Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Energy Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/enpol

Water security implications of coal-fired power plants financed through
China's Belt and Road InitiativeT

Meir Alkona,1, Xiaogang Heb,∗,1,2, Aubrey R. Parisc,1, Wenying Liaod, Thomas Hodsone,
Niko Wandersf, Yaoping Wangg,3a

Department of Politics and Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USA
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USAc
Department of Chemistry, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USAd
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USAe
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, USAf
Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, NetherlandsgEnvironmental Science Graduate Program, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USAb

ARTICLE INFOABSTRACT

Keywords:
Sustainability
Belt and Road Initiative
Water-energy nexus
Water resources
Water security
Coal
CPEC
EnergyAs the world's largest proposed infrastructure program, China's Belt and Road Initiative will have significant
implications for water security, sustainability, and the future of energy generation in Asia. Pakistan, a keystoneof the Belt and Road Initiative, presents an ideal case for assessing the impacts of the Initiative's energy financing. We estimate the future water demands of seven new Chinese-financed, coal-fired power plants inPakistan with a total capacity of 6600 MW. While these facilities may help address Pakistan's energy shortages,
our results indicate that by 2055, climate change-induced water stress in Pakistan will increase by 36–92%
compared to current levels, and the power plants' new water demands will amount to ∼79.68 million m3. Ourfindings highlight the need for China and the Belt and Road Initiative's destination countries to integrate resilience and sustainability efforts into energy infrastructure planning. Policy recommendations are offered topermit both sustainable development and responsible water resource management.

1. Introduction
Chinese financing of energy infrastructure through the Belt andRoad Initiative (BRI) will significantly influence the energy mix formuch of Asia in the coming century. Initially proposed in 2013 andcurrently in its early stages, BRI seeks to establish both a land-based“Silk Road Economic Belt” and a “Maritime Silk Road,” prioritizing
economic development and international partnership (Swaine, 2015)
while promoting energy cooperation (Duan et al., 2018). Siting andplanning new power plants will create large fixed investments, having
serious implications for both global carbon emissions and the feasibilityof sustainable development in the approximately 70 destination countries which are expected to participate; these countries account for 65%
of the world's population.
BRI offers tremendous opportunities for economic growth andpoverty elimination, the latter of which is prioritized by the Sustainable
Development Goals (SDGs) put forth by the United Nations (Cohen,
2006; Huang, 2016; United Nations, 2018). However, this economic
benefit may come at the expense of other SDGs. For instance, BRI
projects involving the establishment of new energy facilities, particularly coal-fired power plants, should be evaluated on the basis of theirsustainability and climate resilience implications. Many of these coalfired plants will be constructed in arid and semi-arid regions ofsouthern Asia and Africa, including countries like Pakistan, which areconsidered water-insecure (Mekonnen and Hoekstra, 2016).
In this study, we focus on Pakistan for analytical tractability.
However, we note that there are seven other countries that, like
Pakistan, have committed BRI investments in coal-fired power exceeding US $1 billion, as well as 22 other countries with proposed capacity installation of over 500 MW (Shearer et al., 2019). Coal-fired

Corresponding author. E315 Engineering Quad, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ, 08544, USA.
E-mail addresses: malkon@princeton.edu (M. Alkon), hexg@princeton.edu, hexg@stanford.edu (X. He), aparis@princeton.edu (A.R. Paris),wenyingl@princeton.edu (W. Liao), thodson@princeton.edu (T. Hodson), n.wanders@uu.nl (N. Wanders), ypwong1992@gmail.com (Y. Wang).
1
These authors contributed equally to this work; co-first authors listed in alphabetical order.
2
Present address: Water in the West, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
3
Present address: Water in the West, Woods Institute for the Environment, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.
∗https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.044
Received 19 December 2018; Received in revised form 14 May 2019; Accepted 22 June 20190301-4215/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

consumption in the world (Huang et al., 2017).
As such, water is a commodity whose use in Pakistan and othernations must be carefully managed. Even so, Chinese-financed energy
infrastructure development under BRI includes the establishment ofwater-intensive coal-fired power plants. In this study, we examine thewater demands introduced by BRI's seven continental coal-fired power
plants in Pakistan (lettered A–G; see Table A1 for details) having a total
generating capacity of 6600 MW and estimated cost of at least US $11
billion; all seven plants require freshwater for cooling purposes. The
seven plants of interest are selected because they are either currently
operational or expected to be operational by the year 2022. Importantly, this means that their cooling systems are fixed and will not be
impacted, at least in the near future, by advances in cooling technology.
The plants are located near densely populated load centers including
Karachi, which neighbors two of CPEC's Special Economic Zones, andthe Sindh and Punjab provinces. The power plants will therefore provide vital electricity for domestic and industrial use. However, the plant
locations also coincide with regions of existing water stress. Considering the lifetime of power plants (∼40 years), these facilities will
likely operate until 2055 or beyond, during which time they will influence Pakistan's water security, already worsening due to climate andsocioeconomic changes.
Water-related concerns associated with coal-fired power plants stemfrom the fact that water is used in multiple steps of the energy generation process. A small amount of water is heated to produce steam
needed to rotate a turbine, thereby generating electricity, and some
may also be used to treat environmental emissions (Hasibeck et al.,2010). However, a much larger quantity of water is required to cool thesteam back to liquid water, allowing the steam source to be recycled.
The cooling water makes up the bulk of the water supply required incoal-fired power generation. Specifically, cooling water withdrawals
per MWh of generated electricity range from 34–182 m3 for oncethrough cooling systems and 0.02–9.8 m3 for recirculating cooling
towers (Macknick et al., 2012). Variations in cooling water demanddepend on the thermal efficiency of the power plant, temperature of theintake water, design of the cooling system, and meteorological conditions (Bartos and Chester, 2015). In water-insecure areas, the demandsof coal-fired power stations can compete with alternative demands
made by agriculture, health, and other socioeconomic applications requiring adequate water access (Luo et al., 2018).
In this study, we use the ratio of water withdrawal to availability asa representation of the Water Stress Index (WSI, see Methods for details) to assess the past, present, and projected water stress conditions inPakistan. WSI is obtained based on the multi-model and multi-scenario
assessments of the Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) Initiative (Wadaet al., 2016) with a focus on Asia (Satoh et al., 2017) from 1971 to
2055 at 50-km spatial resolution. As water stress is jointly influenced byclimate change (Schewe et al., 2014) and socioeconomic development(Arnell, 2004; Gosling and Arnell, 2016; Vörösmarty et al., 2000), theconventional Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs) and
Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs, O'Neill et al., 2014) should be
combined to drive the global hydrological models for more accurate
and comprehensive assessment. Therefore, WFaS extends the original
SSP scenario beyond its typical focus on key climate policy drivers(O'Neill et al., 2014) by emphasizing water use and availability acrosssectors based on country-level hydro-economic classification (Hasibeck
et al., 2010; Satoh et al., 2017).
According to this classification, Pakistan is a region characterized byboth water stress and low coping capacity, which may introduce a seriesof challenges for sustainable development. Following Wada et al.
(2016) and Satoh et al. (2017), we use a combination of SSP2 (i.e.,
middle-of-the-road scenario indicating a medium level of adaptationand mitigation) and RCP6.0 (i.e., medium emissions scenario) to approximate middle-of-the-road projections for future climate and socioeconomic changes. Because hydrological responses to meteorologicalforcings are inherently uncertain, we use bias-corrected projections

