Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas

7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 1/26

Prepared for:Lone Star Chapter of the

by: D. LaurenRoss,Ph.D.,P.E.GlenroseEngineering,Inc.512.326.8880

glenrose.comFebruary 2012



Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club

Current and Future Demands February 2012

Glenrose Engineering, Inc. glenrose.com

Texas Board of Professional Engineers Number F4092 page i

Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................................. 1Introduction .............................................................................................................................................. 2Cooling Water Consumption at Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Facilities in Texas ............................ 3Water Demand for Equivalent Alternative Fuels ................................................................................... 10Water Demands for Coal-Fired Electricity Generation By Texas Water Planning Region ................... 11

Panhandle (Region A) ......................................................................................................................... 14Region B ............................................................................................................................................. 14Region C ............................................................................................................................................. 15North East Texas (D) .......................................................................................................................... 15Brazos G Region ................................................................................................................................. 15Region H ............................................................................................................................................. 16East Texas (Region I) .......................................................................................................................... 17Lower Colorado (Region K) ............................................................................................................... 17South Central Texas (Region L) ......................................................................................................... 18Coastal Bend (Region N) .................................................................................................................... 18Llano Estacado (Region O) ................................................................................................................. 19

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 19Appendix: Data Sources and Analyses .................................................................................................. 20

Coal-Fired Power Plant Water Consumption...................................................................................... 20Texas State Water Plan Steam-Electric Power Water Demands ........................................................ 22






Texas Board of Professional Engineers Number F4092 page ii

List of Tables

Table 1. Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Facilities in Texas .................................................................. 4Table 2. Water Consumption at Texas Coal-Fired Generating Facilities in Acre-Feet per Year ............. 8Table 3. Statewide Estimates for Steam-Electric Water Demand .......................................................... 23

List of Figures

Figure 1. Diagram of Coal-fired Electrical Generation Process ............................................................... 5Figure 2. Texas Coal-Fired Electrical Facilities Water Use in 2005 ........................................................ 9 Figure 3. Potential Water Savings of Alternate Technologies ................................................................ 10Figure 4. Texas Water Planning Regions and Coal Plant Locations ...................................................... 12Figure 5. Total Estimated Coal-Fired Steam Electric Water Use by Region (acre-feet per year) .......... 13






Texas Board of Professional Engineers Number F4092 page 1

ExecutiveSummary

This study examines water demand data for Texas’ coal-fired power plants; and potential water saving

from conversion to electrical power generating technologies that use less water. The first section of this

report provides a review of available data sources on water use and water estimation methodologies.

Using best available information, water use by Texas coal plants is 279,451 acre-feet per year, based on

2005 electrical generation rates.

The second section quantifies water savings that could be achieved by converting existing coal-fired

power plants to alternative, water-conserving technologies. Recognizing the challenges of reliably

meeting base-load demands, and the realities of capital and regulatory limitations, currently available

technologies have the capacity to generate electricity using almost no water. The potential watersavings from converting to these technologies could be as much as the entire 279,000 acre-feet per year

demand.

The third section discusses statewide regional water planning, coal-fired power plants water demands

within the context of regional water demands, and potential water savings in each region to be gained

from switching to alternative power generating technologies.

Significant findings of this report include:

Data on water usage by steam-electric power plants in Texas are incomplete and inconsistent.

Better recordkeeping and reporting on power plant water use would improve regional and state

water planning efforts.

Coal-fired steam-electric power generation places a high demand on the state’s water supply

compared to several alternative power generation technologies. Meeting electrical demand with

technologies demanding less water would preserve water supplies for alternatives uses and

provide a more reliable electrical power system during drought.

Converting electric power generation to water-saving technologies has the greatest value in

regions of Texas where water supplies are limited and steam-electric power generation rates are

high. Brazos Region G is the best example of a region in Texas with both a high projected

future demand for water for steam electric and a large gap between water supplies and demands.







Building a water-efficient electric generation infrastructure not only conserves valuable water

supplies. It also provides an electric power system that is reliable in the face of Texas’ variable

weather conditions.

Introduction

The 2012 Texas State Water Plan projects water demand in Texas to increase over the next 50 years

from 18 million acre-feet per year in 2010 to about 22 million acre-feet per year in 2060. Although the

Sierra Club and other groups believe that the State Water Plan demand projections underestimate

potential contributions from water conservation and drought management, it is nevertheless true that

water is critically important to meet the needs of Texans to grow food, run businesses, wash, cook, and

drink now and in the future. Texans must carefully manage every drop of our water supplies to meetthese needs; and we should take steps now to decrease water demands wherever possible.

A significant part of the demand for water in Texas is water to generate electricity. Over the 50-year

planning horizon of the State Water Plan projects water demand for steam-electric power generation to

increase from 700,000 acre-feet pear year to 1,600,000 acre-feet per year. By comparison, the total

municipal water usage for Houston in 2009 was 287,000 acre-feet per year.1 Water usage for steam-

electric power generation is projected to increase over the 50-year planning period from 2.4 to 5.6

times the total amount of municipal water used in Houston. The proportion of Texas water going forsteam-electric power generation would increase from 3.8% to 7.3%.

During the same 50-year period that water demand is projected to increase, water available during

drought, based on the State Water Plan Methodology, is projected to decrease from 17 to about 15.3

million acre-feet.2 State water planners say that current water supplies in Texas are 3.6 million acre-feet

per year short of meeting Texas water demands during a reoccurrence of the “drought of record.” The

gap between available supply and demand is projected to grow to 8.3 million acre-feet by 2060.3

1 According to Texas Water Development Board regional planning estimates.2 Texas Water Development Board, Water for Texas; 2012 State Water Plan, draft, January 2012,http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/publications/reports/state_water_plan/2012/draft_2012_swp_1.pdf , January 2, 2012.3 Texas water planning is based on the meeting demands during a future drought of severity equal to the most severehistorical drought-of-record. The drought-of-record occurred in Texas during a 10-year period in the 1940s and ’50s. Eventhough dry conditions in 2011 were the single worst year in Texas history, the impact to Texas water supplies was not asgreat as the impact of the earlier multi-year dry spell. At least one river authority, however, the Lower Colorado River







This report examines water demand at the 19 existing power plants in Texas that use a steam-electric

production process fired by subbituminous, bituminous, or lignite coal. It presents potential water

savings to be realized by converting existing water-cooled coal-fired electrical generating plants to less

water-demanding technologies. Based on information in the Regional Water Plans, the report also

identifies areas in Texas with projected water shortages to meet future electric generation demands; and

proposed water projects to meet those demands.

CoolingWaterConsumption

at CoalFiredElectricalGeneratingFacilitiesinTexas

Coal-fired electrical generating facilities in Texas are listed in Table 1. This table includes their

nameplate capacity, water sources, and a description of their primary cooling system. Based on 2009

data, the 19 coal-fired power plants in Texas together have a net capacity of 21,056 megawatts, which

constitutes about one-fifth of the entire Texas electrical generating capacity. The annual electrical

production by coal-fired plants reported for 2009 is 139,106,597 megawatt hours, which was 35% of

Texas electrical generation. Of the ten largest plants in Texas by 2009 generating capacity, six are fired

primarily by coal.4

The percentage of total electricity produced by coal-fired plants in Texas is larger than their percentage

of the total nameplate capacity because coal-fired technology is used to meet base load demands. Base

load demands are consistent throughout the day and the year. Since coal-fired electricity is relatively

slow to bring on line, it is not as useful as other technologies to meet short-term power demand peaks

like those that occur on hot Texas summer afternoons when air conditioning loads are high.

Authority, anticipates the possibility of declaring in March 2012, drought conditions worse than the drought of record. Seehttp://www.lcra.org/water/drought/index.html, January 20, 2012.4 U.S. Energy Information Administration, State Electricity Profiles 2009, April 2011, pages 260 - 262,http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/st_profiles/sep2009.pdf , December 26, 2011.







Table 1. Coal-Fired Electrical Generating Facilities in Texas

FacilityName Numberof Generators

NETLNameplateCapacity

(Megawatts)WaterSource PrimaryCoolingSystem YearInService

(bygenerator)BigBrown 2 1,186 FairfieldLake Oncethroughwithcoolingpond(s)

orcanal(s) 1971,1972ColetoCreek 1 600 ColetoCreek

Reservoir Recirculatingwithcoolingpond(s)orcanal(s) 1980

FayettePowerProject 3 1,690 FayetteCounty

Lake Oncethroughwithcoolingpond(s)orcanal(s) 1979,1980,

1988GibbonsCreek 1 454 GibbonsCreek Recirculatingwithcoolingpond(s)or

canal(s) 1983Harrington 3 1,080 Municipality Recirculatingwithinduceddraft

coolingtower(s) 1976,1978,1980

JKSpruce 2 566 SanAntonioRiver Oncethroughwithcoolingpond(s)

orcanal(s) 1992JTDeely 2 932 SanAntonio

River Recirculatingwithcoolingpond(s)orcanal(s) 1977,1978

Limestone 2 1,706 LakeLimestone Recirculatingwithforceddraftcoolingtower(s) 1985,1986

MartinLake 3 2,379 MartinLake Oncethroughwithcoolingpond(s)orcanal(s) 1977,1978,

1979Monticello 3 1,979 Monticello

Reservoir Oncethroughwithcoolingpond(s)orcanal(s) 1974,1975,

1978OakGrove 2 1,600 TwinOak

Reservoir unknown unknownOklaunion 1 720 Municipality Recirculatingwithinduceddraft

coolingtower(s) 1986Pirkey 1 721 BrandyBranch

Reservoir Recirculatingwithcoolingpond(s)orcanal(s) 1985

SanMiguel 1 410 Wells Recirculatingwithforceddraftcooling

tower(s)

1982Sandow 2 1,138 LakeAlcoa Recirculatingwithcoolingpond(s)or

canal(s) 1981Tolk 2 1,136 Wells Recirculatingwithinduceddraft

coolingtower(s) 1982,1985TwinOaksPowerOne 2 350 Wells Recirculatingwithforceddraft

coolingtower(s) 1990,1991WAParish 4 2,698 SmithersLake Recirculatingwithcoolingpond(s)or

canal(s) 1977,1978,1980,1982

Welsh 3 1,674 SwauanoCreekReservoir Recirculatingwithforceddraft

coolingtower(s) 1977,1980,1982

Electrical power is generated at each of these facilities by burning coal to convert boiler water to

pressurized steam. The power of pressurized steam drives turbines that produce electricity. Becausewater in the boiler must be nearly pure, and treating water to a condition of near-purity is expensive,

boiler water is re-used many times in the steam-electric generation process. Boiler water is, therefore, a

relatively small amount of the total water used in the steam-electric generation process.







After steam moves through the electrical turbine, however, it is no longer pressurized. It has lost the

energy needed to produce electricity. Before it can be re-boiled for the next pass through the generating

turbines, steam must be converted back to water by passing through a condenser. Inside the condenser,

heat from the steam is transferred into water or air. Steam condensation back to liquid water before it is

re-pressurized by boiling is an essential step in the steam-electric generating process.

Figure 1. Diagram of Coal-fired Electrical Generation Process

Every coal-fired power plant in Texas uses water to condense steam. The same thermodynamic process

that, on the inside of the condenser converts steam to water, on the outside evaporates water out of the

Texas water supply. It is this evaporation for cooling that consumes significant amounts of water in the

water-cooled steam electric generation process.







There are other significant water demands, in addition to cooling water, potentially associated with

coal-fired power plants. Water required for certain flue gas desulfurization technologies, ash sluice

water, and carbon capture and storage may be as much as that required for cooling steam. Based on

available information regarding coal-fired plants in Texas, none of the Texas coal-fired power plants

are implementing technologies that would require these potential water demands. Thus they are not

included in our estimates below. If, however, the regulatory environment were to require plant retrofits

for improved air quality or reduced carbon emissions, water demands for these plants could

significantly exceed the estimates below.

For the purposes of this study, water use estimates for coal-fired electricity production were derived

from four sources:5

National Energy Technology Laboratory’s (NETL’s) Coal Power Plant Database for 2005.

These data are culled from forms submitted to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) by

each power plant;

Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) 2005 database for water use by steam-electric

power generating facilities. These data are based on Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality (TCEQ) water rights data. While some of these figures represent consumption

(withdrawals minus return flows), many of the return flows are omitted;

Water consumption estimates using generated electricity and factors. These data are based

on a nationwide review of water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating

technologies;6 and

Water consumption estimates derived from the Integrated Environmental Control Model

(IECM) for coal-fired power plants. This model was developed by Carnegie Mellon

University for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory

(NETL).7 The model estimates water consumption based on user input regarding the type of

5 Additional information on the limitations of water use data in these sources is presented in Appendix A.6 Macknick, Jordon, Robin Newmark, Garvin Heath, and KC Hallet, A Review of Operational Water Consumption and

Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical ReportNREL/TP-6A20-50900, March 2011, http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/50900.pdf .7 http://www.cmu.edu/epp/iecm/about.html, December 26, 2011.







power plant boiler, fuel sources, emission controls, average environmental conditions, and

carbon dioxide capture and storage technology.8

Water use estimates for coal-fired electrical generation in Texas in 2005 from these four sources are

presented numerically in Table 2 and graphically in Figure 2.

Given the shortcomings of the NETL and TWDB data (see Appendix A for a more complete

discussion), these water use figures were not used to estimate the actual water consumption for power

coal power plants in Texas.

Our estimated cooling water demand is based partly on water consumption estimates made using the

Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) using known plant characteristics. This estimate uses

detailed plant operating variables to generate a thermodynamically-based estimation of plant water

usage. As such, it is not susceptible to discrepancies associated with reported water use data. IECM

fails, however, to calculate evaporation losses associated with once-through cooling and therefore fails

to account for water lost by evaporation from Texas lakes and rivers after heated cooling water is

released. The elevated temperature of the discharged water causes evaporation in excess of what would

naturally occur and is thus a water loss that is solely attributable to plant operation. For power plants

with once-through cooling systems, water use was estimated using median cooling water demand

factors developed by Macknick et alia and 2005 electrical generation rates.9

The estimated cooling water demand for all coal-fired facilities in Texas is 279,000 acre-feet per yearto produce 150 million megawatt-hours of electricity.

8 National Energy Technology Laboratory, Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) User Manual, DE-AC26-04NT41917, November 2009.9 Macknick, Jordon, Robin Newmark, Garvin Heath, and KC Hallet, ibid.







Table 2. Water Consumption at Texas Coal-Fired Generating Facilities in Acre-Feet per Year

Facility

NETL

Nameplate

Capacity

(MW)

2005Net

Generation

(MWhr)

WaterSource PrimaryCoolingSystem

NETL2005

Water

Consumption

TWDB2005

WaterUse[2]

EstimatedWater

Consumption

UsingMacknick

Factors[3]

IECMEstimated

Water

Consumption[3]

Estimated

Water

Consumption

[3]

Bi gBrown 1,186 8,549,084 FairfieldLa ke Once throughwithcoolingpond(s)orca nal (s ) 0 6,093 2,703

neglects forced

evaporation

2,703

ColetoCree k 600 5,103,360

ColetoCreek

ReservoirRecirculating withcoolingpond(s)orca na l(s ) 1,449 490,808 12,201 11,193 11,193

FayettePower

Project 1,690

11,099,204

FayetteCounty

La ke On ce

through

with

cooling

pond(s)

or

ca nal (s ) 0 19,268

12,774

neglects forced

evaporation 12,774

GibbonsCre e k 454 3,595,378 GibbonsCre e k R e ci rc ul a ti n gwithcoolingpond(s)orca nal (s ) 0 407,314 8,596 8,910 8,910

H arri ngto n 1,080 7,458,711 M un i ci p a l i ty R e ci rc ul a ti n gwithinduceddraftcoolingt ow e r( s ) 1 4, 12 7 5,852 15,726 20,574 20,574

JKSpruce 566 4,190,501 Sa nAntonioRi ve r On ce throughwithcoolingpond(s)orca na l(s ) 9,490

includedw/

JTD e e l y4,823

neglects forced

evaporation

4,823

JTDe e l y 932 5,915,823 Sa nAntonioR i ve r R e ci rc ul a ti n gwithcoolingpond(s)orca na l (s ) 13,547 25,653 14,144 18,787 18,787

Li me sto ne 1,706 12,757,227 Lake L i me s t one R e ci r cul at i ngwithforced draftcoolingto we r( s) 33,485 20,979 18,441 31,219 31,219

MartinLa ke 2,379 18,250,189 Martin La ke Once throughwithcoolingpond(s)orca nal (s ) 0 170 21,004

neglects forced

evaporation

21,004

Mon ti ce ll o 1,979 14,807,481 Monticello R e s e rv oi r O nce throughwithcoolingpond(s)orca nal (s ) 0 24,471 17,042

neglects forced

evaporation

17,042

Okl auni on 720 4,327,105 M un i ci p a l i ty R e ci rc ul a ti n gwithinduceddraftcoolingto we r(s ) 7,607 7,529 6,255 8,742 8,742

Pi rkey 721 4,993,784

BrandyBranch

ReservoirRecirculating withcoolingpond(s)orca na l(s ) 5,796 12,420 7,219 8,755 8,755

Sa nMi gue l 410

2,850,653

We ll s Re ci rcu la ti ng

with

forced

draft

cooling

towe r(s ) [1] 7,363

4,121

4,978

4,978

Sandow 591 4,303,896 Lake Al co a Re ci rcu la ti ngwithcoolingpond(s)orca nal (s ) 0 nodata 6,512 12,884 12,884

Tol k 1,136 7,418,825 We ll s Re ci rcu la ti ngwithinduceddraftcoolingt ow e r( s ) 1 3, 76 5 15,097 15,642 20,484 20,484

TwinOaks

PowerOne350 2,490,416 We ll s Re ci rcu la ti ngwithforced draftcoolingto we r(s ) 2,753 no data 3,600 7,703 7,703

WAPa ri s h 2,698 18,540,316 Smithers La k e R eci rcu l ati n gwithcoolingpond(s)orca na l (s ) 14,113 328,043 26,801 32,761 32,761

Wel s h 1,674 9,537,635

SwauanoCreek

ReservoirRecirculating withforced draftcoolingto we r(s ) 1,159 11,660 13,787 34,116 34,116

T ot al: 117,291 1,382,721 211,391 221,105 279,451

Waterunits:acrefeetpe ryear

[2] This database primarilyreports withdrawalsratherthanconsumption, so the resultingis misleadinglyhigh

[3] Thesewaterus e estimatesare bas e don 2005generation

[1] The NETLwaterus e valuefor Sa nMiguel (340,498) appears tobe a database erroran dwa s disgardedin this analysis.







Figure 2. Texas Coal-Fired Electrical Facilities Water Use in 2005

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

A n n u a l W a t e r U s e ( a c r e f e e t p e r y e a r )

NETL2005Water

Consumption

TWDB2005WaterUse

EstimatedWater

ConsumptionUsing

MacknickFactors

IECMEstimated Water

Consumption





Glenrose Engineering, Inc.

Texas Board of Professional Engineers Number F4092

WaterDemandforEquivalent AlternativeFuels

Coal-fired steam-electric power generation places a high demand on the state’s water supply compared

to several alternative power generation technologies. Meeting electrical demand with technologiesrequiring less water would preserve water supplies and provide a more reliable electrical power system

during drought. Figure 3 compares water consumption by existing coal-fired steam-electric generators

to produce 150 million megawatt-hours of electricity, with water demands and savings that could be

realized by converting these coal facilities to alternative electrical generating technologies. Depending

on the availability and suitability of alternative technology to meet base load generation demands, as

much as 100% of the water currently used to produce electricity from coal-fired power plants could be

available for other uses.

Figure 3. Potential Water Savings of Alternate Technologies

279,451

84,533

72,579

57,636

11,100

194,918

206,872

221,815

268,351

278,597

279,451 279,451

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

Coal,current

mix

NaturalGas,

Tower,

Combined

Cycle

Concentrated

SolarPower,

Hybrid,Power

Tower

Geothermal,

Drycooled,

Binary

Photovoltaic

Solar

NaturalGas,

Drycooled,

Combined

Cycle

Wind,Wind

Turbine

Geothermal,

Dry,Flash

A n n u a l W a t e r V a l u e s ( a c r e f e e t )

WaterSavings WaterConsumption







WaterDemandsforCoalFiredElectricityGeneration

ByTexasWaterPlanningRegion

Texas Regional Water Plans represent the product of a process designed to compare projected water

demands with available water supplies across 16 specific areas. The goal of the process is to identify

either changes in water management strategies or water supply projects to meet projected water

demands. Water shortages in the Texas Water Plan represent differences between demand and water

supplies that would be available during rainfall conditions similar to the Texas drought-of-record

during the end of the 1940s and beginning years of the 1950s. A water deficit in 2010 does not,

therefore, represent an actual lack of water availability since the rainfall in 2010 was higher than these

drought-of-record conditions.

