222
and Fisher (2013) argue that the economics of carbon reduction will likely be much
more effective drivers of change, at carbon prices plausible by 2100, than will the
economics of water savings. That is, policies that push the electricity sector to
reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on carbon will become effective at carbon prices one can reasonably expect to see in the near future. Similar policies
aimed at reducing water usage, they argue, would only become effective at water
prices far higher than one could reasonably expect in the coming century, even in
the desert southwest. For them, “‘water-energy nexus’…might be better understood
as two distinct problems that intersect, quite asymmetrically, with energy planning,
and call for quite different responses.” They conclude that “the [US west’s] water
crisis…does not originate in, and cannot be solved in, the electricity sector.”
Berkman (2015) echoes this perspective, noting that “alarmist” or “crisis” studies (his terms) focusing solely on the electricity sector's share of water withdrawals
fail to account for the fact that “as much as 96% of water withdrawn by power plants
is returned to the water supply,” or non-consumptive. In a review of the water planning documents of four states that have faced persistent water resource uncertainty,
he finds that “electricity generation demand is not a primary source of concern, but
that infrastructure (reservoirs and conveyance), conservation (especially agriculture)
and regional cooperation are of primary concern.”
Biofuels development is one area where consideration of the food–energy–water
nexus is particularly relevant. Promoters of biofuels recognize that meeting growing
global energy demands will require developing significant reserves of oil and gas,
which, while available and increasingly technologically feasible, will exacerbate
climate change. Increasing biofuels production, they argue, could mitigate climate
damage while decreasing US dependence on oil-exporting countries, not all of
which are supportive of US political goals. According to the Energy Information
Administration, US net petroleum imports totaled 25% of total US consumption in
2016 and 20% in 2017. Just over a decade prior, at the time the USA adopted
Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), oil imports represented 60% of American’s
petroleum use.
Amendments to section 211 of the Clean Water Act introduced by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
require the EPA to set annual Renewable Fuel Percentage Standards with the
purpose of “driving the market to overcome constraints in renewable fuel infrastructure” (Federal Register 2016).
Biofuels are classified as first-, second-, and third-generation, depending on the
source material and the technologies used to create the fuel. First-generation
biofuels are made from crops that otherwise could be used as human or animal feed,
such as soy and corn, and oilseed crops. Second-generation biofuels are made from
the waste vegetable matter from crops primarily grown for other purposes, non-food
crops (switchgrass), or municipal waste or food processing waste. Third generation
biofuels (such as algae-derived fuel) have the least impact on food production
because they do not compete with food crops or occupy land used to grow food crops.
From a nexus perspective, the production of biofuels can occupy land and
resources that might otherwise be used for food production, and conversion of land
B. Kinne and D. Magee
and Fisher (2013) argue that the economics of carbon reduction will likely be much
more effective drivers of change, at carbon prices plausible by 2100, than will the
economics of water savings. That is, policies that push the electricity sector to
reduce carbon emissions by putting a price on carbon will become effective at carbon prices one can reasonably expect to see in the near future. Similar policies
aimed at reducing water usage, they argue, would only become effective at water
prices far higher than one could reasonably expect in the coming century, even in
the desert southwest. For them, “‘water-energy nexus’…might be better understood
as two distinct problems that intersect, quite asymmetrically, with energy planning,
and call for quite different responses.” They conclude that “the [US west’s] water
crisis…does not originate in, and cannot be solved in, the electricity sector.”
Berkman (2015) echoes this perspective, noting that “alarmist” or “crisis” studies (his terms) focusing solely on the electricity sector's share of water withdrawals
fail to account for the fact that “as much as 96% of water withdrawn by power plants
is returned to the water supply,” or non-consumptive. In a review of the water planning documents of four states that have faced persistent water resource uncertainty,
he finds that “electricity generation demand is not a primary source of concern, but
that infrastructure (reservoirs and conveyance), conservation (especially agriculture)
and regional cooperation are of primary concern.”
Biofuels development is one area where consideration of the food–energy–water
nexus is particularly relevant. Promoters of biofuels recognize that meeting growing
global energy demands will require developing significant reserves of oil and gas,
which, while available and increasingly technologically feasible, will exacerbate
climate change. Increasing biofuels production, they argue, could mitigate climate
damage while decreasing US dependence on oil-exporting countries, not all of
which are supportive of US political goals. According to the Energy Information
Administration, US net petroleum imports totaled 25% of total US consumption in
2016 and 20% in 2017. Just over a decade prior, at the time the USA adopted
Renewable Fuel Standards (RFS), oil imports represented 60% of American’s
petroleum use.
Amendments to section 211 of the Clean Water Act introduced by the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007
require the EPA to set annual Renewable Fuel Percentage Standards with the
purpose of “driving the market to overcome constraints in renewable fuel infrastructure” (Federal Register 2016).
Biofuels are classified as first-, second-, and third-generation, depending on the
source material and the technologies used to create the fuel. First-generation
biofuels are made from crops that otherwise could be used as human or animal feed,
such as soy and corn, and oilseed crops. Second-generation biofuels are made from
the waste vegetable matter from crops primarily grown for other purposes, non-food
crops (switchgrass), or municipal waste or food processing waste. Third generation
biofuels (such as algae-derived fuel) have the least impact on food production
because they do not compete with food crops or occupy land used to grow food crops.
From a nexus perspective, the production of biofuels can occupy land and
resources that might otherwise be used for food production, and conversion of land
B. Kinne and D. Magee