power plants simultaneously increase greenhouse gas emissions and use
large quantities of water, mainly for cooling purposes (Feeley et al.,2008; Sims et al., 2003). As such, construction of these energy facilities
may contradict at least three SDGs which seek to (A) reduce water
scarcity, (B) increase the incorporation of renewable energy sources,and (C) otherwise address climate change (United Nations, 2018).
The potentially adverse impacts of BRI-related energy infrastructure
have a global reach. Chinese financing of energy facilities has influenced infrastructure investment decisions and shaped the global powermix even before the initiation of BRI (Gallagher, 2017). Chinese financing provides both competition and alternative sources of capital,
influencing the actions of other multilateral lenders in the power sector(Hannam, 2016; Hannam et al., 2015). From a global perspective,
China financed energy projects in 121 countries from 2000 to 2013,
with coal-fired power plants making up nearly a third of this investment(Gallagher, 2017). Under BRI, this investment increased and involved
China in 240 coal-fired power projects across 25 countries by the end of2016 (Ren et al., 2017). Considering their potential to influence thefuture of energy infrastructure around the world, it is critical to understand how these coal-fired power plants will impact sustainability
and water security.
Here, using scenario-based simulations, we provide a novel framework for quantitative assessment of the water stress related to coal-fired
power plants in BRI destination countries. While focusing on Pakistan
as a case study, our framework can be broadly applied to other BRI
countries, providing insights for future sustainable planning in the energy sector. Specifically, we ask: (1) will BRI-affiliated coal-fired power
plants in Pakistan require substantial quantities of water for cooling
purposes? If so, (2) will this cooling water withdrawal and consumption
exacerbate existing water scarcity in Pakistan, especially given futureclimate changes?
To address these questions, we use a large-scale hydrological andwater resources model to estimate past, present, and future projectionsof water stress in Pakistan. Modeling is performed with a multi-model
ensemble framework to account for inherent model uncertainties. We
then calculate the cooling water demand of seven Chinese-financed
coal-fired power plants in Pakistan. Our results show that the installation of new facilities in Pakistan will increase local water scarcity due tothe combination of climate change-induced water stress and heightenedwater demands for power generation. This research provides the firstprecise, quantitative evaluation of BRI-based investment in Pakistan's
power sector. Policy actions are suggested that permit economic development, within the framework of the BRI, while ensuring water andother resource sustainability.
1.1. The coal-water nexus in Pakistan
Pakistan is selected as a case study because energy financing
through the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) is amongst themost prominent and widespread of BRI projects. Chronic power
shortages are a severe issue in Pakistan, lowering annual GDP by 7%(Feng and Saha, 2018). These shortages could be partially alleviated by
CPEC projects which designate $62 billion for developing infrastructure
in Pakistan, two-thirds of which will be directed towards the energy
sector. At the same time, Pakistan faces many challenges to sustainable
development—common to many developing nations—and has historically treaded a fine line between water use and socioeconomic development (Satoh et al., 2017). The nation's water challenges are primarily
driven by overexploitation of groundwater, saltwater intrusion, lowefficiency irrigation, and poor infrastructure for water treatment andstorage (Kahlown and Majeed, 2003). In Pakistan, 95% of the watersupply is consumed by agriculture, which, as a sector, involves around
60% of the population and generates 80% of national exports annually(Kundi, 2017). Domestic and industrial water uses (i.e., the remaining∼5%) continue to compete with agricultural demands (Kahlown and
Majeed, 2003). All told, Pakistan has the fourth-highest rate of water
1102

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

from five different Global Climate Models (GCMs; see model details in
Table A2) to add robustness to our findings. We then calculate thecooling water demand of seven Chinese-financed coal-fired power
plants in Pakistan using a heat and water balance model (Bartos andChester, 2015) driven by projected meteorological data, water temperature, and mean historical capacity factor (see Methods for details).

and Chester, 2015), models which we re-arrange to produce Equations(1) and (2). With regard to the ambient environmental conditions inEquation (1), the ambient wet-bulb temperature (Twb), humidity ratioof air entering the tower (ωin), and enthalpy of air entering the tower(ha,in) are calculated from the downscaled air temperature, relative
humidity, and surface pressure from the five GCMs (GFDL-ESM2M,
HadGEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, NorESM1-M) using
standard psychrometric relationships (Stull, 2011). The temperature of
the intake water (Tin) comes from the water temperature simulated by
PCR-GLOBWB 2 (Wanders et al., 2019). The humidity ratio of air exiting the tower (ωout) is assumed to equal the saturation humidity ratio
at ambient atmospheric pressure and temperature. The enthalpy of the
air exiting the tower (hout) is calculated from ωout and ambient temperature using standard psychrometric relationships (Stull, 2011). The
density of water (ρw) is 1000 kg m-3 and the heat capacity of water (Cp)
is 4.184 J g-1 oC-1.

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Calculation of Water Stress Index
In this study, the Water Stress Index (WSI) is defined as the ratio ofwater withdrawal to total available surface water, which is often employed in the literature to characterize local water stress situations(Alcamo et al., 2003; Satoh et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2016). We calculate WSI based on the simulated water withdrawal and availability
from three previously validated global hydrological models (GHMs),
including H08 (Hanasaki et al., 2008), PCR-GLOBWB (He et al., 2017;
Sutanudjaja et al., 2017; van Beek et al., 2011; Wada et al., 2014), andWaterGAP (Flörke et al., 2013; Müller Schmied et al., 2014). The GHMs
simulate the historical water withdrawal and availability using historical weather data and water withdrawal data (Satoh et al., 2017). The
GHMs simulate the future water withdrawal and availability using
scenarios developed with water planners and stakeholders, as well as
the downscaled Global Climate Model (GCM) projections from theInter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project fast track, which
is based on GCMs from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
Phase 5 (Hempel et al., 2013; Warszawski et al., 2014; Satoh et al.,2017). The “future” simulations of each GHM span the combination of
three SSP scenarios and five bias-corrected GCM projections under
RCP4.5 and RCP6.0. We calculate the ensemble average of these three
GHMs for each individual GCM. Here, we focus on the SSP2/RCP6.0
scenario, but results from the other two scenarios (i.e., SSP1/RCP4.5
and SSP3/RCP6.0) are also presented in the Appendix. These two scenarios represent the lower and upper ranges of possible changes inclimate and socio-economic development.

WIrc =

1

net
net

k os
w

(ha, out(

ha, in) 1

out

1
ncc

)+(

in
Twb + Tapp
n cc)

Tw Cp ( out

in )

(1)

CIrc = 1

1
× WIrcncc(2)

With regard to the cooling tower parameters in Equation (1), we set thecycles of concentration (ncc) to 5, which is the upper limit prescribed in
the electricity industry standard of China (“Electricity industry standardof the People's Republic of China - guide for water saving of thermal
power plant. State Economic and Trade Commission,” 2002). Since thewater withdrawal factor of cooling towers decreases with the cycles ofconcentration, using the upper limit means that the estimated water
withdrawal factor will be a conservative estimation. We assume that thefraction of heat loss through flue gas and other dissipative pathways(kos) is 12%, following the original study (Bartos and Chester, 2015).
We set the approach of the cooling tower to 6 oC; the normal range ofthe approach parameter is 4–8 oC (Bartos and Chester, 2015), andpreliminary analysis showed that the water withdrawal factor is notsensitive to the approach parameter. We estimate the net thermal efficiency (ηnet) of the seven power plants from their installed capacities(Table A1) by fitting linear and lognormal relationships between the
installed capacity and thermal efficiencies of supercritical and subcritical coal-fired power plants in a previous dataset (Raptis et al., 2016;
Raptis and Pfister, 2016) (Fig. A1).
Using the estimated water withdrawal and consumption factors
from Equations (1) and (2), we calculate the annual water withdrawal(W, m3 year-1) and consumption (CS, m3 year-1) of the power plants
using Equations (3) and (4), respectively. For capacity factors (cf,unitless between 0 and 1), we use the average capacity factor of thermoelectric power plants in Pakistan from 1970–2013 (IAEA, 2017),
similar to the approach taken in (Holbert and Haverkamp (2009)). The
numbers in Equations (3) and (4) are for unit conversion.

2.2. Water temperature estimation
To generate water temperature estimates, we use a novel coupledhydrological-energy model. Hydrological fluxes of surface runoff,
overland flow, and groundwater discharge are estimated using the
global hydrological model PCR-GLOBWB 2 (Sutanudjaja et al., 2017).
These fluxes are then used by a dynamical 1-D energy routing model(Wanders et al., 2019) to produce estimates of water temperature. Bothmodels simulate the hydrological cycle at a 10-km spatial resolution
and daily temporal resolution. The water temperature model assumes
fully mixed rectangular channels and is able to simulate lakes and reservoirs. Reservoir operations mimic an operations schedule that would
be optimal for hydropower generation. The model allows for the simulation of ice formation and break-up, both of which impact waterflow in streams and rivers. Point source advection from industrial
cooling water is currently not included in this model. The model has
been proven to provide accurate water temperature simulations and canbe used with confidence to generate water temperature estimates (e.g.,van Vliet et al., 2016).

W = WIrc C cf 24 365(3)CS = CIrc C cf 24 365(4)3. Results

2.3. Calculation of cooling water demand

3.1. Current water stress situation

Based on existing analyses of cooling technologies in southern Asia,
including newspaper coverage of Pakistani plants and detailed analysesof India's cooling technologies (Luo et al., 2018), we note that use of dry
cooling technology is extremely rare. Thus, we assume the coal-fired
power plants (Table A1) will use cooling towers and estimate the water
withdrawal (WIrc, m3 MWh-1) and consumption (CIrc, m3 MWh-1) factors using a previously reported heat-and-water-balance model (Bartos

To determine the water demands imposed by power plants A–G
relative to Pakistan's freshwater supply, it is first necessary to understand the nation's current and future water availability, the latter ofwhich may be impacted by climate stresses. The 10-year averaged WSI
from 2006 to 2015, shown in Fig. 1, serves as a measure of the current
water availability and indicates that the central and southern regions ofPakistan are now experiencing severe water stress. In contrast, northern
1103

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

Fig. 1. Spatial distribution of the WSI averaged from 2006 to 2015, based on forcings from five GCMs under SSP2/RCP6.0. Letters A–G in the upper left panel
correspond to plant IDs (see details in Table A1 and Fig. A2), where plants were selected to include existing, under construction, and planned facilities financed by
China.

models (i.e., GFDL-ESM2M, IPSL-CM5A-LR, NORESM1-M) exhibit astatistically significant increasing trend in central Pakistan. The largest
trends in these three models exist for the region near the power plants
in southeastern Pakistan (i.e., B, C, D, F, G). In contrast with the othermodels, HADGEM2-ES exhibits decreasing water stress spreading inparts of central Pakistan, but these trends are not statistically significant. Regions that are not currently water stressed will likely experience stress at the hands of future climate changes and socioeconomic development; this is demonstrated by consistent increasing
trends produced by all models, as shown in northern Pakistan. Therefore, we must still account for long-term water stress.
The relative water stress changes in the 2050s compared to thecurrent situation (i.e., 2006–2015) are displayed in Fig. 4 (i.e., for theentirety of Pakistan) and Table A3 (i.e., at project level). All five models
consistently project increasing water stress ranging from 36 to 92%
over the entirety of Pakistan, with regional hotspots in the northern andsouthwestern portions of the country. However, HADGEM2-ES and
IPSL-CM5A-LR project slightly decreasing water stresses over central
and eastern parts of Pakistan, respectively. Like the findings of thelinear trend estimation, no significant changes are anticipated for
power plant A. However, water stress will intensify for the regions
containing power plants B, C, D, F, and G in the 2050s. In general, we
conclude that the regions in which the power plants are situated or
proposed will face increasing water stress.
We repeated the above analysis for the SSP1/RCP4.5 and SSP3/
RCP6.0 scenarios, representing the lower and upper bounds of possible
climate and socioeconomic development changes. All three scenarios
demonstrate similar trends in projected future WSI (Fig. 2, Fig. A3, A4),
albeit at slightly different confidence levels (i.e., generally higher pvalues were achieved for SSP1/RCP4.5 and lower p-values were calculated for SSP3/RCP6.0 compared to SSP2/RCP6.0). These results arealso reflected in the spatial maps of linear WSI trends (Fig. 3, Fig. A5,
A6) and relative WSI changes (Fig. 4, Fig. A7, A8). For instance, compared to SSP2/RCP6.0 (Fig. 3), SSP1/RCP4.5 has a smaller magnitudeof WSI trends and a reduced number of pixels with statistically significant trends (Fig. A5). As expected, with more resource-efficienteconomies (i.e., SSP1) and reduced carbon emissions (i.e., RCP4.5),
water stress can be alleviated in the 2050s (Fig. A7 vs. Fig. 4). Interestingly, the spatial distribution of linear WSI trends and relative WSI
changes are generally similar between SSP2/RCP6.0 and SSP3/RCP6.0(Fig. 3 vs. Fig. A6; Fig. 4 vs. Fig. A8), indicating that changes in water