One component of the water demand in the Texas Water Plan is water demand for steam-electric power

generation. Coal-fired electric generation generally represents, however, only part of the total steam-

electric power generation in any region. Steam-electric power generation is also fired by nuclear

reaction or by burning natural gas or other fuels.

Regional water use estimates for steam-electric generation are largely10 based on a

Steam-electric water use estimates in both

reports are based on water use factors developed in the 2003 report: 0.35 gallons per kilowatt hour for

once-through cooling; and 0.6 gallons per kilowatt hour for cooling towers. Weighting these factors by

the energy produced by Texas coal plants in these two categories produces an average water

consumption rate of 0.42 gallons per kilowatt hour.

This two-factor method is a simplification of power plant water use estimation based on a single

variable: cooling technology. It does not consider the type of the coal (lignite, subbituminous, or

bituminous), firing technology, boiler efficiency, or steam cycle heat rate. The overall water use rate

10 Some but not all of the regional steam electric water use estimates match estimates in these documents.11 King, Carey, Ian Duncan, Michael Webber, Water Demand Projections for Power Generation in Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, prepared for Texas Water Development Board, August 31, 2008.12

Power Generation Water Use in Texas for the Years 2000 through 2060, Representatives of Investor Owned Utility

Companies of Texas. January 2003.







from our estimate for Texas coal-fired power plants, which partly relies on the IECM model that

incorporates these factors, is 0.61 gallons per kilowatt hour.

Figure 4 shows the location of the coal-fired power plants on a map of the Texas Regional Water

Planning areas. In the sections below regional water demands for coal-fired electricity are compared towater shortages in each Water Planning Region. It is, frankly, a somewhat “apples to oranges”

comparison. The purpose of the comparison, however, it to provide a context for the value of the water

savings to be gained from converting one element in the steam-electric generation portfolio, coal-fired

generation, to a water-saving power generation technology.

Figure 4. Texas Water Planning Regions and Coal Plant Locations

A summary of water demand for coal-fired power generation (and potential water savings) by region is

presented in Figure 5.







Figure 5. Total Estimated Coal-Fired Steam Electric Water Use by Region (acre-feet per year)

60,716

11,193

21,004 20,484

12,774

59,913

20,574

8,742

2,703

32,761

28,588

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

BrazosG Coastal

Bend

EastTexas Llano

Estacado

Lower

Colorado

NorthEast

Texas

Panhandle RegionB RegionC RegionH South

Central

Texas







Panhandle (Region A)

There is one existing coal-fired power plant in the Panhandle Regional Water Planning Area, the

Harrington facility, with a nameplate capacity of 1080 megawatts. Estimated water use by this facility

to produce 7.5 million megawatt-hours of electricity is 20,574 acre-feet per year.

Of all of the Regional Planning Areas containing coal-fired electric generation, the Panhandle Water

Planning Region has the second largest 2010 water deficit. The projected 454,876 acre-feet per year of

unmet demands during drought conditions is largely for agricultural purposes. Only 248 acre-feet per

year of this unmet demand is for other uses. Converting electrical generation at the Harrington facility

to a waterless technology would meet 5% of the currently unmet water demands for all uses. It would

eliminate 75 acre-feet per year of 2010 unmet water demands for stream-electric power generation,

providing a more reliable electrical system during drought.

The 2012 State Water Plan proposes to meet unmet water demand in this region by constructing three

well fields for the Panhandle Region with a combined capacity of 48,602 acre-feet per year and at a

cost of $438 million. Eliminating water use by the Harrington facility would make available water to

meet 42% of this proposed well field supply without extending reliance on limited and finite

groundwater resources.

Region B

The existing coal-fired power plant in Region B is Oklaunion, with a nameplate generating capacity of

720 megawatts. Estimated water use for this facility to produce 4.3 million megawatt-hours is 8,742

acre-feet per year.

The projected 2010 unmet water demands in this region during drought are 23,559 acre-feet per year.

Of this amount, 22,945 acre-feet of the unmet demand is for irrigated agriculture. Converting power

generation at the Oklaunion facility to a waterless technology would meet 37% of the currently unmet

water demands in the region during drought conditions, including the agricultural demand.

The projected demand for steam-electric power generation (all fuel sources) in this region in 2060 is

21,360 acre-feet per year. The unmet water demands in 2060 are projected to be 40,307 acre-feet per

year. Converting all of the 2060 electrical generating capacity to waterless technology could eliminate

more than 50% of the projected unmet water demand. Water savings from converting steam-electric







generation technology by 2060 to waterless technology would largely offset the projected water supply

from construction of Lake Ringgold, which would provide 27,000 acre-feet per year starting in 2050,

with a capital cost of $383 million.

Region C

Region C includes the cities of Fort Worth and Dallas. In 2010 about 26% of Texas’ population lived in

this region. The existing coal-fired power plant in Region C is Big Brown, with a nameplate capacity of

1,186 megawatts. Estimated water use by this facility to produce 8.5 million megawatt-hours of

electricity is 2,703 acre-feet per year.

Region C unmet water demands during a drought, based on 2010 water demands, are 69,087 acre-feet

per year. Water demands for the existing coal-fired electrical generation are equal to a relatively small

fraction, 4%, of this currently unmet demand.

