The Water-Electricity Nexus

Water and electricity represent two resources essential for maintaining our standard of living and economic growth. At last month's Clean Energy Speaker Series at Georgia Tech I learned how our use of both creates a very tight relationship that must not be overlooked.

The seminar started with comments from Judy Adler, a Senior Program Officer at the Turner Foundation who oversees their water, energy and air programs. She emphasized the importance of viewing water and energy issues holistically, especially as Georgia's governor is about to commit to a $300M plan for new reservoir constructions in efforts to strengthen the State's ability to meet its growing demand for water.

The important question of how the Governor's plan will be paid for has yet to be determined, but it hopefully will be directly linked to water usage in a way that rewards efficiency and penalizes those who waste it.

When it comes to all the ways that we use fresh water, I was surprised to learn how much goes to energy production. Water used for cooling purposes is an important resource for all thermoelectric power plants, and electric power generation accounts for one half of total freshwater use in Georgia.

Many power plants return most of this water to the local river or lake, albeit at a higher temperature, and the rest is lost or “consumed.” But the newer plants consume much more water, which creates added stress on water supplies and water ecology.

These are the power plants that we easily recognize by their distinctive cooling towers, which signify a process called mechanical draft cooling. Most of the water they use is lost to evaporation and not returned. For example Georgia Power and its partners are using $8.3B in Federal loan guarantees to double the size of its Plant Vogtle nuclear plant, which uses mechanical draft cooling.

When all four nuclear reactors are online, Plant Vogtle will consume more water from the Savannah River than is consumed by all residents of Atlanta, Augusta and Savannah combined. That's water removed from the river and not put back.

I am not going to argue here about the necessity of building the nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, but the fact that this and other power plants consume so much water prompts some important questions.

Faced with a serious long-term water supply problem, Georgians are being asked to pay more in their taxes and in their water usage fees.

How much should the power plant operators pay? Currently they pay nothing.

Another question: How would the introduction of accurate cost signals change Georgia's renewable energy industry?

Our utility companies strenuously oppose legislation and policies needed for Georgia to develop a healthy renewable energy industry. Specifically, most states now have a renewable portfolio standard that sets specific targets for the development of renewable energy sources. Many states also do not impose territoriality protections for the utility companies and thus allow private equity sources to spur the development of new energy sources and provide customers with more energy choices.

Without either of these conditions, Georgia's renewable energy industry remains in the shade. Utility industry lobbyists argue the renewable energy is "too expensive" relative to coal and nuclear power.

But what if the many externalized costs of coal and nuclear actually became part of a utility company's profit and loss? What if the value of the $8.3B in Federal loan guarantees for Plant Vogtle were shouldered by the Southern Company's shareholders?

Maybe, we should start by sending them a water bill. That's how the rest of us have to live.


- As always, thank you for reading and stay in touch!