Pakistan has generally low WSI values (i.e., less than 0.2), indicatingthat this region is not presently under water stress (see the definition of“water stress” in Satoh et al., 2017). This spatial pattern is generally
consistent and robust across all five climate models, with slight differences illuminated in parts of central Pakistan.
Based on these estimates, all seven coal-fired power plants understudy, identified by stars in Fig. 1, are located in areas currently experiencing severe water stress. Meeting the cooling water demands ofthese power stations will therefore already be challenging, even before
considering future climate projections. However, it should be noted thatat least two of the seven power plants utilize supercritical technology(the technology employed in the newest plant has yet to be reported,and here it is assumed to be supercritical), resulting in slightly higher
energy efficiencies. These supercritical plants will require less water togenerate electricity (per MW) compared to non-supercritical power
stations, though the most important driver of cooling water demandmagnitude is generation capacity. The three supercritical plants haveefficiencies between 42 and 45%, while the remaining four sub-criticalplants exhibit efficiencies around 38%. Additional details can be foundin Table A1 and Fig. A1.
3.2. Trends and relative changes in water stress by the 2050s
Pakistan's future water availability under the SSP2/RCP6.0 scenario
is represented by the WSI trend (Figs. 2 and 3) and relative changes(Fig. 4) from 2046–2055, which can then be compared to both recent
years (2006–2015) and a historical period (1971–2004). Considering
the historical period, four of the five models indicate that no statistically significant WSI trend exists (i.e., 95% significance level) when
averaged across the entire country, which is mainly due to naturalvariability. Only HADGEM2-ES shows a statistically decreasing trend,
indicating a wetting of the region in the historic period. However, thisstatistically significant trend does not hold for future projections madeby the same model. In contrast, the four other models project statistically significant increases in the WSI trend; these increases have relatively small magnitudes ranging from 0.001 to 0.002/year. For thewhole study period and across all models, Pakistan's average WSI isgreater than 0.2, reinforcing our previous finding that Pakistan is andwill remain under water stress over the long-term.
In Fig. 3, the linear trend in WSI from 2006 to 2055 illustrates large
spatial variability across all five models. For instance, three of the five1104

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

Fig. 2. Time series (solid lines) and linear trends (dashed lines) of WSI averaged over all of Pakistan in the historical (1971–2004) and future (2005–2055) periods
projected by five GCMs under SSP2/RCP6.0.

stress in Pakistan might be dominated by climate (i.e., RCP) rather thansocioeconomics (i.e., SSP).
At the project level (Table A3), we found that only under the SSP1/
RCP4.5 scenario are future changes in local water stress conditions not
significant (i.e., less than 15%). With higher emissions and socioeconomic development (i.e., SSP2/RCP6.0 and SSP3/RCP6.0), current
local water stress conditions are expected to increase by more than 75%
in the future, especially for plants C, D, F, and G, which are located inregions with limited water availability.

consumption (CWC) were calculated from 1971 to 2055 based on theheat-and-water-balance model (Bartos and Chester, 2015) (Fig. 5, Fig.
A9, A10). We extend the study period back to 1971, which is counterfactual in reality, in order to examine the relative influence of futureclimate changes and socioeconomic development when compared tohistorical conditions.
Consistently, all five models show decreasing trends for both total
CWW and CWC during the historical period, but most are statisticallyinsignificant at the 95% significance level, with the exception of
MIROC-ESM-CHEM (p = 0.018, Figs. A9 and A10). Future projectionsof CWW and CWC indicate consistent and significant increasing trends
across all models ranging in magnitude from 4097 to 5489 m3/year(Fig. A9) and 3277 to 4391 m3/year (Fig. A10), respectively. This increase can primarily be attributed to a rise in cooling water withdrawal
due to air temperature, affecting both the humidity ratio and enthalpyof air exiting the wet cooling tower (see Equation (1) in Methods).

3.3. Cooling water withdrawal and consumption
The seven BRI-affiliated coal-fired power plants examined here
could theoretically intensify the current water stress situation given thefact that water is needed to meet plant cooling demands. To test thishypothesis, the total cooling water withdrawal (CWW) and

Fig. 3. Spatial distribution of the linear WSI trend in Pakistan from 2006 to 2055 projected by five GCMs under SSP2/RCP6.0. Orange dots indicate locations ofstatistically significant trends at the 95% significance level. Black stars indicate locations of power plants A–G (i.e., existing, under construction, and planned
facilities financed by China). (For interpretation of the references to colour in this figure legend, the reader is referred to the Web version of this article.)1105

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

Fig. 4. Spatial distribution of relative WSI changes in the 2050s compared to the 2010s projected by five GCMs under SSP2/RCP6.0. Black stars indicate locations of
power plants A–G (i.e., existing, under construction, and planned facilities financed by China).

with a return period of 10 years), CWC usually far exceeds the locallyavailable streamflow (Fig. A12), implying either interrupted power
plant operation or increased demand on other water sources. Compound events (e.g., heat waves are oftentimes accompanied bydroughts) will further magnify the predicted threat to regional and local
water security, since CWC values more than double when assuming
power plant operation at or near full capacity. Amplification of thisthreat would only be avoided at the expense of energy production. Even
without considering climate extremes, however, the nearly 80 million
m3 of water required for just these seven coal-fired power plants tooperate at capacity in the 2050s is staggering. This is especially true
when considering alternative societal uses of water in Pakistan.

Fig. 5. Average magnitude of cooling water withdrawal and consumption for
power plants A–G (in units of million cubic meters) in the 2050s (i.e.,
2046–2055), where withdrawal and consumption are proportional to generation capacity and efficiency of the facility.

4. Discussion

Fig. 5 depicts the total magnitude of CWW and CWC for each power
plant from 2046–2055 based on the five climate models, including
annual variations driven by both demand- and climate-related changes.
From these calculations, the ensemble averages of annual mean CWW
and CWC in the 2050s for plants A–G amount to 79.68 and 63.74
million m3, or higher than the ensemble average streamflow locally inthe 2050s (i.e., 37.54 million m3).
Although WSI is calculated independently of CWW and CWC, as ameasure of water availability, the former can help to contextualize themagnitude of the latter. In other words, WSI may provide a generalized
understanding of how easily cooling water requirements will be met
now and in the future. WSI values of the seven power plant locations
already exceed 0.5 in the 2010s (Fig. 1) and are generally expected toincrease into the 2050s (Fig. 3). Combining these WSI data with CWW
and CWC calculations, it is clear that water scarcity and power plantwater demands will increase simultaneously in the coming decades. In
the case of extreme events (such as prolonged heat waves or drought),
water availability will be a limiting factor impacting plant operationand generating capacity. We show that for all power plants, CWC undernormal operating conditions (i.e., average capacity factor) is similar toor higher than the locally available annual mean streamflow (Fig. A11),
indicating that other sources of water (e.g., groundwater, transported
water from pipelines) will be needed to supplement surface water.
Under extreme operating conditions (e.g., full capacity factor, lowstreamflow as approximated by the lowest weekly averaged streamflow

The energy infrastructure proposed and established by BRI could
reasonably impact sustainability and water security across much of
Asia. In countries with an inadequate electric power supply, coal-fired
power plants could promote SDGs related to enhancing livelihoods andeliminating poverty. In Pakistan, the total nameplate capacity of theseven coal-fired power plants studied here is 6600 MW, a significant
contribution to nationwide power generation when considering the4734–7053 MW deficit in Pakistan's peak electricity supply (“State ofindustry report. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority.,” 2016;“State of industry report. National Electric Power Regulatory
Authority.,” 2015). Alleviation of the power deficit may improve thelivelihoods of Pakistani households, which lost 195.8 billion Rupees(US $1.7 billion), or 16.8% of annual total consumption expenditure, toelectricity outages in 2011 (Khan and Abbas, 2016; Pasha and Saleem,
2013; Tang and Shahbaz, 2013). Officials have cited BRI investments asa crucial factor contributing to Pakistan's high economic growth rate in
2017; the growth rate is expected to reach 7% in 2020 with the continuation of CPEC (CPEC, 2018).
However, the societal benefits from BRI's energy-facilitated poverty
alleviation may be offset by negative impacts on other sectors, a phenomenon which has historically been observed in the context of foreign
direct investments (Huang et al., 2017). In particular, heightened water
stress related to climate change and power plant cooling has direct
downstream effects on food security and indirect consequences for
public health. Agriculture contributes 21.3% to the gross domestic
1106

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

product of Pakistan (Herani et al., 2007), and depletion of regional
water resources impacts food production by decreasing irrigation area
and crop yield. Unsurprisingly, this will threaten Pakistan's agriculture
sector and impact low-income, rural communities at the local level.
This outcome directly contradicts recommendations made following
socioeconomic and demographic analyses of poor Pakistani populations. Namely, these studies tend to support agricultural expansion as
well as the earmarking of more land to poverty-stricken households(Chaudhry et al., 2009).
Of course, BRI-financed coal plants are only one part of a complex
and dynamic power sector. Moreover, the power sector represents only
one of the major water users and consumes far less than some othersectors, such as agriculture. Water security and sustainability will require that attention be paid to all of these users. In emphasizing thewater-energy nexus, this research complements, rather than sidesteps,
existing scholarship documenting the effects of agriculture on water
resources (e.g., Rasul, 2016; Shah, 2010). In the context of this nexus
and the importance of agriculture in determining the future of water
security in Pakistan and many other countries, we believe that considering energy infrastructure is necessary because of: (1) the additive,
interactive nature of water stress; (2) the long-term nature of energy
generation infrastructure investments; and (3) the fact that the BRI
constitutes a critical juncture for infrastructure sustainability in many
countries.
Besides threatening agriculture, construction of power plants will
inherently reduce land supplies which could help lift rural residents outof poverty (Chaudhry et al., 2009), not to mention increasing the
likelihood of food insecurity for these populations. These populations
are frequently forced to choose between dehydration and consumptionof non-potable water sources, or between water consumption and personal hygiene, when faced with water scarcity (Hunter et al., 2016).
Historically, Pakistan, like many other developing countries in Asia, has
suffered from poor water quality, underscored by the fact that 20–40%
of patients in the nation's hospitals suffer from waterborne diseases(Azizullah et al., 2011). These are just a few examples of how future
impacts on water stress are likely to have disproportionate effects; infact, research in India suggests that the adverse impacts on water security resulting from foreign investment fall on the poorest and mostvulnerable populations (Rudra et al., 2018).
Finally, decreasing water availability has the potential to exacerbate
conflict and aggravate Pakistan's already acute security crisis. Research
has pointed to the impact of water availability on conflict onset throughmechanisms including aggregate economic growth (Miguel et al.,2004), livestock price shocks (Maystadt and Ecker, 2014), and food andwater instability (Gleick, 2014). Conditions that make water stress-induced conflict more likely include ethnopolitical marginalization(Theisen et al., 2012) and a combination of group-based divisions andagricultural dependency (Von Uexkull et al., 2016); these conditions
pertain to Pakistan as well as many other BRI-affiliated countries. Givencurrent water stress, it is perhaps unsurprising that a dispute over Indus
River water-sharing agreements heightened military tension between
Pakistan and India in 2016. In the coming decades, enhanced water
stress and regional competition for water resources will exacerbate
political tensions and affect the security environment in Pakistan andaround the world.
Furthermore, despite the expectation of positive economic growth
directly related to BRI projects like coal-fired power installations,
Pakistan is predicted to be one of the most high-risk BRI-participating
countries in terms of debt potential. This means that Pakistan's current
and projected GDP will be insufficient for paying off the debts associated with its local BRI projects, making the country unsustainably
indebted to Chinese creditors (Hurley et al., 2018). This may counteract
economic growth outcomes associated with more robust power supplies, resulting in decreased economic security and again threatening
progress toward achievement of the SDGs. In sum, BRI's coal-fired
power plants will have complex effects on different SDGs, which should

