PV Solar in California uses 23 Billion Gallons of Water!

[elektra]

As outrageous as it seems, the more one looks at Solar Energy the crazier the figures get, from destroying thousands upon thousands of acres of farmland to killing birds, the list of destruction gets longer.

In thinking of a response to Old Crock I found out that California's PV Solar uses over 23 Billion Gallons of Water. My figures are old and does not include all the massive new construction of the last 2 years nor does it include what is proposed in the future.

How is it, to save the Earth we must use all the Water in the very dry Climate of California while the environuts scream we have less than one year of water left?

http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/SAND2013_5238.pdf

 

[Porker]

Because of those stupid bastards know as the liberal green people. Fucking idiots. Not only that, if the damn sun doesn't shine they have to use oil based products to fuel their solar complexes.

 

[Pogo]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

When you reply to a thread do you put any fucking effort into educating yourself on the topic before hand? Any? At all?

 

[Pogo]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

When you reply to a thread do you put any fucking effort into educating yourself on the topic before hand? Any? At all?

I sure shot your "Hillary sez" bullshit thread down wid a quickness, didn't I? Took like 30 seconds too.

Ironic post, dood. May get the Irony of the Day In Oxidizing Threads (IDIOT) award.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

When you reply to a thread do you put any fucking effort into educating yourself on the topic before hand? Any? At all?

I sure shot your "Hillary sez" bullshit thread down wid a quickness, didn't I?

Umm, no you didn't. You did make yourself look pretty fucking stupid though so much like this thread keep up the low expectations I have for you.

 

[eagle1462010]

That's a lot of water..............Especially the trough cooling process............Not to mention the dust controls...............It is a very major concern when the areas in question are already in drought conditions and there is already problems with available water.....................

Seems these guys better build some pipelines and desalination plants instead of using massive water supplies in the local area.................

I also had similar concerns with Fracking..........which uses a lot of water also..............

In both cases, water should be pumped into the area and may need to come from sea water.............

Which raises the prices to all consumers.................but lets kill coal................that makes since..........

 

[eagle1462010]

With that being said.............I've been looking at producing some of my own power..............as I got some high power bills and the rates are going up..............and we are looking at higher prices yet again over time............quite possibly 50% or greater in the next decade........................

It costs a lot of money to change out the infrastructure...............Killing Coal will absolutely drive prices up to all consumers.....................As it costs a butt load of money to build the new plants whether gas turbines or alternate energy sources..............

Perhaps that's the Grand Plan............Since it costs so much for Solar and wind, they need to drive up the prices so it makes them affordable. Either way, All Americans will pay more due to current policy shifts.......

 

[Pogo]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

When you reply to a thread do you put any fucking effort into educating yourself on the topic before hand? Any? At all?

I sure shot your "Hillary sez" bullshit thread down wid a quickness, didn't I?

Umm, no you didn't. You did make yourself look pretty fucking stupid though so much like this thread keep up the low expectations I have for you.

I didn't huh?

Then how come your title reads "Hillary tells media..." -- yet you can't link to Hillary saying anything to anybody anywhere?
Lie much?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

When you reply to a thread do you put any fucking effort into educating yourself on the topic before hand? Any? At all?

I sure shot your "Hillary sez" bullshit thread down wid a quickness, didn't I?

Umm, no you didn't. You did make yourself look pretty fucking stupid though so much like this thread keep up the low expectations I have for you.

I didn't huh?

Then how come your title reads "Hillary tells media..." -- yet you can't link to Hillary saying anything to anybody anywhere?
Lie much?

Why are you dragging your stupid all over the board? You worried someone may have missed it? If you want to comment on the other thread fucking post there you retard.

 

[Pogo]

Solar energy "kills birds"?
Solar energy "destroys farmland"?



Denialists.... SMH

When you reply to a thread do you put any fucking effort into educating yourself on the topic before hand? Any? At all?

I sure shot your "Hillary sez" bullshit thread down wid a quickness, didn't I?

Umm, no you didn't. You did make yourself look pretty fucking stupid though so much like this thread keep up the low expectations I have for you.

I didn't huh?

