Electric Vehicles & our Water Supply

[Derwin]

I just found this article over at the "Live Science" website. Do you think this will hinder the release of electric vehicles on a wide scale? Or, is it something we should ignore? Let's talk about it. Here's the article:

http://images.livescience.com/template_images/livescience_logo.gif (http://www.livescience.com/)
Electric Vehicles Could Strain Water Supplies

By Charles Q. Choi (cqchoi@nasw.org), Special to LiveScience
posted: 10 March 2008 09:00 am ET





As environmentally friendly as hybrid and fully electric cars are, it turns out replacing normal vehicles with them might dangerously strain already scarce water reserves.
Hybrid electric vehicles run on electric mode for a limited distance before they switch to an internal combustion engine (http://www.livescience.com/technology/070510_green_engines.html) for longer trips, while fully electric vehicles operate solely off batteries. Both are presumed to be better for the planet than normal vehicles, because they release fewer emissions into the air.
But hybrid (http://www.livescience.com/technology/060511_hybrid_cars.html) and fully electric cars rely in part on water. Specifically, the power plants that produce the electricity typically use water primarily to cool down the systems.
Such water consumption might be especially of concern in the United States "in the Southwest and Southeast and the West, where water resources are definitely strained," said researcher Michael Webber, a mechanical engineer at the University of Texas at Austin.
Webber and colleague Carey King compared the amount of water used, withdrawn and consumed during petroleum refining and electricity generation (http://www.livescience.com/environment/top10_power_21stcentury.html) in the United States. They estimate that hybrid and fully electric vehicles could sharply increase the country's water consumption, with each mile driven with electricity demanding roughly three times more water than gasoline.
The researchers note these concerns do not necessarily mean electric cars are undesirable. "It just means there might be some tradeoffs," Webber said.
Policymakers may want to move to less water-intensive cooling technologies, such as air cooling. Seawater or recycled former wastewater unsuitable for drinking might also help cool power generators. Power generators that use little to no water, such as wind or solar technology, might also find use, Webber noted.
Webber and King are scheduled to detail their findings in the June 1 issue of the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

[MarkH]

hogwash, the water is pumped in to cool the powerplant then pumped back in to the river. At least it is in a nuke plant.

can't come up with anything good without some yahoo crying foul.

we need more nuke plants I say!!!

:LOL:

[Luigi78]

Yes, this is a really silly argument, IMO.

The number of ways mankind will figure out to make more and more electricity is seemingly limitless. (wind, tides, geothermal, solar, biomass, nuclear, space-tethers, etc.)
Just because 'a' method of making electricity uses alot of water doesn't mean anything in the big picture.

The big picture is that fossil fuels are completely irreplaceable; once they're used up, that's it. Not so with electricity (unless you're really concerned with entropy and the heat-death of the universe, of course)

[MVRacing]

Oh, that's funny!! The water that goes in to cooling an engine wether IC or electric is put into a closed system. It's not like we have to drag a hose behind us for a constant source of cooling water :-)

As far as water used for power generation ... from their own link quoted below, Hydro only supplies 20% of the world electricity and part of that is from tidal action and ocean currents.

Guessing here, (not my area) the amount of electrical energy it takes to refine oil into motor fuels would power us for years I'd bet.


"Whether falling, flowing, or otherwise moving in tides or under-ocean currents, water can be harnessed to produce electric power. Hydropower supplies approximately 20 percent of the world's electricity. Until recently, it was generally believed that water energy is an abundant natural resource that requires no additional fuel and produces no pollution. Recent studies, however, challenge some of these claims and suggest that hydroelectric dams can produce significant amounts of carbon dioxide and methane through the decay of submerged plant material. In some cases, these emissions rival that of power plants running on fossil fuel. Another drawback of dams is that people often need to be relocated. In the case of the Three Gorges Dams Project in China -- which will be the largest dam in the world when completed in 2009 -- 1.9 million people were moved and countless historical sites were flooded and lost. "

[RAN]

This is the silliest argument I've heard yet. In the 1st place, most plug-in cars will be charged overnight when the electricity is already available and not much of it is being used. I forget the exact number, but the current power grid could charge around 80% of cars right now at night if every car in the country was an EV. There wouldn't need to be that much extra production, and therefore not much extra water needed for cooling.

Secondly, the water used to cool the plants isn't destroyed... it's pumped in and out again. So who cares? The only way the water would be lost is if it gets so hot it turns to steam, and if that were the case, the steam could be harnessed (shhhhhh... to make electricity).