be better incorporated into the planning processes of China and BRI
destination countries.
5. Conclusions and policy recommendations
While the economic opportunities provided by BRI could be instrumental in lifting participating low-income nations out of poverty,
the long-term impact of its energy projects deployed now or in the future may irreparably damage both local and global climate security. BRI
is poised to inform the construction of new and refurbishment of existing infrastructure in many developing regions, multiplying its influence over environmental outcomes and the future of global sustainability (Ascensao et al., 2018).
That said, it is important to be circumspect about the extent towhich we can generalize our findings to other countries, and we acknowledge that country-specific energy development plans, climatechange impacts, and other variables could affect the energy-water
nexus in complex ways. At the same time, Pakistan is one of many
countries where BRI investments in coal-fired power have been plannedor begun (Shearer et al., 2019). Many BRI destination countries facesimilar future water stress projections (Satoh et al., 2017), but there has
been no or negligible integrated water-energy nexus planning to-date.
Thus, while the outcomes of projections and analyses like ours arelikely to vary across countries, they highlight the utility of such exercises for energy scholars and policy makers alike.
We also acknowledge that BRI is financing the establishment ofsome renewable energy-based facilities, including hydropower plants inthe valleys of northern Pakistan. However, the fact remains that a large
portion of the energy infrastructure proposed and under construction
consists of coal-fired power plants, which have frequently been sited inareas already experiencing some degree of water stress. As such, itwould be prudent to consider amending plans for energy infrastructuredevelopment in BRI destination countries, according to both the SDGs
and projections of climate stresses over the coming century. Based on
the results of this study, we recommend the following policy actions:
1. Future energy demands must be met by shifting the current distribution of energy sources from primarily coal-based to primarily
renewables. Existing coal-fired power plants in BRI destination
countries should be outfitted to maximize water use efficiency (i.e.,
super- or ultrasupercritical), while new energy projects should
prioritize renewable, locally abundant power sources (e.g., solar,wind). Destination countries must implement more holistic andforward-looking regulations. At the same time, China's central
government should push firms involved in developing coal-fired
power overseas to match cooling technologies with local water
availability, much like China has attempted domestically. This willbring China's actions in-line with stated goals for a “Green Belt andRoad,” which it publicly promoted at its most recent (i.e., April2019) Belt and Road Forum.
2. Allocating resources in a water-scarce future requires a complete
understanding of current water uses across neighboring regions. BRI
should facilitate the establishment of programs to track water use
across all sectors and borders, providing data to inform policies allocating water to energy production, among other uses. Community
resilience in the face of water scarcity requires that new sources ofwater be exploited. Regional facilities implementing technologicaladvancements in water treatment (e.g., desalination plants, water
capture facilities, groundwater banking systems) should be financedby BRI to increase the supply of potable water across borders.
Similarly, as indicated by the project-level water stress values, it isimportant to consider the sustainability and water security implications at different scales, including highly localized impacts.
3. Economic and social development must be facilitated with recognition of persistent global challenges, including climate change
and associated water stresses. Systems involving food production,
1107

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.

healthcare, and local economies within BRI destination countries
and beyond must be sustainable in order to promote long-term
realization of proactive policies.