Then how come your title reads "Hillary tells media..." -- yet you can't link to Hillary saying anything to anybody anywhere?
Lie much?

Why are you dragging your stupid all over the board? You worried someone may have missed it? If you want to comment on the other thread fucking post there you retard.

So you lied in post 6 here as well.

See what I mean? It's a pattern.

 

[Syriusly]

I figured Elektra would be posting- after all someone else posted a thread about 'good alternative energy'.

She is pretty psycho when it comes to any kind of energy that isn't nuclear or made from dead dinosaurs.

What would be a relevant comparison is:
how many gallons of water per Mwh do the various forms of electrical generation require:
Nuclear
Solar
Natural Gas (including factoring in gas extraction)
Coal (including factoring in coal extraction)
Wind
Hydroelectric.

Hydroelectric would 'consume' a lot of water, but it flows downstream to other users.

It would be interesting to get less anti-alternative energy hysteria and more facts.

 

[eagle1462010]

I figured Elektra would be posting- after all someone else posted a thread about 'good alternative energy'.

She is pretty psycho when it comes to any kind of energy that isn't nuclear or made from dead dinosaurs.

What would be a relevant comparison is:
how many gallons of water per Mwh do the various forms of electrical generation require:
Nuclear
Solar
Natural Gas (including factoring in gas extraction)
Coal (including factoring in coal extraction)
Wind
Hydroelectric.

Hydroelectric would 'consume' a lot of water, but it flows downstream to other users.

It would be interesting to get less anti-alternative energy hysteria and more facts.

Post them then..............and let the facts represent themselves..............I've already stated that Fracking uses a lot of Fracking Water.................

Please continue.............as you do..........do you have concerns for the amount of water usage in drought areas irregardless of type of power being produced..................

In areas of drought, or cyclic droughts.............those states and cities need to look to resources to minimize the problem.............aka Desalination plants.

 

[eagle1462010]

Fracking and water consumption - SourceWatch

 

[Pogo]

I figured Elektra would be posting- after all someone else posted a thread about 'good alternative energy'.

She is pretty psycho when it comes to any kind of energy that isn't nuclear or made from dead dinosaurs.

What would be a relevant comparison is:
how many gallons of water per Mwh do the various forms of electrical generation require:
Nuclear
Solar
Natural Gas (including factoring in gas extraction)
Coal (including factoring in coal extraction)
Wind
Hydroelectric.

Hydroelectric would 'consume' a lot of water, but it flows downstream to other users.

It would be interesting to get less anti-alternative energy hysteria and more facts.

Actually nobody consumes water. It evaporates and recycles.

 

[elektra]

I figured Elektra would be posting- after all someone else posted a thread about 'good alternative energy'.

She is pretty psycho when it comes to any kind of energy that isn't nuclear or made from dead dinosaurs.

What would be a relevant comparison is:
how many gallons of water per Mwh do the various forms of electrical generation require:
Nuclear
Solar
Natural Gas (including factoring in gas extraction)
Coal (including factoring in coal extraction)
Wind
Hydroelectric.

Hydroelectric would 'consume' a lot of water, but it flows downstream to other users.

It would be interesting to get less anti-alternative energy hysteria and more facts.

Relative to the amount of energy produced, which in Solar's case, is next to nothing. 23 billion gallons of water for almost no electricity is hardly what you want to compare, is it?

 

[Old Rocks]

In the data provided by Averyt et al. (2011) and UCS (2012), with water use factors by Macknick et al. (2011), consumption factor estimates for solar PV range from 0 to 33 gallons/MWh, with a median value reported at 26 gallons/MWh. These factors were considered for determining O&M water use for the expanded database, however in order to calculate water consumption, an estimate of the electricity generation is necessary, and this data was not readily available. In addition, PV systems don’t require active cooling like traditional power plants, with O&M water use only for washing panels and potable usage for those monitoring activities at the site. It follows that calculating O&M usage would be more accurate as a function of the total size of the PV power plant (number of modules, or area covered) rather than the production output in units such as MWh/yr. For these reasons, the approach developed in the BLM PEIS Methodology was utilized as it represents the most current research on water use estimates for large utility-scale PV facilities. There are a few cases where estimates are made based on generation to allow for a comparison between PV and CSP facilities. It should be noted that these estimates using BLM data cannot be truly validated until large facilities are built, and water use data is reported to the BLM, the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) or other agencies.

http://energy.sandia.gov/wp/wp-content/gallery/uploads/SAND2013_5238.pdf

First, thank you for the site, Elektra. I had been looking for a credible estimate of the use of water by PV installations for quite a while.

So, the estimate for use after construction for PV utility grade installations is about 26 gallons per Megawatt.

Let us compare that with coal fired plants;

How it Works Water for Coal Union of Concerned Scientists

Coal-fired power plants, which produce almost half of the country’s electricity, have significant impacts on water quantity and quality in the United States. Water is used to extract, wash, and sometimes transport the coal; to cool the steam used to make electricity in the power plant; and to control pollution from the plant. The acts of mining and burning coal, as well as dealing with the waste, also can have major effects on water quality.

[paste:font size="4"][1] Table 1 shows water requirements in gallons per megawatt-hour (MWh, or thousand kilowatt-hours) of electricity production. (Despite their name, dry-cooling systems still require water for system maintenance, cleaning, and blowdown, as explained below).[2]

Table 1: Water requirements for cooling by type in gallons per megawatt-hour for conventional coal power plants[3]
The choice of cooling system used in a coal plant affects not only its water requirements but also the efficiency of the power plant as a whole. According to estimates by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), coal plants that use dry cooling produce about seven percent less power than those that use wet-recirculating systems.[4] Because coal power derives all of its energy from producing steam, dry cooling has a greater impact on the efficiencies of coal-fired plants than on most natural gas-fired ones. [5],[6]

So, with coal, we are looking at 500 gallons to 50,000 gallons per Megawatt.

Quite a comparison to the 26 gallons per megawatt for PV.

 

[skookerasbil]

To progressives, and especially concerning the environment, there is no such thing as tradeoffs. Its a zero sum game for them........thus we get the whole "cant connect the dots" and "liberalism is a mental disorder" mantra's.

Anyway.....back to he whole brass tacks thing...solar isn't going anywhere fast. At best.........absolute best btw, solar will be somewhere around 5% for meeting our energy needs by 2040. Even the Obama EIA concurs. All renewables combined MIGHT................MIGHT be at 11% by 2040. Coal and oil and natural gas will still be dominant.



Meanwhile.....and this is funny as all shit............the AGW people are always talking about lack of water and yet, they push and energy source that uses mega-amounts of water.

Great post Elektra.......didn't know this. Should post it in the PROOF THE SKEPTICS ARE WINNING thread. Probably will later FTW!!!

 

[Old Rocks]

Water is costly, as well as the fuel, coal or natural gas to run the plant. Sunlight costs nothing, and the comparison of 26 gallons per megawatt to 500 to 50,000 gallons of water per megawatt for coal pretty well guarntees the end of coal fired plants.

 

[Syriusly]

I figured Elektra would be posting- after all someone else posted a thread about 'good alternative energy'.

She is pretty psycho when it comes to any kind of energy that isn't nuclear or made from dead dinosaurs.

What would be a relevant comparison is:
how many gallons of water per Mwh do the various forms of electrical generation require:
Nuclear
Solar
Natural Gas (including factoring in gas extraction)
Coal (including factoring in coal extraction)
Wind
Hydroelectric.

Hydroelectric would 'consume' a lot of water, but it flows downstream to other users.

It would be interesting to get less anti-alternative energy hysteria and more facts.

Relative to the amount of energy produced, which in Solar's case, is next to nothing. 23 billion gallons of water for almost no electricity is hardly what you want to compare, is it?

What would be a relevant comparison is:
how many gallons of water per Mwh do the various forms of electrical generation require:
Nuclear
Solar
Natural Gas (including factoring in gas extraction)
Coal (including factoring in coal extraction)
Wind
Hydroelectric.

Yet you just throw out numbers.

How many billions of gallons of water are used to produce energy made by coal fired plants?