water for coal-fired power generation in texas
TRANSCRIPT
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 2/26
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 3/26
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 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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 4/26
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 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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 5/26
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 2
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 6/26
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 3
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 7/26
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 4
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 8/26
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 5
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 9/26
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 6
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 10/26
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 7
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 11/26
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 8
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 12/26
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 9
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 13/26
Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
Current and Future Demands February 2012
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 14/26
Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
Current and Future Demands February 2012
Glenrose Engineering, Inc.
Texas Board of Professional Engineers Number F4092
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 15/26
Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
Current and Future Demands February 2012
Glenrose Engineering, Inc.
Texas Board of Professional Engineers Number F4092
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 16/26
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 13
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 17/26
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 14
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 18/26
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 15
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
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 19/26
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 16
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 20/26
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 17
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 21/26
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 18
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).
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 22/26
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 19
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 23/26
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 20
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 24/26
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 21
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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 25/26
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 22
(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.
7/31/2019 Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/water-for-coal-fired-power-generation-in-texas 26/26
Water for Coal-Fired Power Generation in Texas Lone Star Chapter of the Sierra Club
Current and Future Demands February 2012
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.