Arnell, N.W., 2004. Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions andsocio-economic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Chang. 14, 31–52. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.006.
Ascensao, F., Fahrig, L., Clevenger, A.P., Corlett, R.T., Jaeger, J.A.G., Laurance, W.F.,
Pereira, H.M., 2018. Environmental challenges for the Belt and road initiative. Nat.
Sustain. 1, 206–209.
Azizullah, A., Khattak, M.N.K., Richter, P., Hader, D.-P., 2011. Water pollution in
Pakistan and its impact on public health–a review. Environ. Int. 37, 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2010.10.007.
Bartos, M.D., Chester, M.V., 2015. Impacts of climate change on electric power supply in
the Western United States. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 748.
Chaudhry, I.S., Malik, S., 2009. The impact of socioeconomic and demographic variables
on poverty: a village study. others. Lahore J. Econ 14.
CPEC, 2018. China Pakistan Economic Corridor. URL: cpec.gov.pk. Retrieved Aug.
Cohen, B., 2006. Urbanization in developing countries: current trends, future projections,and key challenges for sustainability. Technol. Soc. 28, 63–80. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.techsoc.2005.10.005.
Duan, F., Ji, Q., Liu, B.-Y., Fan, Y., 2018. Energy investment risk assessment for nations
along China's Belt & Road Initiative. J. Clean. Prod. 170, 535–547. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.09.152.
Electricity industry standard of the People’s Republic of China, 2002. Guide for Water
Saving of Thermal Power Plant. State Economic and Trade Commission.
Feeley, T.J., Skone, T.J., Stiegel, G.J., McNemar, A., Nemeth, M., Schimmoller, B.,
Murphy, J.T., Manfredo, L., 2008. Water: a critical resource in the thermoelectric
power industry. Energy 33, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2007.08.007.
Feng, A., Saha, S., 2018. China's Power < ove. Scientific American. https://blogs.
scientificamerican.com/observations/chinas-power-move/.
Flörke, M., Kynast, E., Bärlund, I., Eisner, S., Wimmer, F., Alcamo, J., 2013. Domestic andindustrial water uses of the past 60 years as a mirror of socio-economic development:a global simulation study. Glob. Environ. Chang. 23, 144–156. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.10.018.
Gallagher, K.P., 2017. China's Global Energy Finance. Global Economic GovernanceInitiative. Boston University.
Gleick, P.H., 2014. Water, drought, climate change, and conflict in Syria. Weather. Clim.
Soc. 6, 331–340.
Gosling, S.N., Arnell, N.W., 2016. A global assessment of the impact of climate change onwater scarcity. Clim. Change 134, 371–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-0130853-x.
Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Masuda, K., Motoya, K., Shirakawa, N., Shen, Y., Tanaka,K., 2008. An integrated model for the assessment of global water resources – Part 2:
applications and assessments. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 12, 1027–1037. https://doi.
org/10.5194/hess-12-1027-2008.
Hannam, P.M., 2016. Contesting Authority: China and the New Landscape of Power
Sector Governance in the Developing World. Princeton University.
Hannam, P.M., Liao, Z., Davis, S.J., Oppenheimer, M., 2015. Developing country financein a post-2020 global climate agreement. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 983.
Hasibeck, J.L., Kuehn, N.J., Lewis, E.G., Pinkerton, L.L., Simpson, J., Turner, M.J.,
Varghese, E., Woods, M.C., 2010. Cost and Performance Baseline for Fossil Energy
Plants Volume 1: Bituminous Coal and Natural Gas to Electricity. National Energy
Technology Laboratory.
He, X., Wada, Y., Wanders, N., Sheffield, J., 2017. Intensification of hydrological droughtin California by human water management. Geophys. Res. Lett. 44, 1777–1785.
Hempel, S., Frieler, K., Warszawski, L., Schewe, J., Piontek, F., 2013. A trend-preserving
bias correction - the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst. Dyn. 4, 219–236. https://doi.org/
10.5194/esd-4-219-2013.
Herani, G., Wasim, M.P., Rajar, A.W., Shaikh, R.A., 2007. Farming Management inPakistan: Suggested Techniques.
Holbert, K.E., Haverkamp, C.J., 2009. Impact of solar thermal power plants on water
resources and electricity costs in the Southwest. In: North American Power
Symposium.
Huang, Y., 2016. Understanding China's Belt & road initiative: motivation, framework
and assessment. China Econ. Rev. 40, 314–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.
2016.07.007.
Huang, Y., Fischer, T.B., Xu, H., 2017. The stakeholder analysis for SEA of Chinese foreign
direct investment: the case of ‘One Belt, One Road’initiative in Pakistan. Impact
Assess. Proj. Apprais. 35, 158–171.
Hunter, M.D., Price, P.W., Hunter, M.D., Price, P.W., 2016. Playing chutes and Ladders :heterogeneity and the relative roles of bottom-up and top-down Forces in naturalcommunities. Ecology 73, 724–732.
Hurley, J., Morris, S., Portelance, G., 2018. Examining the debt implications of the Beltand Road Initiative from a policy perspective. In: CGD Policy Pap. vol. 121.
IAEA, 2017. Country Nuclear Power Profile - Pakistan (Updated 2017).
Kahlown, M.A., Majeed, A., 2003. Water-resources situation in Pakistan: challenges andfuture strategies. In: Water Resources in the South: Present Scenario and Future
Prospects.
Khan, M.A., Abbas, F., 2016. The dynamics of electricity demand in Pakistan: a panel
cointegration analysis. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 65, 1159–1178. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.rser.2016.06.054.
Kundi, B., 2017. Pakistan's Water Crisis: Why a National Water Policy Is Needed? Asia
Found.
Luo, T., Krishnan, D., Sen, S., 2018. Parched Power: Water Demands, Risks, andOpportunities for India’s Power Sector. Water Resources Institute. https://www.wri.
org/publication/parched-power.
Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G., Hallett, K.C., 2012. Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 45802.

It is predicted that these recommendations would help ensure anadequate and thriving energy supply, while also considering the many
demands placed on limited water resources. Our case study of Pakistan
shows that regional water stresses will increase even before considering
new water demands, including those imposed by climate changes.
Furthermore, this demand will be substantially increased by the newrequirements of existing and planned energy generation facilities. Our
analysis of BRI-affiliated coal-fired power plants under the RCP6.0
climate scenario suggests a substantial demand for total cooling waterfrom Chinese-financed plants that would reduce water availability for
all other uses in the region.
Water demands at odds with one another must be addressed before
conflicts arise, especially in places like Pakistan where tensions overwater availability already threaten geopolitical stability (Sinha, 2010).
Therefore, strategic distribution of resources in a water-insecure futureis crucial, and sustainable development of energy facilities requires
working within, rather than placing unnecessary stresses on, water allocation frameworks. As an in-progress development framework of
unprecedented size, BRI provides a unique opportunity for consideration of interconnected climate, energy, and societal concerns, with thepotential to profoundly influence global sustainability planning into thenext century.
Author contributions
M.A., X.H., A.R.P., W.L, and T.H. conceived the research and drafted
the manuscript. X.H. performed the analysis with help from Y.W. N.W.
provided streamflow temperature data. All authors discussed the results
and contributed to the final written product.
Funding
This research did not receive any specific grant from funding
agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Acknowledgements
This study was supported by the Princeton Energy and Climate
Scholars (PECS) program within the Princeton Environmental Institute,Princeton University. We thank Dr. Yusuke Satoh at International
Institute for Applied Systems Analysis for providing the water stressdata. We also acknowledge Phil Hannam of the World Bank, Johannes
Urpelainen of Johns Hopkins SAIS, and Audrye Wong of Princeton
University for helpful comments. Niko Wanders is supported by NWO
016.Veni.181.049. Codes for calculation of cooling water demand andtrend analysis are hosted on:https://github.com/XiaogangHe/BRIPakistan. Codes for the PCR-GLOBWB model can be found at: https://github.com/UU-Hydro/PCR-GLOBWB_model. Codes for running thewater temperature model are available at https://github.com/
wande001/dynWat. Data are available upon request from X.H. The
water temperature simulations are available upon request from N.W.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.044.
References
Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rösch, T., Siebert, S., 2003.
Global estimates of water withdrawals and availability under current and future“business-as-usual” conditions. Hydrol. Sci. J. 48, 339–348.

