The contraints for using water to cool coal-fired power plants are discussed

Robie, R. B.

English

NASA Technical Reports Server

Department of 'Water Resources 
I r o u l d  like to k g i n  by stating &at I appear  
before p u  today in dual capacities: f i r s t  as 
Director of the Department which plans for the 
management of California's water scpplies. and 
a e c d l y .  as spaasor of a coal-fired paa-er plant to 
furnish necessary  power for he State Water  Pro- 
ject. As p a r t  of our power plant derclopment. we 
. 1 1 w a  will h.ivr tar anlvr UIII:~ prAlen ia  a d  n i n t  
#ID.- rm-,yI.ab~ry rq~i i r~- i~ , . -n iw WID11 11 I w i l l  .wlilrara 
td.1y. 
t i t i es  of water f rom Northern California to the 
San Joaquin Valley and Southern California. 
As water mus t  be pumped from the 
The State Fab-r Project de l ivers  la rge  quan- 
Sacramento-San ioaquin Delta to the places of use. 
the I'roject is .I large u s e r  of e lec t r ic  power. 
t'nder nor-mal water cunditians. the Project wall 
r rqu i re  about 5.5 billion kilowatt-hours this yea r  
(about one-third that sold last year ..: the City of 
Lo* Angeles) and over 10 bi1:ion kilowatt-hours by 
the y e a r  2000, 
Presently. power for the Project is obtained 
from power recovery plants on the California 
Aqueduct. by purchases  from major California 
e lec t r ic  utilities. and by p x c h a s e s  from utilities 
in the P.arifir Northwest. 
p r c  h.asc c rmtrar IS will be renagotirted. other. 
will  expire in lW3. We a r e  evaluating sevoral 
possible sources  of energy for future project 
operation to replace that lost  by contract  expirr- 
tion. i h e s e  sou rces  include hydroelectric. geo- 
thermal. coal. nuclear. a d  others. The Depart- 
nient has participated in research  .md d e v e l o p e n t  
activities related to wind energy and has  also rub- 
niitted a proposed solar-electric research  project 
to the Federa l  Govern len t .  
While some power 
We have proposed development of a 1000-MW 
cnal-fiic-d power plant as one of the most practical  
 way^ to iill .I portion of our  future power nr-ed. 
I hi- Ikpartnrcnt will be rlic lead Pgency 3rd  
iii.anagt- the dcvel0,pnient tlirwgli 111 stages. The 
i q ~ a r t n ~ .  iit w ~ ~ u l d  gener r tc  only lor our  own needs 
.ind woi.;~t retain ownership r , f  .about 350 M W  of the 
total , tiit capacity. The remaining capacity 
would be owned by public and private utility 
partir ipints.  It  i s  presently envisioned that the  
plant u-outd be c a n p r i s e d  of &rea gemrat ing  u m b .  
e a c h  being completed ODC year apart. the rust 
being on line in 1987. 
%e of t te  most important coasiderarioru io 
ISC af coal. or fo r  that matter. any foal used in a 
thermal plant. is the water mupply Tor cooliag. I 
c .tnnnt overeniph.msixe; this is not exclusively a 
I r c i l  :-l.mnt prwlh-im. 
w.ater u s e s  is k e n  and. of course. during &e 
drought conditions of the iast two yeare this com- 
petition was especially intense. lo the past. most 
thermal plants were constructed near the coast 
or on connected bays where ample supplies of 
saline water -re aailrble for cooling. 
however. for  many reasons rbsrma slant sites 
are moving into inland areas where water is less 
ibundant. 
t-wi~jmliliitm .wiiamy v-iriawur 
Today. 
A 1000-MW coal-fired plant woutd require on 
As the following tabulation indicates. 
the order of 15. OOO acre-feet  per Near of f r e sh  
water. 
cooling is by f a r  the largest requirement: 
Re q*~msnt 
PUrpo.2 (Acre -foot/-p.al - 
Cooling 13.300 
Domestic 10 
ibiler makcup 3 0 0  
Flue gas scrubbing 1. LOO 
Miscellaneous 200 
;;hen we u s e  water of high salinity. however. 
buildup of aa!t concentration by evaporation limits 
the reuse  of water in the cooling sys t em and wawr 
requircmcnts could increase to 30.009 acre-feet  
p e r  year iw a 1000-MW plant. The Department. 
in cooperation with major electric 
recently canple ted  pilot plant studies which indi- 
cate that with proper pretreatment. brackish 
agricultural  waste water can be used for power 
plant cooling. where the TDS concentration OC the 
coolant i* increased to a s  high a s  70.000 milli-  
yranis !>el l i t re  by recirculation. N'p w i l l  soon 
havr .- fb:I r.--ort on these studics. 
.litits h a s  
This i)~p.i  rtnient and the Caliiorni.1 S.ate 
Water I3 J S O ' ~ - C C *  Control Uoard have m.~tle studies 
to deterrr.ile the quantities of water needed ftrr 
future ps,.wr plant cooling and t o  dcvclop a con- 
sistent policy rc.yrrding cooling water u s e s .  
