NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, operated by 

Energy Sector VulneraClimate Change: AdapOptions to Increase R

American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting

Robin L. Newmark, Dan Bilello, Jordan Macknick, 

National Renewable Energy LaboratoryVince TidwellSandia National LaboratoriesCraig ZamudaU.S. Department of EnergyDecember 3, 2012

NREL/PR‐6A20‐57444
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Energy and Adaptation: some recent efforts 

First U.S. National Assessment of Possible Consequences of Climate Variability of Change, 1997-2000, considered “sectors”: agriculture, coastal areas and resources, forests, health, and water. Energy focus was on mitigation, not impacts or adaptationU.S. Climate Change Science Program’s CCSP Synthesis & Assessment Product 4.5: How might climate change directly or indirectly affect U.S. energy production, supply and consumption?2013 National Climate Assessment (in process) specifically addresses impacts, energy supply and use, vulnerabilities, interfaces, mitigation and adaptation.The U.S. Department of Energy is conducting an assessment of vulner

energy sector to climate change and extreme weather. Emphasizing pee

it seeks to quantify vulnerabilities and identify specific knowledge or tech

draws upon a July 2012 workshop, “Climate Change and Extreme WeathAssessment of the US Energy Sector”, hosted by the Atlantic Council an

DOE to solicit industry input.
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

The DOE effort focuses on the implications of cprojections on specific elements of the energy s

• Increasing temperature

• Limited water availability• Sea level rise

• Increasing frequency and

intensity of storms and

flooding

• Oil and gas explo

production

• Fuel transport

• Thermoelectric p

• Hydropower• Wind energy

• Solar energy

• Bioenergy• Electric grid

• Electricity dema

Climate Change Energy Sector 

Photo by Warren Gretz, NREL 07317 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Chronic or gradual vs. extreme events

Single unit vs. corporate perspective

Local vs. regional or national

Supply constraints vs. demand projections

Vulnerabilities occur across many dimensionStakeholder perspectives drive priorities*

Who pays?

Currently, uncompensated costs are often covered by 

(not the energy sector or insurance industry)

Energy system damagesextend beyond physicalsystems into social impacts

Complex regulatory regimes are 

What is vulnerable?

‐definition of a 100 yr flo

‐what are appropriate r

Our increased dependence on electricity (e.g. today’s digital ec

with increased vulnerabilities to extreme weather and cli

* Insights 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Finance

Political cycle

Capital stock

Time horizon for planning and risk assess

1 yr 3-5 yrs 40-50 yrs Decade

Climate s

There is a disconnect between scales and timeframscientific estimates and those needed by decision 

Local/regional planning

25-30 yrs

*In prioritizing vulnerabilities, considerations include the probability and frequency of events, the timeframe, the costs associated with it (direct, indirect and societal)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Recirculating Cooling Once‐through

Cooling

CSP andPV

Biopower Nucl

Operational water consumption (Gal/MWh)

An example: Water for thermoelectric power 

Power plants equipped with once-through cooling systems accounted for 92% of water withdrawals for thermoelectric power. Plants equipped with recirculating systems withdrew the remaining 8%

 Thermoelectric power generation is the largest user of f

the United States, withdrawing over 140,000 million gal

(MGD), accounting for 49% of total water use.

Source: K
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Example: Water for thermoelectric power cooli

Consumptive fresh water use by thermoelectric power plants mapped alevel (this study). Total estimated at 4,868 MGD. 

Preliminary results

Source: DOE
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Example: Water for thermoelectric power cooli

Consider retrofitting current power plafreshwater use: using non-potable wa(brackish groundwater or municipal wor converting to a dry cooling system 

Consumptive fresh water use by thermoelectric power plants mapped alevel (this study). Total estimated at 4,868 MGD. 

Preliminary results

Source: DOE
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Transitioning to zero freshwater withdrawal for thermoelectric generation: a scoping level ana

Retrofits considered: average difficulty, according to EPA g

Recirculating cooling (first step for once-through cooling sy

Dry coolingMunicipal waste waterBrackish groundwater

Costs:

CapitalOperating and Maintenance (O&M) costsCapture (e.g., conveyance costs for waste water, drilling an

costs for brackish groundwater)

TreatmentParasitic energy losses

Availability:

Municipal waste water: within 50 miles Brackish water: <2500 ft deep, salinities >10,000 TDS

* NOTE: not taking into consideration site-specific constraints such as lanlocal regulations, technology vintage

Preliminary results
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Transitioning to zero freshwater withdrawal for thermoelectric generation: retrofit options and 

*∆LCOE=Change in Levelized Cost of Electricity

For each of 1178 power plants using freshwater in a steam cycle1:

Retrofit cost: once‐through to recirculating cooling

Determine availability of brackish and waste water

Cost to convert each power plant:

‐ waste water

‐ brackish water‐ dry cooling

Select least cost alternative

Calculate reduction in water demandAggregate results at the HUC‐6 level

Technology Average 

capital cost

Waste water $4.8 M

Brackish water $12.9 M

Dry cooling $120 M

0

20406080

100120140160

Number of Plants

Retrofit Cost ($/MWh)

Cost to Retrofit

Preliminary results Sources: 1. EIA 2010; figures from DOE
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Transitioning to Zero Freshwater Withdrawal foThermoelectric Generation: ∆LCOE associated 

Note: ∆LCOEs tend to be lower in the West, Texas Gulf Coast and south Florida, which are areas prone to drought stress 

Technology Number of 

plants

Waste water 823

Brackish water 109

Dry cooling 246

*average 2012 wholesale cost over 3 US trading 

With wholesale cost of electricity about $40/MWh*, many retrofi

accomplished at levels that would add less than 10% to current po

generation expenses.

Preliminary results
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Transitioning to zero freshwater withdrawal for thermoelectric generation: potential water sav

Applying a sim

identify regionto drought stre

consumptive u

approaches 70physical supply et al., 2012 for 

find that retrof

plants in drougwatersheds co

MGD or about 

thermoelectric 

∆LCOEs for suc

generally below 

Preliminary results

Source: DOE
National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

Plant manager

Utility

Regional resource manager

Planning and risk assessment scale and timefram

Single unit

Multiple plants

Competing uses

National pol

Such an investment will be viewed differently based on the stakeholder’s perspective

Compeuses

They all could benefit from higher resolution

in the fundamental scientific inputs and

projections

Average ΔLCOE 

U.S. plants is $6

a range from $

*discount rates respectively

Average capital costs

range from $4.8M to

$120M, dependingon the technology

Opportunity to “freeup” some freshwater

Preliminary results resources