Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

New Solar Power Plants May Threaten Scarce Desert Water Resources

By Robert Glennon, AlterNet. Posted June 25, 2009.


The rush to embrace solar power is having some unintended consequences when it comes to water.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

This piece first appeared in the Washington Post on June 7, 2009.

Congress's rush to embrace solar power is having some unintended consequences. It will turn over a large chunk of federal land to private energy companies, and it may involve withdrawing billions of gallons of water from sensitive desert habitat.

By 2015, Congress wants the Interior and Energy Departments to place, on federal land, renewable energy projects that can generate at least 10,000 megawatts of electricity. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 has set off a frantic land grab as solar and wind energy companies rush to obtain permits for projects in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah.

As of mid-March, the Bureau of Land Management had received 158 applications for permits for solar power plants, covering more than one million acres of land -- an area larger than Rhode Island. Most of the proposed plants are located near the border of Arizona, California and Nevada. This area of the Mojave Desert seems perfect for solar power; it's hot and flat and vast. What the Mojave Desert doesn't have is water.

Most people think of solar power as the flat panels on a neighbor's roof that are used to heat water. This photovoltaic system directly converts the sun's waves into electricity. But so far, it's not commercially feasible. The power is costly and there's no juice at night, but utilities want cheap power 24/7. On the plus side, photovoltaic solar uses almost no water.

In contrast, most large solar power projects use a system called concentrating solar power, or CSP, that heats a fluid that boils water to turn a turbine. CSP, just like any thermal power plant, produces waste heat as a byproduct. In most cases, cooling towers release the heat to the atmosphere through evaporation, a process that uses gobs of water. In fact, CSP uses four times as much water as a natural gas plant and twice as much as a coal or nuclear plant. ad_icon

It is possible to use an air-cooled system, but CSP plants in the Mojave Desert face an obvious problem: It's hot outside, which makes air cooling inefficient. According to a 2007 DOE report, dry-cooled CSP plants take up more space, cost almost 10 percent more to build and generate 5 percent less electricity. Given that solar power is competing with low-cost natural gas and coal-fired plants, power companies would naturally prefer to use wet-cooling systems.

To date, only a few CSP plants have been permitted on federal land, but that will change soon. The Obama administration is now evaluating the impact of solar power development, a process that may be completed next year. The National Park Service, which is concerned about the impact of wet-cooled plants on endangered species in southern Nevada, wants the federal government to deny permits for water-cooled plants. Air-cooling would cut the water use by 80 to 90 percent.

The Park Service is right. As the process moves forward, the administration should insist that CSP plants embrace air-cooling. There is no reason to permit hundreds of new groundwater wells to be drilled in the Mojave Desert. It doesn't have the water.

If solar companies want to use wet-cooling towers, they can purchase land and water rights from the private sector. Over the last year, Arizona Public Service Company, the state's largest electric utility, has partnered with solar power companies to build two large-scale CSP projects on private land. The land, more than six square miles, has been used to grow alfalfa and cotton. These wet-cooled plants will use less water than the farms are already using.

This reallocation of water -- from farming to power generation -- offers a lesson for the country as a whole. As the United States confronts inevitable water shortages, we need to insist that power companies, developers and others who need water offset the impact of their new uses by persuading existing water customers to use less. That's a lot smarter than trying to squeeze water from the stones of the Mojave.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: water, drought, water shortage, solar

Robert Glennon is the author of "Unquenchable: America's Water Crisis and What to Do About It."

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Great article!
Posted by: x20090521@gmail.com on Jun 26, 2009 12:48 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Excellent, informative article! You might change the headline to something a little more positive, though, like "Building Solar Power Plants Without Wasting Water".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is somewhat disingenuous in what it doesn't say.
Posted by: monkeywrench on Jun 26, 2009 9:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is already a type of concentrating solar power (CSP) that uses no water at all. I has been developed by Stirling Energy Systems Inc. and is being marketed right now. I'm sure that there are others, as well. There is also a closed-cycle cooling system already in existance, known as the Heller System, that can cool turbine water in CSP plants with little to no water expenditure.

Another point: If solar plants are so hard to develop in places with little water, then why is Saudi Arabia spending so much to develop solar power in its deserts? They are positioning themselves to become a solar electricity producer for Europe in the future when their oil runs out.

While we here in the U.S. argue about whether or not (fossil power industry: "not") we can build solar plants in areas rich in sunlight, and argue about whether or not we can build the electrical grid to deliver that power, other countries simply are DOING it. Why have we become the nation of "can't-do?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

How about saturating the residentials with rooftop?
Posted by: hardwroc on Jun 26, 2009 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is "infrastructure to EVERY home in America (excepting a few) and if each were to solarize and backfeed into the "NET" sharing power on high productive periods and storing within as well, we could mitigate the AirConditioning drag on commercial power, and reduce the use of carbon fuels at power plants for those periods. Costs, would need near zero infrastructure with metering systems the major change required, beyond installing a solar system on the homes.
Suppose the "stimulus" plan was used to produce solar equipment like we produced airplanes and guns and ships and bullets for WWII, and we created JOBS building and installing these systems as if they were good for the nation and environment and world.

And suppose the systems they use to create clean drinking water on our naval ships by DESALINATING sea water, were enlarged and built near ,,,say,,,an OCEAN, and produced drinking water from the RISING WATER OF THE OCEAN......would that be a good thing? Lemme see, clean water, clean power, jobs, futures, and lives improved all around. The one thing I didn't see there was MASSIVE PROFITS FOR CORPORATE AMERICA, and so I suppose those ideas are just NOT FEASIBLE without screwing the American public.
There has been a photovoltaic FILM in research for some time, and may show a way beyond the existing equipment available. Imagine a film on the roof windows and walls of buildings creating power.
The point is WHY are these kinds of ideas NOT even being discussed?
I am not a genius, and yet this seems as doable as the panama canal, Mt Rushmore, Erie canals, and our hwy system built in the 50's and 60's.
WTF ?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

With Dry Cooling Less Efficiency but low water usage
Posted by: mikesfb on Jun 28, 2009 2:57 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't know where your getting your figures about more water usage for CSP. NREL has done a Dry cooling study in 2007 on Troughnet (could not post URL)

This article seems designed to generate controversy but not propose solutions. Dry cooling can work in the desert but yes there is an efficiency hit for ALL power plants located in hot dry climates. If the state mandates dry cooling, electric rates for all power will go up because of the need to overcome the ca. 8% reduction in efficiency when dry cooled.

The problem is not in the CSP technology but in how power rates are set relative to the environmental regulations placed on power plants. If you want power plants to conserve water you need to pay more for the power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement