Dew clings to switch grass in the morning sun.
"Regional Water Implications of Reducing Oil Imports with Liquid Transportation Fuel Alternatives in the United States"
Journal Article, Environmental Science and Technology, volume 47, issue 21, pages 11976-11984
November 5, 2013
Authors: Sarah Jordaan, Former Associate, Energy Technology Innovation Policy (ETIP) research group, April–August 2012; Former Research Fellow, ETIP, February 2011–March 2012, Laura Diaz Anadon, Assistant Professor of Public Policy; Associate Director, Science, Technology, and Public Policy Program; Co-PI, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, Erik Mielke, Former Research Fellow, Energy Technology Innovation Policy research group, 2010–2011, Daniel Schrag, Steering Committee Member, Harvard Project on Climate Agreements
The Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS) is among the cornerstone policies created to increase U.S. energy independence by using biofuels. Although greenhouse gas emissions have played a role in shaping the RFS, water implications are less understood. We demonstrate a spatial, life cycle approach to estimate water consumption of transportation fuel scenarios, including a comparison to current water withdrawals and drought incidence by state. The water consumption and land footprint of six scenarios are compared to the RFS, including shale oil, coal-to-liquids, shale gas-to-liquids, corn ethanol, and cellulosic ethanol from switchgrass. The corn scenario is the most water and land intense option and is weighted toward drought-prone states. Fossil options and cellulosic ethanol require significantly less water and are weighted toward less drought-prone states. Coal-to-liquids is an exception, where water consumption is partially weighted toward drought-prone states. Results suggest that there may be considerable water and land impacts associated with meeting energy security goals through using only biofuels. Ultimately, water and land requirements may constrain energy security goals without careful planning, indicating that there is a need to better balance trade-offs. Our approach provides policymakers with a method to integrate federal policies with regional planning over various temporal and spatial scales.
Read the entire article here (login may be required): http://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/es404130v
For more information about this publication please contact the ETIP Coordinator at 617-496-5584.
Full text of this publication is available at:
For Academic Citation: