modeling energy water use in california: overview · 2018-01-11 · • groundwater case study ......
TRANSCRIPT
1
Larry DaleEnergy Analysis
Modeling Energy Water Use in California: Overview
Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
November 24, 2011
2
Modeling Energy Water Use in California
• Larry L. Dale, Michael Hanemann,
– LBNL, UC Berkeley
• Charles F. Brush, Tariq N. Kadir, Emin C. Dogrul
– California Department of Water Resources
3
Summary
• Introduction to California water and energy
• Energy-water linkages
• Climate change and management
• Modeling energy water
• Groundwater case study
• Conclusion
4
Water Storage and Delivery System
Supply in North and East
Demand in South and West
Moderately-sized reservoirs
Store winter precipitation as Sierra
snowpack
State
Local
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Federal
Complex east-west and north-south distribution system combining rivers, canals and storage reservoirs
5
6
Energy-Water LinkagesSector Activities
Power Generation
• Thermal Cooling
• Hydropower
Water Utilities
• Pumping
• Transfers long distance
• Treatment
• Wastewater Treatment
Residential
• Cooling (AC)
• Water Heating
Commercial & Government
• Water Cooling Towers
• Heating
Agriculture
• Irrigation
• Drip and flood
• Pumping groundwater
Industrial
• Cooling
• Heating
Overview of Water-Energy Interactions
7
Q. I Q. II
Q. III Q. IV
GroundwaterPumping
Energy-Water LinkagesMethods for Managing Energy-Water
Consume
Energy &Water
Produce Water Consume Water
Co
nsu
me E
ne
rgy
Pro
du
ce
En
erg
y
Consume Energy
to Produce Water
Produce
Energy & Water
WaterConveyance
Residential End-Use
Agriculture
Reservoir
Bio-Fuel Crops
Consume Water
to Produce Energy
Thermoelectric Cooling
Conservation
MeasuresResidential
Conservation
Pressurized
Irrigation
Overview of Water-Energy Interactions
8
I. Historical Energy Water Management in CACheap Energy to Supply Water
Energy Input
kWh
Water Output
Acre-Foot
2.7kWh/m3
Reservoirs - 500 kWh per AF
Groundwater (Central California)365 kWh per AF
Drip Irrigation586 kWh per AF
Conveyance (Los Angeles)3,323 kWh per AF
Residential End-Use(Los Angeles)4,128 kWh per AF
Source: Bulletin 160-2000, CA Department of Water Resources
Navigant Consulting. "Refining Estimates of Water Related Energy Use in California." California Energy Commission.
CEC 500-2006-116. 2006.
0
0
Overview of Water-Energy Interactions - California
.29 kWh/m3
3.35kWh/m3
9
II. Climate Change & Adaptive
Management
• Climate change
– Impacts water scarcity value
– Impacts electricity scarcity value
• Direction of adaptive water energy
management
Climate Change Impacts
Many Temperature and Precipitation ForecastsFor water supply, the key variable is likely to be temperature rather than precipitation
Clearly warmer
Not certain about
precipitation
Increasing Temperatures
11
Electricity Impacts• Need for generation
• Peak Period Demand Rise
•10 % - 21%
•Peak Period Supply Loss (Natural gas plant)
• 1% - 3.6%
• 4% - 6.2% max
•Transmission and Distribution Loss
• up to 1% - 2%
• Need perhaps 25% additional generation
capacity
•Need for transmission capacity
• Sub-stations
• 2% to 3% loss in capacity
• Transmission lines
•7% - 8% loss of capacity
•Limited data on sizes, locations, and
usage capacity
• Need perhaps 25 % additional transmission
capacity
12
Projected fire risk to transmission lines for the A2 scenario
13
14
Adaptive Management
• Uncertainty about increase in temperature and changes in water demand
• Most scenarios hotter and dryer– increased value for water and energy
• Some hot wet scenarios-- increase energy elative to water value
• Few “cool” dry scenarios--increase water relative to energy value
Climate Change Impacts
15
Q. I Q. II
Q. III Q. IV
GroundwaterPumping
Adaptive Management
Consume
Energy &Water
Produce Water Consume Water
Co
nsu
me E
ne
rgy
Pro
du
ce
En
erg
y
Consume Energy
to Produce Water
Produce
Energy & Water
WaterConveyance
Residential End-Use
Agriculture
Reservoir
Bio-Fuel Crops
Consume Water
to Produce Energy
Thermoelectric Cooling
Conservation
MeasuresResidential
Conservation
Pressurized
Irrigation
Overview of Water-Energy Interactions
Energy and Water Complements
Energy and Water Substitutes
Research Applications
16
1. Energy Water Modeling
2. Groundwater
17
Water-Energy Model of the American
River SystemWEAP-LEAP Model
• Determine the water-energy nexus in an “almost” closed system – the American River basin
• Determine how the linkages between water and energy are sensitive to changes in climate
• Determine different water and energy management strategies and their trade-offs
WEAP-LEAP Model
18
Area of StudyWater Purveyors of Sacramento Area
Sacramento
River
American River
Sacramento
and American
River Junction
18
Folsom
Reservoir
WEAP-LEAP Model
19
Sacramento Area Land-UseArea of Study
WEAP-LEAP Model
SMUD Service Area
21
WEAP-LEAP
Model Development Plan
•Phase 1. Develop hydrology model for the American basin
•Phase 2. Develop electricity model for SMUD service area
•Phase 3. Develop a Linkage between the two models
21
WEAP-LEAP Model
WATER DATA
Demand
• Water Customer Profile (RWA utility
billing data)
– Aggregate Monthly Water Use by
Customer Class (RWA utilities, for
residential, commercial, industrial, Power sector)
Supply
• Water Use & Electricity Load Profile (SMUD billing data combined with water
utility water use, kWh per mil gal)
– Pumping Loads
• Amt of Water Processed
• Amt of Electricity Consumed
– Treatment water and electricity
use (estimate?)
ENERGY DATA
Demand
• Energy Customer Load Profile
– Electricity Use by Customer
Class (SMUD users, for residential,
commercial, industrial, water utility)
Supply
• Electricity Supply Load Profile
– Hydropower Generation and
Release Schedule (million gal/kWh)
– Thermal generation
– Purchased power
22WEAP-LEAP Model Data
WEAP-LEAP Data RequirementsClimate-Driven Changes to Water-Energy
Data RequirementsClimate-Driven Changes to Water-Energy
City of Sacramento Water Demand (Million Gallons per Day)
SMUD Total Hourly Electrical Load (10’s of Megawatts)
Temperature at the Sacramento Airport (Degrees Farenheit) 23
24
SCENARIOHIGHER TEMPERATURES
& LOWER SUMMER WATER FLOWS
1. Constrained Hydropower2. Higher Cooling Demand (AC)3. More Groundwater Pumping4. Higher Prices
1. Higher Summer Demand2. Lower Groundwater Levels3. Higher Prices
WEAP-LEAP Scenario AnalysisClimate Scenario, System Impacts and Management Responses
WEAP-LEAP Model: Climate Scenarios and Management Responses
IMPACT ON WATER IMPACT ON ENERGY
25
Climate impacts on groundwater, cropping and energy demand
– Impacts on water supply
– Impacts on cropping
– Impacts on groundwater
26
California’s Central Valley
� 55,000 sq. km. (20,000 sq. mi.)
� 25 MAF/yr surface water discharge
� Agricultural Production� 6.8 million acres (27,500 sq. km)
� 10% of US crops value in 2002
� Population growth� 1970: 2.9 million
� 2005: 6.4 million
� Pumping� ~9 MAF in 2002, or 13% if US pumping
� Not measured or regulated
27
Water Storage and Delivery System
Supply in North and East
Demand in South and West
Moderately-sized reservoirs
Store winter precipitation as Sierra
snowpack
State
Local
San Diego
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Federal
Complex east-west and north-south distribution system combining rivers, canals and storage reservoirs
28
C2VSIM Model Grid
IWFM Application
Groundwater System– Finite Element grid– 3 layers
– 1393 nodes
– 1392 elements
Surface Water System– 72 stream reaches
– 97 surface water diversion points
– 2 lakes
– 8 bypass canals
Land Use Process– 5 Regions
– 21 Subregions
– 4 Land Use TypesAgriculture Urban
Native Riparian
29
Water Budget
30
Pumping and Surface Water
31
Research Issues
• The ‘stationarity’ assumption– Changes to surface water availability and variability
– Physical infrastructure, population, economics
• Climate change impacts– Changes to water supply1
– Impacts on hydropower2
– Impacts on agriculture3
– Strategies for adapting to these changes4
– Impacts on groundwater
• 1. Emissions Pathways, Climate Change, and Impacts on California. K. Hayhoe, D. Cayan, C. Field, P. Frumhoff, E. Maurer, N.
Miller, S. Moser, S. Schneider, K. Cahill, E. Cleland, L. Dale, F. Davis, R. Drapek, M. Hanemann, L. Kalkstein, J. Lenihan, C.
