics and computer tools.
Future Additions to Models IMPACT− Integrate storage and hydropower infrastructurescenarios− Account for energy use in groundwater pumping forirrigation− Account for water shortages affecting the energy sector(during dry years) in terms of power output reduction− Refine energy consumption associated with waterdemand− Assess the impact of storage to manage variability Energy sector model− Analyze trade-offs across the energy—food divide usinga water lens