North East Texas (Region D)

There are three coal-fired power plants in the North East Texas water planning region: Monticello,

Pirkey, and Welsh. They have a combined nameplate capacity of 4,374 megawatts, which is 19% of the

total coal-fired electrical capacity in Texas. The estimated water use of these three facilities in Texas is

59,913 acre-feet per year, based on their 2005 electrical production.

North East Texas Planning Region unmet water demands during a drought, based on 2010 water

demands are 10,252 acre-feet per year. Of this amount, 8,639 acre-feet per year of the unmet water

demand is for steam-electric power generation. Conversion of the existing coal-fired electrical

generation to a waterless technology would eliminate the existing water deficit for the region.

Water demand for coal-fired power plants in this region is projected to increase over the next 50 years.

By 2060 the steam-electric water demand is projected to increase to 186,509 acre-feet (71% from coal-

fired power plants), which will be 22% of the total regional demand. The 77,469 acre-feet per year

steam-electric deficit in 2060 will be 81% of the total 96,142 deficit.

Brazos Region G

There are five coal-fired electrical generating facilities in Brazos G Region: Gibbons Creek, Limestone,

Oak Grove, Sandow, and Twin Oaks Power One. These five facilities have a combined nameplate







generating capacity of 5,248 megawatts, which is the largest coal-fired electrical generating capacity of

any of the Texas water planning regions. Together they account for 23% of the total coal-fired

electrical generating capacity in Texas.

There was no information available on the megawatt-hour production for Oak Grove or its coolingsystem design, and so no estimate was made of its water use. The estimated water use of the other four

facilities, based on their 2005 electrical production, was 60,716 acre-feet per year.

The Brazos G Region unmet water demands during a drought, based on 2010 water demands are

131,489 acre-feet. Shifting coal-fired electrical generation to a waterless generation technology would

meet the projected 38,542 steam-electric water deficit for 2010; and 46% of the deficit for all uses,

including irrigated agriculture and municipal.

Steam-electric water demands in Brazos G Region are projected to nearly double to 319,884 acre-feet

per year in 2060, with 20% of this demand attributed to coal-fired power plants. Of this increase,

132,872 acre-feet per year was identified in the Water Plan as an unmet water demand for stream-

electric power generation, which would comprise 34% of all unmet demands in the region.

Region H

There is one coal-fired electrical power plant in Region H, the W. A. Parish facility. With a nameplate

capacity of 2,698 megawatts, however, this facility is the largest coal-fired facility in Texas. It

constitutes 12% of the total coal-fired electrical generating capacity in the State. The estimated annual

water use for this facility, based on producing 18 million megawatt-hours of electricity in 2005, is

32,762 acre-feet per year.

Region H unmet water demands during a drought, based on 2010 water demands, are 290,890 acre-feet

per year. Of this amount, 151,366 acre-feet per year is an unmet need for agricultural irrigation.

Converting the coal-fired generation capacity to waterless generation could meet 11% of the total

projected regional water deficit and 23% of the projected non-agricultural water deficit.

The State Water Plan projects a current shortfall of 3,203 acre-feet per year to meet steam-electric

water demands. The shortfall is projected to increase to 55,972 acre-feet per year by 2060. Converting

steam-electric power generation capacity in this region to a waterless technology would reduce

estimated water deficits and provide a more reliable power generating system during drought.







East Texas (Region I)

There is one coal-fired electrical power plant in East Texas Region, Martin Lake, owned by

Luminant/TXU Generation Co. LP. This facility has a nameplate capacity of 2,379 megawatts and,

based on its 2005 electrical generation of 18 million megawatt-hours, uses about 21,004 acre-feet of water per year for cooling. It uses a once-through cooling process with water storage in Martin Lake.

Although this region has available water supplies to meet demands through 2060, the supply is not

readily available to all users. The unmet demand during drought, based on 2010 water demands, is

28,856 acre-feet per year. Of this unmet demand, 3,588 acre-feet per year are for steam electric power

generation. Converting the regional coal-fired power generation to a waterless technology would meet

73% of the currently unmet demand and provide a more reliable electrical generating system during

drought.

Lower Colorado (Region K)

There is one coal-fired electrical power plant, the Fayette Power Project, located in the Lower Colorado

Water Planning Region. This power plant, with a nameplate capacity of 1,690 megawatts, constitutes

7% of the total coal-fired electrical capacity in the State. Based on a 2005 generation of 11 million

megawatt-hours, the average annual water demand for this facility is 12,774 acre-feet per year.

Unmet water demands in the Lower Colorado Planning Region during drought, based on 2010 water

demands, are 255,709 acre-feet per year. The largest contributor to these unmet water demands is

234,738 acre-feet per year for irrigated agriculture. Converting the generating capacity of the Fayette

Power Project to a waterless generation technology would eliminate an existing water use equal to 5%

of the current total unmet demand; and 61% of the current projected non-agricultural water deficit.

Since the State Water Plan identified 2,054 acre-feet per year of the current projected deficit during

drought conditions as a deficit for steam-electric energy production, conversion would also create a

more reliable system during drought.

The total steam-electric water demand (all fuels) for the Lower Colorado Water Planning Region is

estimated to be 146,167 acre-feet in 2010; and to increase to 270,732 acre-feet in 2060. The portion of

this 2060 water demand for steam-electric that would be unmet by current supplies is 89,042 acre-feet.







South Central Texas (Region L)

The J K Spruce, J T Deely, and San Miguel coal-fired electrical generation facilities are located in the

South Central Texas region. The estimated combined water usage of these plants is 28,588 acre-feet per

year.