1108

Energy Policy 132 (2019) 1101–1109

M. Alkon, et al.
Maystadt, J.-F., Ecker, O., 2014. Extreme weather and civil war: does drought fuel conflictin Somalia through livestock price shocks? Am. J. Agric. Econ. 96, 1157–1182.
Mekonnen, M.M., Hoekstra, A.Y., 2016. Four billion people facing severe water scarcity.
Sci. Adv. 2, e1500323.
Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., Sergenti, E., 2004. Economic shocks and civil conflict: an instrumental variables approach. J. Political Econ. 112, 725–753.
Müller Schmied, H., Eisner, S., Franz, D., Wattenbach, M., Portmann, F.T., Flörke, M.,
Döll, P., 2014. Sensitivity of simulated global-scale freshwater fluxes and storages to
input data, hydrological model structure, human water use and calibration. Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 3511–3538. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-3511-2014.
Nations, U, 2018. Sustainable development goals. [WWW Document]. https://www.un.
org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainable-development-goals/.
O'Neill, B.C., Kriegler, E., Riahi, K., Ebi, K.L., Hallegatte, S., Carter, T.R., Mathur, R., vanVuuren, D.P., 2014. A new scenario framework for climate change research: theconcept of shared socioeconomic pathways. Clim. Change 122, 387–400. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10584-013-0905-2.
Pasha, H.A., Saleem, W., 2013. The impact and cost of power load shedding to domestic
consumers. Pakistan Dev. Rev. 52, 355–372.
Raptis, C.E., Pfister, S., 2016. Global freshwater thermal emissions from steam-electric
power plants with once-through cooling systems. Energy 97, 46–57. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.energy.2015.12.107.
Raptis, C.E., van Vliet, M.T.H., Pfister, S., 2016. Global thermal pollution of rivers fromthermoelectric power plants. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 104011.
Rasul, G., 2016. Managing the food, water, and energy nexus for achieving the sustainable development goals in south Asia. Environ. Dev. 18, 14–25.
Ren, P., Liu, C., Zhang, L., 2017. China's Involvement in Coal-Fired Power Projects along
the Belt and Road. Global Environmental Institute.
Rudra, N., Alkon, M., Joshi, S., 2018. FDI, poverty, and the politics of potable water
access. Écon. Polit. 30, 366–393.
Satoh, Y., Kahil, T., Byers, E., Burek, P., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S., Greve, P., Flörke, M.,
Eisner, S., Hanasaki, N., Magnuszewski, P., Nava, L.F., Cosgrove, W., Langan, S.,
Wada, Y., 2017. Multi-model and multi-scenario assessments of Asian water futures:
the Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative. Earth’s Futur 5, 823–852. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000503.
Schewe, J., Heinke, J., Gerten, D., Haddeland, I., Arnell, N.W., Clark, D.B., Dankers, R.,
Eisner, S., Fekete, B.M., Colón-González, F.J., Gosling, S.N., Kim, H., Liu, X., Masaki,Y., Portmann, F.T., Satoh, Y., Stacke, T., Tang, Q., Wada, Y., Wisser, D., Albrecht, T.,
Frieler, K., Piontek, F., Warszawski, L., Kabat, P., 2014. Multimodel assessment ofwater scarcity under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 111,
3245–3250. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1222460110.
Shah, T., 2010. Taming the Anarchy: Groundwater Governance in South Asia. Routledge.
Shearer, C., Brown, M., Buckley, T., 2019. China at a Crossroads: Continued Support for
Coal Power Erodes Country's Clean Energy Leadership.
Sims, R.E.H., Rogner, H.-H., Gregory, K., 2003. Carbon emission and mitigation costcomparisons between fossil fuel, nuclear and renewable energy resources for electricity generation. Energy Policy 31, 1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S03014215(02)00192-1.
Sinha, U.K., 2010. Water a Pre-eminent Political Issue between India and Pakistan.

State of industry report, 2016. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority.
State of industry report, 2015. National Electric Power Regulatory Authority.
Stull, R., 2011. Wet-bulb temperature from relative humidity and air temperature. J.
Appl. Meteorol. Climatol. 50, 2267–2269. https://doi.org/10.1175/JAMC-D-110143.1.
Sutanudjaja, E.H., van Beek, R., Wanders, N., Wada, Y., Bosmans, J.H.C., Drost, N., vander Ent, R.J., de Graaf, I.E.M., Hoch, J.M., de Jong, K., Karssenberg, D., López López,P., Peßenteiner, S., Schmitz, O., Straatsma, M.W., Vannametee, E., Wisser, D.,
Bierkens, M.F.P., 2017. PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arc-minute global hydrological andwater resources model. Geosci. Model Dev. Discuss. (GMDD) 2017, 1–41. https://doi.
org/10.5194/gmd-2017-288.
Swaine, M.D., 2015. Chinese views and commentary on the ‘one Belt, one road’initiative.
China Leadersh. Monit. 47, 3.
Tang, C.F., Shahbaz, M., 2013. Sectoral analysis of the causal relationship between
electricity consumption and real output in Pakistan. Energy Policy 60, 885–891.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.077.
Theisen, O.M., Holtermann, H., Buhaug, H., 2012. Climate wars? Assessing the claim thatdrought breeds conflict. Int. Secur. 36, 79–106.
van Beek, L.P.H., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2011. Global monthly water stress: 1. Water
balance and water availability. Water Resour. Res. 47 n/a-n/a. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2010WR009791.
van Vliet, M.T.H., van Beek, L.P.H., Eisner, S., Flörke, M., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P.,
2016. Multi-model assessment of global hydropower and cooling water dischargepotential under climate change. Glob. Environ. Chang. 40, 156–170. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.007.
Von Uexkull, N., Croicu, M., Fjelde, H., Buhaug, H., 2016. Civil conflict sensitivity to
growing-season drought. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 113, 12391–12396.
Vörösmarty, C.J., Green, P., Salisbury, J., Lammers, R.B., 2000. Global water resources:
vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 80 (289), 284 LP –288.
Wada, Y., Flörke, M., Hanasaki, N., Eisner, S., Fischer, G., Tramberend, S., Satoh, Y., vanVliet, M.T.H., Yillia, P., Ringler, C., Burek, P., Wiberg, D., 2016. Modeling global
water use for the 21st century: the Water Futures and Solutions (WFaS) initiative andits approaches. Geosci. Model Dev. (GMD) 9, 175–222. https://doi.org/10.5194/
gmd-9-175-2016.
Wada, Y., Wisser, D., Bierkens, M.F.P., 2014. Global modeling of withdrawal, allocationand consumptive use of surface water and groundwater resources. Earth Syst. Dyn. 5,
15–40. https://doi.org/10.5194/esd-5-15-2014.
Wanders, N., van Vliet, M.T.H., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M.F.P., van Beek, L.P.H. (Rens), 2019.
High-resolution global water temperature modeling. Water Resour. Res. 55,
2760–2778. https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023250.
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., Schewe, J., 2014. Theinter-sectoral impact model Intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): project framework.
Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. Unit. States Am. 111, 3228–3232. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1312330110.
Zhang, C., Zhong, L., Fu, X., Wang, J., Wu, Z., 2016. Revealing water stress by the thermal
power industry in China based on a high spatial resolution water withdrawal andconsumption inventory. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 1642–1652.

1109