The Water-Energy-Environment Nexus in the Great Lakes Region: The Case for Integrated Resource Planning

Abstract

Water is a critical element of electric power production in the U.S., particularly in the Great Lakes Basin region. Thermoelectric power generation accounts for the majority of all water withdrawals in the Basin, in large part due to the comparatively heavy concentrations of coal and nuclear power generation that utilize open-loop cooling. This paper explores how different energy generation portfolios could affect the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin. The suite of power generation scenarios analyzed reflects a range of potential outcomes resulting from the implementation of key national and regional energy and environmental policies for the electric power industry. These policies include U.S. EPA's pending power plant cooling water intake standards, state renewable energy portfolio standards, possible climate change legislation, and the 2005 Great Lakes regional water resource agreement (Great Lakes and St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact of 2005; Public Law 110-342). Five scenarios were analyzed, resulting in different levels and intensities of total water use (withdrawal and consumption) in hydrologically-sensitive watersheds. These results confirm the close relationship between water and energy in the Great Lakes, and point to the need to take into account water resource impacts in designing future energy and environmental policies.

Impact of river regulation and hydropeaking on the growth, condition and field metabolism of Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis)

“…The Laurentian Great Lakes and their tributaries are important for a variety interests, including recreation (Allan et al., ), sport, commercial and aboriginal fishing (Cooke & Murchie, ; Tufts, Holden, & DeMille, ), electricity production (Kelly et al., ; Tidwell & Pebbles, ) and irrigation (Mubako, Ruddell, & Mayer, ). Balancing the competing needs of multiple users, while protecting the biological communities within these systems, is essential to ensuring their ecological integrity.…”

Adaptation opportunities and constraints in coupled systems: Evidence from the U.S. energy-water nexus

“…Integrated, multisystem planning is ideal when efforts involve new infrastructures or increased resource consumption to explore synergistic technologies or locations. Regional Transmission Organizations, state utility commissioners, or state environmental and energy offices could coordinate integrated planning efforts at decision-relevant scales (Tidwell and Pebbles, 2015). Multisystem efforts could occur in proactive regions, but integrated planning is unlikely throughout the U.S.-EWN without national-level coordination (Bierbaum et al, 2013).…”

“…Single-system holistic adaptation may occur quicker than multisystem efforts because sectorspecific adaptation information and planning is prevalent (Adger et al, 2005;Mimura et al, 2014;Nordgren et al, 2016). Single-systems should prioritize increasing resilience and flexibility through conservation, efficiency, and ecosystem restoration (Pittock, 2011); pursuing low-water energy fuels, locations outside stressed watersheds, or alternative thermoelectric cooling systems (especially in eight percent of western U.S. watersheds that are severely water-constrained) (Tidwell et al, 2014b); and considering related resources (Tidwell and Pebbles, 2015) and systems early enough to avoid constraints. In accordance with holistic adaptation, all single-system adaptations should avoid dependence pathways by neither exacerbating climate change nor limiting future adaptation options.…”

“…While dry-cooling and hybrid systems are possibilities, their cost and efficiency create adoption barriers (Macknick et al, 2011;Sanders, 2015;Tidwell et al, 2014aTidwell et al, , 2014b. Therefore, most water intake technologies will be recirculating systems, which withdraw less, but consume more water than the oncethrough systems they are replacing (Macknick et al, 2011;Sanders, 2015;Tidwell and Pebbles, 2015;U.S. D.O.E., 2014).…”

Integrated Energy-Water Planning in the Western and Texas Interconnections

“…Texas (Stillwell et al, 2009) and California (California Energy Commission 2002) each have conducted state-specific analyses of the implications of expanding water needs for thermoelectric cooling and its potential to lead to water stress within each state. Similarly, the Great Lakes Commission, supported by Sandia, EPRI, and Argonne, sponsored a study to investigate alternative futures for electric power generation in this region and their implications on water supply and environmental quality (Tidwell and Pebbles 2015).…”