1. Valencia, 27th August 2009 11/12/2009 Cabrera E., ITA, Universidad Politécnica Valencia, Spain Valencia, 27 of August, 2009 Energy for water and water for energy

2. Valencia, 27th August 2009 1. Interest of the issue: Water, energy and Climate 2. Water for energy 3. Energy for water. The way forward 4. Energy footprint. The case of California 5. Save water, saves energy and reduces impact. Case study 6. Energy for water is becoming a hot issue 7. Particular conclusions of the case study 8. General conclusions. OUTLINE

3. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water for energy and Energy for water

4. Valencia, 27th August 2009

5. Science, February 2008

6. Valencia, 27th August 2009 1. Interest of the issue: Water, energy and Climate 2. Water for energy 3. Energy for water. The way forward 4. Energy footprint. The case of California 5. Save water, saves energy and reduces impact. Case study 6. Energy for water is becoming a hot issue 7. Particular conclusions of the case study 8. General conclusions. OUTLINE

7. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water for energy (background)  Energy is a key resource for the human prosperity  Water is a natural resource, necessary for all kind of life.  Water can store gravitational energy, and water gravitational energy stored in large reservoirs can be used for many purposes. Mechanical and hydraulic exchanges energies have been very common since ever.  The first reported waterwheel (kinetic water energy is transformed in gravitational hydraulic energy) was located in the old Ponto kingdom (today Capadocia, Turkey), being Mitrídates its king (I century BC).  In Spain waterwheels have been very common. One of the most famouses ones is “La Albolafia” in Córdoba.  Mechanical energy is converted in hydraulic gravitational energy with the Arquimedes Screw (it was used by the Egyptians).

8. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water for energy  During the XX century the hydroelectric energy developments have been very impressive.  Spain has built over 1000 dams during the last century.  Hydroelectric energy, although has some environmental problems is a clean and renewal energy.  But today few new hydreolectric schemes are being developed. The main sites are exploited.  Water development versus water management

9. Valencia, 27th August 2009 1. Interest of the issue: Water, energy and Climate 2. Water for energy 3. Energy for water. The way forward 4. Energy footprint. The case of California 5. Save water, saves energy and reduces impact. Case study 6. Energy for water is becoming a hot issue 7. Particular conclusions of the case study 8. General conclusions. OUTLINE

10. Valencia, 27th August 2009 MOTIVATION: Energy for water R+D investments in the IEA countries oil prices in 2007 USD$ First one: oil prices

11. Valencia, 27th August 2009 MOTIVATION: TWO MAIN FACTS Second one: climate change

12. Valencia, 27th August 2009 1. Interest of the issue: Water, energy and Climate 2. Water for energy 3. Energy for water. The way forward 4. Energy footprint. The case of California 5. Save water, saves energy and reduces impact. Case study 6. Energy for water is becoming a hot issue 7. Particular conclusions of the case study 8. General conclusions. OUTLINE

13. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water energy footprint in a sustainable water cycle Water cycle ranges energy requirements (kWh/m3) in California

14. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water energy in California

15. Valencia, 27th August 2009 1. Interest of the issue: Water, energy and Climate 2. Water for energy 3. Energy for water. The way forward 4. Energy footprint. The case of California 5. Save water, saves energy and reduces impact. Case study 6. Energy for water is becoming a hot issue 7. Particular conclusions of the case study 8. General conclusions. OUTLINE

16. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water audit of distribution networks IT IS A HYDRAULIC AUDIT THAT DO NOT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT NOR FINNANCIAL NEITHER ADMINITRATIVE ISSUES. WATER WAYS MUST BE ELL KNOWN

17. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Energy audit of a water distribution network

18. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Energy audit of a water distribution network TO PERFORM THE ENERGY AUDIT A CALIBRATED MATEMATICAL MODEL OF THE NETWORK IS REQUIRED

19. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water network example: DATA ..  Total pipe length: 40 Km  Water delivered to costumers registered by meters: 1.25 Hm3/year  Water supplied:  1.25 Hm3/year (non-leaky scenario)  1.89 Hm3/year (leaky scenario)  Leaked water:  0.64 Hm3/year, equivalent to 1.82 m3/km/h  Minimum service pressure: 25 m. Complmentary dadta (hourly patterns, emitters, etc. in the paper)

20. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water network example: results Energy Audit (MWh/year)

21. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Water network example: results Energy required per m3 (Kwh/ m3) Leaky Network Non Leaky Network INPUT NATURA L SHAFTINPUTNATURAL SHAF T (m3) supplied 0.1720.0680.104 (m3) supplied and delivered 0.1760.0680.108 (m3) delivered 0.2610.1030.158 (m3) leaked 0.1680.0690.098 (m3) leaked--- Water footprint energy of the distribution step

22. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Equivalent credits of carbon. The model water – air model Emission g/kWhNatural GasOil FiredCoal FiredHydro/ Solar /Wind Nuclear Carbon dioxide55486514320.0 StepTypeOrder of magnitude Water supply and conveyance Groundwater0.35 kWh/m3 per 100 m of elevation Surface Water(0-3) kWh/m3 Water Treatment DesalinationApprox. 3.65 kWh/m3 TreatmentApprox. 0.04 kWh/m3 Water DistributionShaft energyCalculated from our energy audit (0.098 kWh/m3 Amount of CO2 emitted to atmosphere per every source of energy Current values of the energy water footprint (from the beginning of the cycle up to the distribution phase)

23. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Results for different scenarios Energy source Natural GasOil FiredCoal FiredNuclearHydraulicOther Energy source case 1 (ES1)29.8%7.9%22.4%19.8%9.7% 10.4 % Energy source case 2 (ES2)33.3% 33.4%0% ES1ES2 WOA144248 WOB13512321 The water energy footprint up to the distribution step : Case A(WOA) : 50% by local surface and 50% by groundwater = 0.296 kwh/m3 Case B (WOB) : water comes from a desalination plant = 3.65 kwh/m3 The distribution step is 0.098 kwh/m3 for both cases. Credit carbonssaved

24. Valencia, 27th August 2009 1. Interest of the issue: Water, energy and Climate 2. Water for energy 3. Energy for water. The way forward 4. Energy footprint. The case of California 5. Save water, saves energy and reduces impact. Case study 6. Energy for water is becoming a hot issue 7. Particular conclusions of the case study 8. General conclusions. OUTLINE

25. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Energy for water is becoming a hot issue COST Exploratory Workshop The Energy-Water Nexus: Managing the Links between Energy and Water for a Sustainable Future 19 - 21 January 2009, Le Châtelain Hotel, Brussels Programme

26. Valencia, 27th August 2009 Energy for water is becoming a hot issue

27. Valencia, 27th August 2009  The relationship between water and energy must be well understood  The evaluation of the energy water footprint of any water cycle is becoming a crucial issue  Water losses are much more than water lost. It is energy lost as well  To evaluate the energy required by the distribution phase is not en easy task:  The hydraulic audit is the first step  A calibrated mathematical model is required  A network energy audit is necessary.  Reducing losses saves a huge amount of credit carbons CONCLUSIONS (I)

28. Valencia, 27th August 2009  Invest in research and development  Invest in saving water to save energy  Reduce water sector energy intensity  Improve system flexibility  Provide better price signals  Work together  Coordinate Utilities’ Programs  Renewable Portfolio Standard  Upgrading Infrastructure  Address regulatory challenges  Develop better data and information CONCLUSIONS (II)