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19790019435 2020-03-21T22:39:46+00:00Z
l&e principal m a c e  to UIC L . -4  and the 
Department i s  Article X d &e CaWorma Cunoti- 
h;tbm. wbirh coatrda the waste of water a d  
requires u s e  of watar to k both reasomble and 
beneficial, Bo& tba Board and tbe Department are 
required uadcr Section L f S  of the W a t e r  Code to 
implameat thio provision. ?be &partmeat's policy 
is that Caliomia's water resources  shall be 
managed io a manner Umt w i l l  resu l t  in the grea tes t  
long-term benefit to the people and that water shall 
be m u e d  to the maximum utcot feasible. Consio- 
tent with this policy, the preferred oources of 
coolsly water at i n l a d  sites arc u r k n  and agri-  
cultural  waste n-aterm and dhrr poor-quality water. 
The Watrrr  Henourccs Cantrol Iba rd ' s  policy 
resarding water for power plant cooling provider 
that cooling water should come from the ful:owing 
sou-% -s in order of pr ior i ty  depending on environ- 
mental. technical. rad economic feasibility con- 
siderations: f 11 vastev-ater k i n g  discharged to 
cbc ocean. ft) xean waters. (3)  brackish ua t e r  
f rom ~ u t u r d  sources  or irrigation re turn  flow. 
(4) inl.mtl r.estewatsrs .rf IOU TIW. a d  ( 5 )  other 
inl.tml W.I~,-I L. W h r r c  Ihe l L ~ . l r d  11.1s n-ater rights 
jurisdirtiuii. u s e  ot f r e sh  d a d  raters for power 
plant cuoling vi11 be approved by the Board only 
when it is den:onstrated that the use  0: other n-ater 
supply sou rces  or other methods oi cooling m u l d  
be environmentally underirab'e or economically 
unsoud .  In issuing a permit 01 ' i rense for rater 
for  pover plant rooring. *be h. -4 con*idcrs tkc 
rearormbleness of the proposed rater u s e  when 
compared with other present  and future needs for 
the water sources. 
a d  Agriculture also opposes the use ut f r e sh  
water for pover plant cooling where that water 
cocld be us& elsewhere. 
The State D e p r t m e n t  of Food 
In all o f  these determinations recarding p w e r  
p l in t  croling. no rule applicable to all circum- 
s t an res  is possible. 
pends on a l l  aspec ts  of sach  particular situation: 
tlierciore. tach plant mus t  be examined on a 
case-by-c.,sc basis. 
ReasonaLleness of u s e  dc- 
1 h r  S?.~tc h . w d  inipienients its policy by 
interveninr in Energy Commission procerdinps. 
The Legislature also has established policy on 
The Kas te  Water Weuse Law power plant cooling. 
of 1974 directed the Department tu investigate the 
use of reclaimed rarte water for beneficial pur- 
poses. including power plant cooling. l h i s  law 
also dec lares  that water conservation requi res  the 
maxiniuni practical  rouse of waste water. The 
resu l t s  of these DWR studies pertaining tt, power 
plant coolin+ .ire presented in L N H  Bulletin 204, 
" W a t e r  for Power Plant Cooling". July 1977. 
Another recent law relating to water u se  for power 
plant cooling permi ts  1 he Xletropolitan Water 
District  ni Southern C aliforni.1 to provide up to 
100. 000 .I, rv-ftx-t 
pcr  ye.ir illr cooling purpcracs. 1111s sa i i~ i r  I.&-. 
however. .11so di rec ts  that agricultur.hl waste w.ater 
and other water not auitable for other purposes 
shall  be uaed for cooling to the extant practicable. 
Let's consider some forecas ts  published 
recently in Dulletin 204. Projec ts  by the Depart- 
ment  and the C'alifornia Energy Commission vary 
widely depending on the assumptions made. On 
the average, however, they indicate that in 1935 
< ' d t B r . d t )  River v.itcr . i d  up 
tu #BO. uuu . t i  rC-ls?ct 0 1  st.btI. \ V . I t C l '  I ' r t D J e S  W.btl'l. 
about L w ) .  OOO acre-feet  of pwer plant coolin* 
water per year rill be required at inland rites 
assumiag evaporative cooling. AKrirultural 
waste water available for ~ooling at that time in 
in excess of 140. OOO acre-feet per year. In the 
Palo V a r d e  Valley, agricultural  waste waters ate 
returned to the Colorado R i v e r  to satisfy dovn- 
o t r e m  rater rightr. and u s e  of these vaters for 
cooling would be contingent on increased campen- 
s a b r y  re leases  at Parker Dam. Tbc utility must  
pay to make this rater  rvailrble. In the Imperial 
Valley. Colorado H i r e r  r a t e r  is ala0 used iw  
irrigatiam. and thr drainage is routed tsD Uir S.rlhin 
Sea. 1 he vul-mac ut drainaye **.Iter i s  m o r e  than 
ample to meet projer ted cuohng needs: huvcver. 
a new n-ater level balance in the Sr l t sn  Sea would 
result. 1 his chanK:c. .tnd especially Ca:c affect on 