Not that we need a third point here, but I'm on a roll, so here it is... more and more electricity in the future will come from renewable sources like wind and solar. Especially in the south west where there's lots of sun. It's going to be many years yet (unfortunately) before even half of the cars in the US are EV's or PHEV's. Advances in photovoltaic (PV) materials will bring prices down considerably as soon as production can catch up with demand, so that in a few years it will be quite feasible for many EV owners to have solar panels on their garage/carport roofs so they can charge their cars off the grid.

Those guys need a hobby, and fast!

[Mark Tomlinson]

This is just like the reactionary article that appeared in USA Today saying electric vehicles will increase air pollution. They took one fact and extrapolated it without considering the entire picture.

The first question I would ask is, "What's the overall impact"? It's going to be twenty-five years or so before there are enough BEVs on the road to actually feel it at the power plant. And even then it will be a fraction of our overall energy usage - minus the water not being used to refine the displaced gasoline.

But the most significant oversight is that aging power plants are being replaced with less impactful solutions. Even if the demand on water supplies increases (which I doubt), it would mean short-term losses only until old inefficient plants are replaced. Remember your physics, energy being lost as heat is not being captured as electricity. More efficient power generation means less cooling requirements, meaning less water usage. In fact, some solutions I've seen use excess heat for sea water desalination and actually increase the drinkable water supply.

And I've intentionally left nuclear energy out of this so far because that uses the same amount of water regardless of the demand, unless you shut down a reactor or build a new one. Therefore, charging your BEV at night (like most of us will) takes no extra resources - water or otherwise.

[Mark Tomlinson]

Ha! RAN and I were typing the same thing at the same time!

[RAN]

Here ya go Mark! :Beer:

[Miracleman89]

Is this another one of the studies paid for by OPEC????? Come on!!! even if we looked at this as a legitimate argument, The southwest is turning toward wind farms and solar power! when was the last time you heard of anyone needing to hose down their solar panels??? along the coast line they are developing "wave generators" that utilizes ocean currents! :confused:Oh now their goes our oceans:rolleyes:This is just like the argument about biofuels being more harmful! The fact is yes it is cleaner to produce gas then biofuel but biofuel burns cleaner, the over usage of biofuels over gasoline will in fact decrease CO2 emissions! From start to finish biofuels are better for the environment! if you only look at manufacturing then they are not! but why make it if your not gonna use it?? These are ridiculous studies that serve no other purpose then to scare people away, while the oil industry continues to make gargantuan profits!!!

[rogwild]

Actually MM, in a recent Discovery Channel story on solar power, one of the 'concerns' was reducing the water required to CLEAN the mirrors and solar collectors to keep them at peak efficiency. But I see your point.
Anyone can come up with a 'scenario' to support their position, but "proving it with science' is the key.

How about: To 'save the water', we decide to cool the power plants with 'air'. This results in increased 'Global Warming'; which in turn melts more Ice Caps. This then increases the size of the oceans, making 'more breeding grounds' for whales. With the increase in Sperm Whale populations, we can all go back to lighting and heating our homes with "Whale Oil".:LOL:

[Derwin]

LOL! I figured this article would get this response! But I DO like rogwilds take on things. There is always a "give-and-take" whenever we do anything. We seem to always rob Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.

Anyway, it is a good discussion.

Derwin

[CelticFlyer]

This is a silly argument. As someone stated, water used to cool generators very often comes from rivers, which are not necessarily sources of potable water. One wonders if these guys are on "Big Oils" payroll. Not because they're saying things we don't want to hear, but because their fears seem somewhat exaggerated.

That said, I think the authors balanced their argument by admitting that any system involves trade offs, and offered a few simple alternatives to ponder. Perhaps even they think they're stretching!

[RAN]

This results in increased 'Global Warming'; which in turn melts more Ice Caps. This then increases the size of the oceans, making 'more breeding grounds' for whales. With the increase in Sperm Whale populations, we can all go back to lighting and heating our homes with "Whale Oil".

Kewl! Then I can get a whale-tooth necklace without feeling like I'm contributing to whale extinction.=D

[PHEVadvocate]

It seems Dr. King is a little bit miffed that his paper: “The Water Intensity of the Plugged-in Automotive Economy” is being misused! Here are his blog comments:

http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/03/another-article-this-time-in-new.html

http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/water-for-transportation-publication-on.html

http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/03/phevevs-and-water-finally-good-article.html

http://rationalenergy.blogspot.com/2008/02/hold-back-flow-of-false-claims-on-water.html

You always got to watch those reporters! =y:

[MVRacing]

Phil McKenna, the journalist and writer of the article in New Scientist must be related to Matt :confused:

[cpaddock]

I totally agree that the water use argument is bogus. There is, however the question of spent batteries which always comes up in discussions of EV's with my buddies. And I really don't have a good answer for it. As rapidly as the technology is advancing I would suppose the solutions will also be morphing to adapt. Don't mean to go off on a tangent here....but since I'm here....I have a problem with biofuels. Corn based ethanol in particular. You may have already heard the study which indicates that due to the excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers used for corn production, of which only a small portion is actually taken up by the plants, the rest is being washed out through the Mississippi basin, the primary drainage for the corn belt states, into the Gulf of Mexico, where it is causing huge algae blooms, which, when dying and rotting on the sea floor are producing major amounts of co2, which is killing the fish and shellfish big time, which in turn is devastating the gulf state fisheries! Ethanol appears to be nothing more than a way to further the $$$ agenda of Monsanto Corp. IMO!!!!! Of course I could be wrong,
I was once before....:)
Have a Nice Day!

[cobraphx]

I agree that the wafer argument is kind of silly. It might have some merit if you waved a magic wand today to change all the gas guzzlers to EVs overnight, but that can't happen. Going forward as EVs gradually are phased in, electricity production will become cleaner and more efficient. A good example is the Solana (http://www.aps.com/main/green/Solana/facts.html) solar facility being built in AZ. It is being built on 3 square miles which is currently farmland, when complete it will consume 1/4 the amount of water as it did during farming.

As for the battery recycling debate, there are already companies that make a business of recycling Lithium Batteries like Toxco (http://www.toxco.com/) My guess that companies like this one will be very lucrative as more and more EV's hit the road. Not to mention that battery technology will advance pretty rapidly in the next decade. We might find that the best storage mechanism might end up being carbon nanotube ultra capacitors and not lithium based batteries.

I think the next 10 years will be pretty exciting as thin film solar, lithium batteries, ultra capacitors, in wheel motors and power control electronics mature and reach volume production in the near future. All these technologies will improve as well as transform vehicles like the V1.

[Mark Tomlinson]

I totally agree that the water use argument is bogus. There is, however the question of spent batteries which always comes up in discussions of EV's with my buddies. And I really don't have a good answer for it. As rapidly as the technology is advancing I would suppose the solutions will also be morphing to adapt. Don't mean to go off on a tangent here....but since I'm here....I have a problem with biofuels. Corn based ethanol in particular. You may have already heard the study which indicates that due to the excessive amounts of chemical fertilizers used for corn production, of which only a small portion is actually taken up by the plants, the rest is being washed out through the Mississippi basin, the primary drainage for the corn belt states, into the Gulf of Mexico, where it is causing huge algae blooms, which, when dying and rotting on the sea floor are producing major amounts of co2, which is killing the fish and shellfish big time, which in turn is devastating the gulf state fisheries! Ethanol appears to be nothing more than a way to further the $$$ agenda of Monsanto Corp. IMO!!!!! Of course I could be wrong,
I was once before....:)
Have a Nice Day!
You may want to check out Tesla Motors' latest blog.
http://www.teslamotors.com/blog4/

[Mark Tomlinson]

Oh, and back to the water issue...

It's good to see one of the co-authors of the original study confirming what some of us already suspected - the blog was a reactionary post taking one aspect of the study out of context. The new media of Internet journalism is stooping to making up the news. No conspiracy theories here. Just fallout, I suspect, of too many "journalists" competing for eyeballs.

[cpaddock]

Howzit Mark! Thanks for the Tesla blog on battery recycling. That's what is so great about this forum....it promotes "continuing education". And its always nice to have more ammo in my pocket when I wax passionate about EV's.
Aloooooha!

[PHEVadvocate]

Hello All,

Here is a response to the foolish misconception that electric cars will use up our water supply!

http://pluginpartners.blogspot.com/2008/04/phevs-and-water-consumption.html

I think a bunch of foolish reporters :o need to print some retractions. :LOL:

[RAN]

Two things not required in journalism any more.... intelligence and common sense.