Unmet water demands in the South Central Texas Planning Region during drought, based on 2010

water demands, are 174,265 acre-feet per year. Of this amount, 68,465 acre-feet per year is a deficit to

meet irrigated agricultural water demands. Conversion of the three coal-fired generation facilities to a

waterless technology would meet 16% of the total projected regional deficit and 27% of the projected

nonagricultural deficit.

Water use for steam-electric generation (all fuels) is expected to grow by a factor of three by the year

2060, as the region’s population expands by 75%. Of the 436,751 acre-feet water shortfall predicted in

2060, 12% is attributable to steam-electric generation.

The region has nearly $5 billion worth of proposed projects to expand their water supply by 293,783

acre-feet by 2060, including seawater desalination plants, off-channel reservoirs, recycled water, and

groundwater desalination.

Coastal Bend (Region N)

The coal-fired power plant in the Coastal Bend Regional Water Planning Area is the Coleto Creek

facility in Goliad County. The estimated water usage for this facility is 11,193 acre-feet per year.

Unmet water demands in the Coastal Bend Planning Region during drought, based on 2010 water

demands, are 3,404 acre-feet per year. Conversion of the coal-fired electrical generation capacity to

waterless technology would more than offset the existing unmet water demand.

Unmet water demand for steam-electric power generation (all fuels) in 2060 is projected to be 13,183

acre-feet per year, which constitutes 17% of the total projected shortfall. Projects under consideration

to meet the projected 2060 water shortages include construction of new reservoirs (46,582 acre-feet per

year) and interbasin transfers (35,000 acre-feet per year).







Llano Estacado (Region O)

One coal-fired power plant, Tolk, is located in the Llano Estacado Water Planning Region. This facility

uses an estimated 20,484 acre-feet per year of water.

Unmet water demands in the Llano Estacado Planning Region during drought, based on 2010 water

demands, are 1,275,057 acre-feet per year. Most of this unmet demand, 1,264,707 acre-feet per year, is

for irrigated agriculture. Conversion of the existing coal-fired power generation technology to a water

technology would make available water equivalent to only 2% of the total 2010 water deficit. This

water volume would be, however, almost twice the amount needed to meet the 10,350 acre-feet per

year of deficit associated with non-agricultural water demands. Conversion of the coal-fired electrical

generation capacity to waterless technology would more than offset the existing unmet water demand.

Conclusion

Coal-fired power plants represent a significant water demand in a state where every drop is precious.

Even in some of the most water-rich regions of the state, reliance on coal for power generation burdens

existing water resources. Given the likelihood of future drought, reliance on water-intensive coal-fired

power generation threatens the reliability of the Texas electrical generation system.

Alternative technologies exist that require fewer gallons per kilowatt-hour than coal; and several

electrical generation technologies require essentially no water to operate. Transitioning from coal to

more water-conservative electrical power capacity will make limited Texas water available for

alternative uses, and improve the reliability of the Texas electrical power supply system.







Appendix:DataSourcesand Analyses

Coal-Fired Power Plant Water Consumption

Information regarding coal-fired electrical generating facilities in Texas was obtained from threedifferent sources: an original list provided by the Sierra Club; information published by the Energy

Information Agency (EIA), and the National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL).

Information on water use was obtained from several sources: the Texas Water Development Board;

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality; the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of

Texas, the U.S. Energy Information Agency; the U. S. Geological Survey; and the National Energy

Technology Laboratory. Information was also obtained from a report prepared by representatives of

investor-owned utility companies of Texas.13 With so many different sources of data, one might expect

that determining the amount of water being used to generate electricity from coal in Texas would be

simple.

In fact, the opposite is true. All of the water-use databases are incomplete; they fail to provide

information for every electrical facility. Furthermore, while most of the databases provide information

for individual generating units at each power facility, the Texas Water Development Board provides

information only for entire facilities together. Where a facility has multiple generators fired by both

coal and other fuels, TWDB’s available data make it impossible to isolate water amounts strictly

associated with coal-fired generation.

The National Energy Technology Laboratory database compiles annual cooling water withdrawn,

discharged, and consumed. The U.S. Energy Information Agency database also includes information on

generators. Their 2010 database, however, only offered information for 18 of the 40 generators listed

by Sierra Club. The National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL) compiled a Coal Power Plant

Database from EIA data for 2005.14 Generators in this NETL 2005 database were matched to those on

the Sierra Club list based on the plant name, the generator identification, and on the generator

nameplate capacity. A match was found for 36 of the 40 generators listed by the Sierra Club. Four of

13Power Generation Water Use in Texas for the Years 2000 through 2060, Final Report prepared for the Texas Water

Development Board, January 2003.14

Coal Power Plant Database User’s Manual, prepared for U. S. Department of Energy National Energy TechnologyLaboratory, version 2.0 no author, August 30, 2007, http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/hold/technology.html,December 28, 2011.







the Sierra Club generators were missing from this database. Detailed information regarding fuel

efficiency, water source, cooling technology and pollution control technology for each generator were

determined from this 2005 database.

This NETL database included three generators that were not identified on the Sierra Club list. Thesethree generators are owned by Alcoa at the Sandow Station in Milam County and are fueled by lignite.

These three generators were not included in the analysis below.

