Water, a shared and finite resource. Water is finally gaining more attention in energy debates. Right now we think a lot about carbon dioxide as a major driver in our energy decisions. However, in 10-20 years we could well be having the same discussion about water.
Some statistics and points that might get your attention.
- Water and power. Energy generation, both electrical and biofuels, has an enormous impact on our water resources, in terms of both quantity and quality. The electric power industry uses 136 billion gallons of freshwater each day. Power plants account for 39% of the total water withdrawn from lakes, rivers, and reservoirs each year. Most of this water is returned to source after use, so power plants only account for 3% of water consumed in the U.S. (DOE’s 2006 report on water and energy).
- Everyone needs it. When it comes to determining the value of a water resource, you have to keep in mind that there are lots of competing uses. Farmers, ranchers, municipal utilities, rural water districts, consumers, industries – they all use water.
- Climate change. Water – especially potable water – is also a resource of increasing scarcity, so it will become more valuable over time. Not only are we using water at record rates, but with climate change, water could become even more scarce. Warmer air temperatures could lead to extreme weather – long dry periods that alternate with intense precipitation, that will run off more quickly – as well as increased evapotranspiration (more water in the air). (IPCC 4th Asessment report for policymakers)
- Limited resource. According to the USGS, current measurements of the Ogallala Aquifer show that in some places it has drawn down 100-150 feet since the 1930s. Some of it recharges, but on a geological scale of miniscule amounts per year.
- Future energy needs for water could greatly intensify. For example, ethanol manufacture (corn and cellulosic both) has enormous water needs. Likewise, many carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) technologies – which are currently under development for cleaner burning of coal – are extremely water-dependent. (NETL’s carbon sequestration section)
On the last point, ethanol supporters have been put a tad on the defensive lately. The Domestic Fuel blog reported the following:
- 3 to 4 gallons of water per gallon of ethanol is used in the ethanol production process, most of it in “non-contact” processes such as the cooling of equipment.
- Some say gasoline production takes 2-3 gallons. Others think the number is closer to 7-8 gallons.
- 12-14% of corn acreage is irrigated as a supplement to natural rainfall. (No note on where that irrigation is located – I would bet a good chunk of that number comes from the Ogallala, though.)
There’s also some interesting stats about water use in general – but quote them with care, I think they date back to 1995. I found this version on the USGS website, which I think they ganked from the EPA. However, I also doubt these numbers have decreased much:
How much water does it take to process a quarter pound of hamburger? Approximately one gallon.
How much water does it take to make four new tires? 2,072 gallons
What is the total amount of water used to manufacture a new car, including new tires? 39,090 gallons per car
How much water does an acre of corn give off per day in evaporation? 4,000 gallons
How much of an ear of corn is water? 80%
How much water does it take to process one chicken? 11.6 gallons
How much water does it take to process one can of fruit or vegetables? 9.3 gallons
How much water does it take to process one barrel of beer? 1,500 gallons
How much water does it take to make one board foot of lumber? 5.4 gallons
How much water does it take to make one pound of plastic ? 24 gallons
How much water does it take to make one pound of wool or cotton? 101 gallons
How much water does it take to refine one barrel of crude oil? 1,851 gallons
How much does it take to produce one ton of steel? 62,600 gallons
How much water does it take to process one ton of cane sugar to make processed sugar? 28,100 gallons
How much water does it take to process one ton of beet sugar to make processed sugar? 33,100 gallons
How much water is used to flush a toilet? 1.5-7 gallons
How much water is used in the average five-minute shower? 25-50 gallons
How much water is used to brush your teeth? 2 gallons
How much water does the average residence use during a year? 107,000 gallons
How much water does an individual use daily? 50 gallons
How much of the earth’s surface is water? 80%
Of all the earth’s water, how much is ocean or seas? 97%
How much of the world’s water is frozen and therefore unusable? 2%
How much of the earth’s water is suitable for drinking water? 1%
Live Blogging: Waiting and watching
April 1, 2008
Location: House chambers
Issue: Sunflower Electric’s proposed coal-fired plants of 1400 MW
Bill No.: an as yet unamended bill on General Orders today
Summary/ Action: As of 6:20 adjournment – NOTHING REALLY HAPPENED.
If you are a frequent reader of CEP’s live blogging feature, you might now be wondering – where in the world are all these new bills coming from???
This, apparently, is what happens at the end of the session. Interested parties start trying all sorts of ways to get their measures placed into other bills that have a chance of passing. Officially, this legislative session ends this Friday (April 4).
So the race is on, and Sunflower Electric appears to be a major competitor. Unfortunately, they weigh enough that when they throw themselves onto someone else’s little red wagon, they have enough mass to wreck it.
As we just saw happen with poor SB 471. This bill originally offered tax credit relief for the expenses of people participating in adoptions, or live organ donations. When an amendment benefiting Sunflower Electric was slid into their bill, though, it poisoned it. The House killed the bill on final action. Those folks – adoptive parents and organ donors – are just out of luck.
At any rate. We are here right now awaiting further “unexpected” amendments. The rumor right now is that the carbon tax that got defeated this morning in final action on SB 471 will come back around like a boomerang today, and appear in another later measure under General Orders.
If that does happen, I will record it below. Right now it is 10:42 and we are slogging thru a property tax relief bill for senior citizens in dangers of losing their homes.
11:05 we are going into recess :) of course. Until 3:00 p.m. (ouch!)
Then we’ll be back.
OK, I’m back anyway! There’s enough drama to post a little bit of it, while we wait and twiddle thumbs. Reminder: hit your refresh button to check for occasional updates.
Location: House chambers, final action vote
Issue: Major KS utilities and a creative, interesting version of a carbon tax
Bill No.: SB 471, as amended last night by the House Committee of the Whole and passed 78-42
Summary/ Action: Measure failed on final action vote, 51 yea, 74 nay. Measure is lost. (Which means the people who would have benefited under the original measure, which offered tax credits for adoption and live organ donation, are just out of luck, because a large corporation decided to highjack their measure.)
******************
Before launching in to the record, CEP would like to note: This carbon tax is a fake carbon tax, in that it does not actually reduce CO2 emissions. Reducing emissions is the entire POINT of carbon regulation. This measure will make electricity more expensive, without making it more green.
It will also drastically affect ratepayers in northeastern Kansas, while subsidizing electricity generation in western Kansas.
Background
Last night on the House floor Representative Clay Aurand, a supporter of Sunflower Electric’s proposed 1400 MW coal-fired plants expansion in Holcomb, succeeded in amending SB 471 to include the first carbon tax in the nation.
SB 471 was formerly a pretty innocent little bill dealing with giving individuals tax credits for adoptions and live organ donation. Aurand’s amendment establishes a $37 per ton of CO2 excise tax levied on coal plant operators of 350 MW or more who emit over 110% over the state average of carbon dioxide emissions, as measured on a per MW hour basis.
The proceeds from this excise tax will be offered as a tax credit for those plants who emit less. Only one plant seems to qualify under these regulations, and that is Sunflower Electric. Ironically, the measure also specifically authorizes the Secretary of KDHE to regulate CO2 emissions. Likewise, its very existence admits that the Kansas legislature, as well as the executive branch, considers carbon dioxide emissions problematic.
This amendment primarily affects BPU, the electric provider for Wyandotte County – and also home to a legislative delegation that has proved extremely stubborn. Resisting all sorts of pressure, WyCo legislators have refused to switch their votes to help Sunflower supporters override the Governor’s veto of SB 327, the first Holcomb bill. The amendment also has implications for investor-owned utilities Westar and KCPL.
These three entities are affected because they have some of the older and dirtier coal-burning facilities in the state. The gun is aimed at BPU, but the other two are standing much too close to the target for comfort. If this carbon tax is levied on these utilities, the costs will be passed to their ratepayers. There are mitigation provisions in the amendment, but they are so vague I couldn’t make any sense of them.
Does the amendment to SB 471 have merit? In general, a carbon tax is a good thing, if it (1) actually reduces carbon dioxide emissions, and (2) is phased in gradually, in a revenue-neutral manner.
Carbon regulation – be it carbon tax, or cap and trade – will indeed increase the costs of electricity, which is problematic even for middle-income folks, let alone those on fixed or otherwise limited incomes. Revenue-neutral means to increase these prices gradually – and also, return some of the proceeds of the carbon tax to those most directly affected. According to the policy experts at the Carbon Tax Center:
Revenue-neutral means that little if any of the tax revenues raised by taxing carbon emissions would be retained by government. The vast majority of the revenues would be returned to the American people, with some small amount utilized to mitigate the otherwise negative impacts of carbon taxes on low-income energy users.
However, when you return the revenues of a carbon tax to just one utility – um. That’s not very fair. This is not really a carbon tax, as much as it is a money grab by a special interests group, at the expense of ratepayers not within their own service territory.
For media coverage of the proposed tax so far, see the TCJournal and the Salina Journal. EDIT: ha! And Kansas has already popped up on the Carbon Tax Center radar – see their blog entry. Quotable:
Major flaws in the the tax passed by the Kansas House include: its application to only one plant; its excessive initial level that does not provide consumers with time to adjust; and its failure to provide an upwards trajectory that would provide an appropriate price signal to energy consumers. Its use of revenues to provide an incentive to cleaner plants to reduce emissions further makes no sense. A carbon tax imposed on all emissions in the state would provide a far better incentive for all energy consumers in the state to reduce emissions; both relatively clean and relatively dirty generators would benefit by reducing emissions. There’s no need to waste the revenues on credits. Instead, the revenues should be returned to to the people who live in Kansas through offsetting tax reductions or equal rebates.
The Kansas carbon tax may be a yellow brick road to riches for certain generators or lobbyists, but it is not a yellow brick road to reductions in carbon emissions.
What’s the point of all this…? There are of course many theories. The two most likely candidates: (1) This measure is meant to punish Wyandotte County, and to scare Westar and KCPL into pressuring legislators to vote for Sunflower. And (2) This is a really confrontational way for Sunflower to send a message that they are ready to make a deal – if the financing can be worked out.
(And I am sure that if I walked out into the hall, I could hear at least three more.)
For the proceedings as they – proceed (sorry, my brain’s not in gear yet, late night) – please read more. Once things get started around 9:00 a.m.