Lunch, R. Neilson, S. Sheridan, J. Verville. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2004.
• 2. Climate Change Impacts on High Elevation Hydropower Generation in California’s Sierra Nevada: A Case Study in the Upper
American River. S. Vicuna, R. Leonardson, W. M. Hanemann, L.L. Dale, and J.A. Dracup. Climatic Change (2008)
• 3. Climate Change Impacts on Water for Agriculture in California: A case study in the Sacramento Valley. B. Joyce, S. Vicuna, L.
Dale, D. Purkey, M. Hanemann, J. Dracup, D. Yates, Climatic Change. In press. June 2007.
• 4. Basin Scale Water Systems Operations under Climate Change Hydrologic Conditions: Methodology and Case Studies
Sebastian Vicuna, John Dracup, Jay Lund, Larry Dale, Ed Mauer. Water Resources Research. February, 2009
32
Research Questions
� How sensitive are groundwater levels to climate-dependent inputs and groundwater pumping?
� Will the surface water-groundwater system reach a new equilibrium after extended surface water reductions?
� To what extent will changes in cropping patterns reduce impacts on groundwater levels?
� How will changes in energy prices and bio-fuel crop acreage impact groundwater levels?
33
Methodology
� Construct valley-rim inflows for drought scenarios
• 30%, 50% and 70% less precipitation
• Develop diversion scenarios using CALSIM-II
� Groundwater model (C2VSIM) simulations
• 10-year spin-up at ‘average’ conditions
• 20-, 30- or 60-year drought; 30-year recovery period
• Calculate groundwater pumping and groundwater depths
� Crop production model (CVPM simulations
� Simulate average and drought period crop acres
� Estimate crop response equation and link to C2VSIM
� Groundwater model (C2VSIM-CVPM) simulations
� Fixed agricultural water demand5
1) Variable agricultural water demand
� 5. Drought Analysis of the California Central Valley Surface Groundwater Conveyance System
� N. Miller, L. Dale, S.Vicuna, T. Kadir, E. Dogrul and C. Bush. JAWRA. August, 2009.
34
Water Sources
70% reduction for 60 years
35
Relative Water Level Change
30% for 10 years 70% for 60 years
Relative WT Change (Feet)
36
Incorporating Variable Demand
� Model crop production
� Central Valley Production Model
� Crop Acres = f (crop costs and prices, surface water availability, groundwater depth)
� Estimate crop response function (logit equation) parameters from simulation analysis usingCentral Valley Production Model
� Check accuracy of crop response function
� Incorporate response function into groundwater model (IWFM application)
37
Variable Crop DemandNet Crop Value, Tulare Basin
Tree crops
Field crops (tomato, cotton)
Pasture
Source: , CVPM crop budgets
38
Central Valley Production ModelEconomic Model
o Positive mathematical Programming Model
o Crop production costs, yields and prices
o Crop distribution in Central Valley
Emulate CVPM in IWFM
• Use crop response function to determine crop mix
• Determine parameters with multiple CVPM runs
C2VSIM and CVPM
• 21 Subregions
• Crops
• Time Step
39
Multinomial logit
40
Logit equation accuracyEstimated crop shares within 1-3% of CVPM crop shares
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
0 % 10 % 2 0 % 3 0 % 4 0 % 5 0 %
Actual Crop Share
Cereal
Orchard
Pasture
Rice
Row
Fallow
Water UseFixed and Adjustible-Crop Simulations
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104
Water Year
Wa
ter
Use
(T
AF
/Yr)
Diversions
Pumping - Adjusted Crops
Pumping - Fixed Crops
70% reduction for 60 years
Difference in Pumping HeadFixed-Crop and Adjustable-Crop Simulations
-160
-140
-120
-100
-80
-60
-40
-20
0
20
2004 2014 2024 2034 2044 2054 2064 2074 2084 2094 2104
Water Year
Pu
mp
ing
he
ad
(ft
)
Sacramento Valley
San Joaquin River Basin
Tulare Basin
43
Drought Impact on Electricity UseRise in groundwater electricity cost (kWh/ac ft)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
2014 2034 2054 2074
Year
Incre
ase in e
lectr
icit
y u
se (
kW
h/a
c f
t)
Tulare basin
San Joaquin Basin
Sacramento
44
Conclusion
• Water Energy interactions– Pervasive energy to supply water link
– More region specific water to supply energy link
• Climate change impact on energy and water prices– Helps determine direction of adaptive response
• Modeling efforts to explore– Size of energy and water linkages
– Impact of climate change on linkages
– Management options