Bioenergy or Hydropower: Implication for Water and Food
-
Upload
international-water-management-institute-iwmi -
Category
Technology
-
view
1.134 -
download
2
description
Transcript of Bioenergy or Hydropower: Implication for Water and Food
Bioenergy or Hydropower –
Implication for Water and Food
Gauthier PitoisInternational Food Policy Research
Institute
“Water in the Anthropocene” GWSP Conference
May 2013, Bonn, Germany
Motivation
Growing energy demands of wealthier, more urban populations
Demand can be met from HP, biofuels, or other traditional and nontraditional energy sources—all energy development requires some water; and some energy sources need a lot
In addition, agriculture is increasingly energy-intensive (including about 40% of food produced from groundwater) and biofuel development competes with food for land and water
Climate change is a further complication on the water-energy picture
The result is increasing competition for water across sectors under growing uncertainty
Growing water intensity of energy production
Source: World Energy Outlook, 2012
HP is not considered to withdraw or consume water, but this energy sourcehas a multitude of water impacts
Price Linkage (Food – Biofuel)
Source: D.K. Albino, C. Freidman and Y. Bar-Yam, Global Security and the RFS. NECSI Report 2013-04-01
Map of storage
Total and per Capita Storage
RUSCAN
BRACH
MUSA
INDZW
EEG
YVEN
GHA
TURM
EX IRQ
KAZTH
AAUS
PRYARG
MOZ
SPP0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
0
5
10
15
20
25
Storage (bcm) Per-Cap. Ratio (bcm/cap)
Source: GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). Map 81: GRanD Database (V1.0)
Note: Storage currently increasing in Asia, SSA and some LAC.
Hydropower Generation (20% of total energy generation)
China
Brazil
Canad
a
United
Sta
tes
Russia
Nor
way
India
Japan
Venez
uela
Swed
en
Fran
ce
Parag
uay
Turk
eyItal
y
Spain
Colom
bia
Austria
Mex
ico
Switze
rlan
d
Argen
tina
0
50
100
150
200
250
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Capacity (mil. kW) Generation (bil. kWh)
Source: U.S. EIA, 2013
Linkage Storage-Hydropower Capacity
Sources: GWSP Digital Water Atlas (2008). Map 81: GRanD Database (V1.0) U.S. EIA, 2013
Scenarios linking water with energy and food
1) Business as usual (BAU) versus Bioeconomy scenario: economic growth driven by the development of renewable biological resources and biotechnologies to produce sustainable products, employment and income
-> Increase in agricultural R&D / crop productivity growth; Impact of faster technological change - commercial scale second generation biofuels start 5 years earlier--reducing demand for first generation feedstocks; increased WUE across irrigation, HHs & industry); lower fertilizer input2) BAU versus increased storage & irrigation, gradual change out to 2050: 50% more storage; 25% more storage + 12.5% more irrigation; 50% more storage + 25% more irrigation
IMPACT – Partial Equilibrium Agricultural Sector Model
S.1-- Percent Change in World Prices of Cereals between 2010 and 2050, BAU
Rice Wheat Maize Other Grains
Millet Sorghum0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Perc
ent C
hang
e
Source: IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2012 Simulations
S.1 --Irrigation water supply reliability under BAU and Bioeconomy in 2000, 2030, 2050
Region 20002030 2050
BAU BIO BAU BIO
East Asia & Pacific 0.754 0.631 0.714 0.554 0.675
Eastern Europe & Central Asia 0.668 0.617 0.666 0.515 0.655
Latin America & Caribbean 0.911 0.933 0.954 0.936 0.973
Middle East & North Africa 0.986 0.975 0.978 0.972 0.975
South Asia 0.706 0.622 0.679 0.517 0.645
Sub-Saharan Africa 0.825 0.747 0.785 0.715 0.780
North America 0.978 0.984 0.990 0.987 1.000
NAFTA 0.983 0.988 0.993 0.991 1.000
Europe Developed 0.974 0.997 0.999 0.994 0.996
Developed 0.958 0.961 0.972 0.956 0.982
Developing 0.749 0.670 0.728 0.592 0.705World 0.766 0.692 0.747 0.619 0.726
IWSR - ratio of annual irrigation water supply to demand.Source: IFPRI IMPACT projections (2012).
Source: IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2012 Simulations
Rice Wheat Maize Other Grains
Millet Sorghum-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
Perc
ent C
hang
e
S.1--Percent Change in World Prices of Cereals between BAU and Bioeoconomy
Scenario, 2050
Percent Change in World Market Prices Under Increase in Irrigation (+12.5%) and Storage
(+25%)
Source : IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2013 simulations
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
Rice Wheat Maize Soybean Cotton
Percent Change in World Market Prices Under Incr. Irrigation (+25%) and Storage (+50%) by
2050
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
Rice Wheat Maize Soybean Cotton
Source : IFPRI IMPACT Model, 2013 simulations
Conclusions
Bioeconomy scenario—conserving energy and water in agriculture (here reduced fertilizer input; and water use efficiency improvements) can be achieved through agricultural R&D and knowledge-intensive agriculture
Increase in storage alone has limited impacts on global food prices; but storage development together with irrigation expansion significantly reduces global food prices
Additional benefits from storage through energy generation and reduction of price volatility
Policy Recommendations Rise in real prices of natural resources
increases importance of market-based approaches for managing environmental services (water pricing, water markets, PES)
Increased and better-managed investment in hydropower development
Modernize crop water productivity breeding programs in developing countries through provision of genomics, high throughput gene-sequencing, bio-informatics and computer tools.
Future Additions to Models
IMPACT− Integrate storage and hydropower infrastructure scenarios− Account for energy use in groundwater pumping for
irrigation− Account for water shortages affecting the energy sector
(during dry years) in terms of power output reduction− Refine energy consumption associated with water demand− Assess the impact of storage to manage variability
Energy sector model− Analyze trade-offs across the energy—food divide using a
water lens