Carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) has important implications relative to future thermoelectric water use. A bounding analysis is performed using past greenhouse gas emission policy proposals and assumes either all effected capacity retires (lower water use bound) or is retrofitted (upper bound). The analysis is performed in the context of recent trends in electric power generation expansion, namely high penetration of natural gas and renewables along with constrained cooling system options. Results indicate thermoelectric freshwater withdrawals nationwide could increase by roughly 1% or decrease by up to 60% relative to 2009 levels, while consumption could increase as much as 21% or decrease as much as 28%. To identify where changes in freshwater use might be problematic at a regional level, electric power production has been mapped onto watersheds with limited water availability (where consumption exceeds 70% of gauged streamflow). Results suggest that between 0.44 and 0.96 Mm3/d of new thermoelectric freshwater consumption could occur in watersheds with limited water availability, while power plant retirements in these watersheds could yield 0.90 to 1.0 Mm3/d of water savings.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has an interest in large scale hydrogen geostorage, which could offer substantial buffer capacity to meet possible disruptions in supply or changing seasonal demands. The geostorage site options being considered are salt caverns, depleted oil/gas reservoirs, aquifers and hard rock caverns. The DOE has an interest in assessing the geological, geomechanical and economic viability for these types of geologic hydrogen storage options. This study has developed an economic analysis methodology and subsequent spreadsheet analysis to address costs entailed in developing and operating an underground geologic storage facility. This year the tool was updated specifically to (1) incorporate more site-specific model input assumptions for the wells and storage site modules, (2) develop a version that matches the general format of the HDSAM model developed and maintained by Argonne National Laboratory, and (3) incorporate specific demand scenarios illustrating the model's capability. Four general types of underground storage were analyzed: salt caverns, depleted oil/gas reservoirs, aquifers, and hard rock caverns/other custom sites. Due to the substantial lessons learned from the geological storage of natural gas already employed, these options present a potentially sizable storage option. Understanding and including these various geologic storage types in the analysis physical and economic framework will help identify what geologic option would be best suited for the storage of hydrogen. It is important to note, however, that existing natural gas options may not translate to a hydrogen system where substantial engineering obstacles may be encountered. There are only three locations worldwide that currently store hydrogen underground and they are all in salt caverns. Two locations are in the U.S. (Texas), and are managed by ConocoPhillips and Praxair (Leighty, 2007). The third is in Teeside, U.K., managed by Sabic Petrochemicals (Crotogino et al., 2008; Panfilov et al., 2006). These existing H{sub 2} facilities are quite small by natural gas storage standards. The second stage of the analysis involved providing ANL with estimated geostorage costs of hydrogen within salt caverns for various market penetrations for four representative cities (Houston, Detroit, Pittsburgh and Los Angeles). Using these demand levels, the scale and cost of hydrogen storage necessary to meet 10%, 25% and 100% of vehicle summer demands was calculated.