The Texas Water Development Board also maintains a database on water use for steam-electric power

generation by facility. Their steam-electric database was downloaded on September 28, 2011, and

includes the water source (surface or groundwater) type of water (fresh or saline) and the annual

volume of water used at each facility for years 2000 through 2009.15

Facilities in this TWDB database were matched to the Sierra Club list based on the plant name and city

location. Matches were found for 17 of the 19 facilities listed by Sierra Club.

TWDB had no data for either the Sandow or Twin Oaks Power One Facility. Water use data in the

TWDB database for two of the power plants on the Sierra Club list, the J T Deely and the J K Spruce

plant were combined together with a third facility, O W Sommers. Furthermore, the TWDB database

does not account for return flows. Water consumption cannot, therefore, be determined from these data.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality also maintains monthly records of water diversion,

return flows, and consumption for steam-electric water rights. This database for the years 2000 through

2006 was obtained and analyzed. Although for some data, consumption equals diversion minus return

flows, for many of the generators diversion minus return is not equal to the value reported for

consumption. There is no discernible reason for this discrepancy.

US Geological Survey (USGS) Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005. This

report estimates total demand for all steam-electric power generation (including nuclear, natural

gas, etc.). No source was cited for this data and it reports water use by county rather than by

plant, making it impossible to distinguish between sources for counties with multiple plants

15 The database lacked data for some facilities for some of these years.







(particularly problematic in this instance for counties with steam-electric generating plants

powered by fuels other than coal).16

Another database of water use for thermo-electric power generation was obtained from the US

Geological Survey (USGS) for the years 2000 and 2005. Information in this database is compiled bycounty rather than by individual facility. Because information in this USGS database was not divided

by facility, however, it may include water used for thermo-generation at facilities that are not coal-

fired. These data were not used as a basis for estimating facility or generator water use for this report.

Other researchers have been similarly confounded by available data on energy production and water

consumption. The Bureau of Economic Geology reported:

“One difficulty in estimating water consumption for electricity production involves the multiple

yet often conflicting sources of information on water usage.”17

The national Renewable Energy Laboratory said:

“Federal datasets on water use in power plants have numerous gaps and methodological

inconsistencies.”18

The Integrated Environmental Control Model (IECM) is a computer-modeling program developed by

Carnegie Mellon University for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology

Laboratory (NETL).19 Among its many functions this program estimates water consumption based on

user input regarding the type of power plant boiler, fuel sources, emission controls, average

environmental conditions, and carbon dioxide capture and storage technology. This program was used

as a check on the validity of report water use, and as a tool to estimate water use at the existing coal-

fired power plants in Texas with alternative technologies.

Texas State Water Plan Steam-Electric Power Water Demands

The Texas State Water Plan, and the Regional Plans from which it is drawn, estimate water demand

16 Kenny, Joan F. et al, Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2005, US Geological Survey Circular 1344, 2009.17King, Carey, Ian Duncan, Michael Webber, Water Demand Projections for Power Generation in Texas, Bureau of Economic Geology, prepared for Texas Water Development Board, August 31, 2008, page 12.18 Macknick, Jordon, Robin Newmark, Garvin Heath, and KC Hallet, A Review of Operational Water Consumption and

Withdrawal Factors for Electricity Generating Technologies, National Renewable Energy Laboratory, Technical ReportNREL/TP-6A20-50900, March 2011.19 http://www.cmu.edu/epp/iecm/about.html, December 26, 2011.





Gl E i i I l

and unmet water demands for steam-electric power generation in Texas for each decade from 2010

through 2060. Water demands for coal-fired electrical power generation are a portion of these total

demands, which also include demands for steam-electric fired by nuclear and natural gas boilers. The

portion of these demands attributable to coal-fired electrical generation is not identified.

Over the last decade, the Texas Water Development Board has contracted with at least two entities to

estimate steam-electric water demand as a basis for the Regional Water Plan process. In 2003 a report

by representatives of investor-owned utility companies in Texas estimated power generation water

demands for each decade from 2000 through 2060.20 This report estimated water for coal-fired

generation use rates as 0.35 gallons per kilowatt hour for once-through cooling; and 0.6 gallons per

kilowatt hour for cooling tower cooling.

According to a report commissioned by TWDB and prepared by the Bureau of Economic Geology,21

the 2007 State Water Plan used an overall rate of 0.6 gallons per kilowatt hour for all thermo-electric

power generation. This report calculated water demand based on Texas Commission on Environmental

Quality and TWDB water use data for each year from 2001 through 2006. Where no data were

available, this report relied on estimates from the 2003 report.

The table below compares state-wide thermo-electric water demands from these sources and the

State Water Plan estimates.

Table 3. Statewide Estimates for Steam-Electric Water Demand

Source YearSteam-Electric Water Demand

(acre-feet per year)

Power Generation Water

Use in Texas 2010-20602010 724,814

2007 State Water plan (as

reported in BEG report)2007 678,000

Bureau of Economic

Geology Report2006 482,000

2012 State Water Plan 2010 733,179

20Power Generation Water Use in Texas for the Years 2000 through 2060, Final Report prepared for the Texas Water

Development Board, January 2003.21 King, Carey, Ian Duncan, Michael Webber, Water demand Projections for Power Generation in Texas, prepared by theBureau of Economic Geology for the Texas Water Development Board, August 31, 2008.

Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	progresstx
View:	215 times
Download:	0 times

Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas

Documents