the fishery. has  no: been ev.Juated. 
southern San Joaquin Valley would be slightly 
Recently. studies were  concluded at L'CLA 
I I i e w  rrttitiit- rv r r  p in t ly  f i i n d d   ID^ 
regarding utilirahum of coal for power in 
< . . ~ I i h r n ~ . ~  
tha- I)LW.arlltwnt .-mal t1w t .eIihrni.u kinvrcy t ..HIS- 
niirsiun. 
siting considered in the CCLA studies (air quality. 
Fopu!ation. etc. ) pointed to dcrcrt region 
locatinns. Limited water supply a h d i e s  were 
done for severa l  selected potential sites. Here. 
uakr supply alternatives considered were  &e 
Coloradn River. agricultural  vaate water. and 
ground water uf varying quality. h general. it 
W d l  f.bund that there u-ould be sufficient g r w p d  
water for potential povrr plants at tbc Cadu.  
tioffs. Barstou. Rice. a d  Blythe sites. and 
sufficient agricultural  r e tu rn  flovs at all except 
the Blythe Ate. Constraints an thc u s e  of each 
water source  vould requi re  specific studies fo r  
e.wh .alternative site to determine the costs and 
cngiaucring and environmental fac tors  i n  setting 
t h h c  required quantities of water to the plant. 
Studies would also be required to determine the 
existing rater quality at ea& source to determine 
its fitness for other purposes aad the amouot of 
nirkeup water required to keep sa l t  coarentra- 
(ions frnm rising high. 
llie Kcner.nl c r i t e r i a  tor power plant 
In some areas .  u se  of ground water fo r  cool- 
ing would result  in mininfi (extraction at a g rea t e r  
ra te  than natural recharge). Sladha are required 
to determine the ground water reserves needed 
for the life of the power pknt. For our new 
power plant, the Department will conduct more 
extcnsive studies on water sou rces  as part of our 
s i te  selection process. The Department will soon 
publish a bulletin on ground water data fo r  the 
awithcastem p a r t  of the State. This  will utilize 
recently drveloped USGS data. 
Onc oi the questions that always comes to 
iiiind when discussing cooling water requirements 
i s :  (.an .anything bc done to reduce the amount of 
w.1tc.r nu* .tied? -1 Itin Ihzpirtnrent i s  rsmlinrting h a  
r t d y  U t i r  question. of coursc. within the pl.mt 
system the basic concept of reuse  of water will 
be car r ied  out to the fullest extent possible. e.g., 
highly saline water from the plant cooling system 
will be uaed in ash handling. dust  control, or 
otlier purposes where quality i s  qot a problem. 
Dry co1,ling was reviewed and found to h a m  draw- 
b.icks. 1 his system is cornparahle to the radiator 
in your car - -a i r  cools the water i n  a closed sys -  
ten1 and no water i s  lost. Besides having higher 
capital cost. dry cooliw towers are sot as 
effective in raaOchg m e r  tenparatun as evap- 
orative systems. TurbiDc outlet s t u m  tarpcra- 
tures are. *refom. higher a d  tprbipc efficiencies 
are lower. Fuel conscrmptioa rises. and since dry- 
cooled units depend on cool ambient air  tampora- 
tures to carry away heat. in hotter cllmoteo. 
efficiencies drap furtbcr. 
l h r  I k ~ a r t ~ n e n t  i s  participating in a protdype 
test .I r c i - d r y  ruoling tower. This study i r k i a c :  
aysans.wd by .%&ern c.alif0rni.a Pdiaoa Campany: 
rcwcr.nl daer ut a 1 i t i r . J  and guvrrnmental agencies 
.nro imlvrd.  Such a Lower ruuld f i rst  use a dry 
system to partly cool the water: the water would 
then drop into a contmntional evaporative section. 
Louvers would control the amount of air passing 
through e.-& s e c - t i ~ n .  tinder cooler ambient 
rondilion5. most of &e ruoling wadd k accom- 
plished io tbe dry section d water savings 
should be up to 25 percent. or hopefully 
more. 
the water sopply impacts of interstate transfers 
of water. Most of h e  Western states +e~lourty 
guard tbrir water reoources a d  this can be a mer- 
ious impediment to use of this lutni of r a n 1  trans- 
yrt. 
Ic*irlatiua i s  uprn bm qucdtiion. .am1 i f  i t  cltw-. 
"area of urigin" prawismmnm for w.alrr w i l l  Durcly 
be a part of tho r.mnsidrrrtiunm. 
la summary. rbcrr i s  sufficient water available 
inCaliforair for power pbnt cooling. ?he reaourcc. 
however. i s  finite 4 every effort must be made 
in this use. as in all others. to obtain maximum 
conservation a d  rerytl ing of tbe re.ollrcr. 
I have not mentioned coal slurry pipclines and 
Whether C'ongress wil l  enat t co.al slurry 
R E P I W D M I B I U T Y O F ~  
ORIGINAL PAGE IS KJOR 
89 


Water as a constraint to the use of coal for California

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server