Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

Virtual water transfers of the US electric grid

An Author Correction to this article was published on 06 March 2019

This article has been updated


Water is consumed in the generation of electricity and then transmitted, virtually, across the electric grid, creating a network of water transfers. Virtual water transfers of electricity are an understudied area of the energy–water nexus, with important policy and conservation considerations. Here we analyse the virtual water flows of the US electric grid and the changes in network structure from 2010 to 2016 using electricity transfers between power control areas and power-plant-level water for electricity. Transfers of blue water were 9.21 km3 in 2010 and 11.21 km3 in 2016. Transfers of grey water were 50.18 km3 in 2010 compared to 71.64 km3 in 2016. The change in blue water transfers are despite national trends of lower freshwater demands of thermoelectric power generation. We provide a mapping of virtual water transfers through the US electric grid over time, including blue and grey water, and network analysis of the system.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: Annual changes in total virtual blue and grey water transfers compared to total electricity transfers and production.
Fig. 2: Node strength analysis.
Fig. 3: Visualization of the blue and grey virtual water transfer networks for 2010 and 2016.
Fig. 4: Changes in PCA blue water footprints after virtual water transfers.

Data availability

All data utilized within this study are publicly available through the US Energy Information Administration, US Environmental Protection Agency, or the US Federal Energy Regulatory Committee. The Supplementary Information contains datasets generated through the methodology relevant to the analysis and creation of plots. Any other data that support the plots within this paper and other findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Change history

  • 06 March 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. 1.

    Kodra, E., Sheldon, S., Dolen, R. & Zik, O. The North American electric grid as an exchange network: an approach for evaluating energy resource composition and greenhouse gas mitigation. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 13692–13698 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Averyt, K. et al. Freshwater Use by U.S. Power Plants: Electricity’s Thirst for a Precious Resource. A Report of the Energy and Water in a Warming World Initiative (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2011).

  3. 3.

    Maupin, M. A. et al. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 2010 (US Geological Survey, 2014).

  4. 4.

    Mekonnen, M. & Hoekstra, A. The blue water footprint of electricity from hydropower. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16, 179–187 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Destouni, G., Jaramillo, F. & Prieto, C. Hydroclimatic shifts driven by human water use for food and energy production. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 213–217 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Jaramillo, F. & Destouni, G. Local flow regulation and irrigation raise global human water consumption and footprint. Science 350, 1248–1251 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Jaramillo, F. & Destouni, G. Comment on ‘Planetary boundaries: guiding human development on a changing planet’. Science 348, 1217–1217 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Liu, J., Zhao, D., Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Guan, D. China’s rising hydropower demand challenges water sector. Sci. Rep. 5, 11446 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Grubert, E. A. Water consumption from hydroelectricity in the United States. Adv. Water Resour. 96, 88–94 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Sanders, K. T. Critical review: uncharted waters? The future of the electricity–water nexus. Environ. Sci. Technol. 49, 51–66 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Grubert, E. & Sanders, K. T. Water use in the United States energy system: A national assessment and unit process inventory of water consumption and withdrawals. Environ. Sci. Technol. 52, 6695–6703 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G. & Hallett, K. Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045802 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Macknick, J., Sattler, S., Averyt, K., Clemmer, S. & Rogers, J. The water implications of generating electricity: water use across the United States based on different electricity pathways through 2050. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045803 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Averyt, K. et al. Water use for electricity in the United States: an analysis of reported and calculated water use information for 2008. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015001 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Peer, R. A. & Sanders, K. T. Characterizing cooling water source and usage patterns across US thermoelectric power plants: a comprehensive assessment of self-reported cooling water data. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124030 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Tidwell, V. C., Bailey, M., Zemlick, K. M. & Moreland, B. D. Water supply as a constraint on transmission expansion planning in the western interconnection. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 124001 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Lee, U., Han, J., Elgowainy, A. & Wang, M. Regional water consumption for hydro and thermal electricity generation in the United States. Appl. Energy 210, 661–672 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Wang, R., Zimmerman, J. B., Wang, C., Vivanco, D. F. & Hertwich, E. G. Freshwater vulnerability beyond local water stress: heterogenous effects of water–electricity nexus across the Continental United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 9899–9910 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Fthenakis, V. & Kim, H. C. Life-cycle uses of water in US electricity generation. Renew. Sustainable Energy Rev. 14, 2039–2048 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Herath, I., Deurer, M., Horne, D., Singh, R. & Clothier, B. The water footprint of hydroelectricity: a methodological comparison from a case study in New Zealand. J. Clean. Prod. 19, 1582–1589 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Mekonnen, M., Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. & Hoekstra, A. The consumptive water footprint of electricity and heat: A global assessment. Environ. Sci. Water Res. Technol. 1, 285–297 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Zhang, X. et al. China’s coal-fired power plants impose pressure on water resources. J. Clean. Prod. 161, 1171–1179 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Solley, W. B., Pierce, R. R. & Perlman, H. A. Estimated Use of Water in the United States in 1995 (US Geological Survey, 1998).

  24. 24.

    Stillwell, A. S., Clayton, M. E. & Webber, M. E. Technical analysis of a river basin-based model of advanced power plant cooling technologies for mitigating water management challenges. Environ. Res. Lett. 6, 034015 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Stillwell, A. S., King, C. W., Webber, M. E., Duncan, I. J. & Hardberger, A. The energy–water nexus in Texas. Ecol. Soc. 16, 2 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Grubert, E. A., Beach, F. C. & Webber, M. E. Can switching fuels save water? a life cycle quantification of freshwater consumption for Texas coal- and natural gas-fired electricity. Environ. Res. Lett. 7, 045801 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Peer, R. A. & Sanders, K. T. The water consequences of a transitioning US power sector. Appl. Energy 210, 613–622 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Hoekstra, A. Y. & Chapagain, A. K. Globalization of Water: Sharing the Planet’s Freshwater Resources (John Wiley & Sons, Malden, 2008).

  29. 29.

    Mekonnen, M. M. & Hoekstra, A. Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 15, 1577–1600 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Hoekstra, A. Y. & Mekonnen, M. M. The water footprint of humanity. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 3232–3237 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M. & Mekonnen, M. M. The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard (Routledge, 2011).

  32. 32.

    Logan, L. H. & Stillwell, A. S. Probabilistic assessment of aquatic species risk from thermoelectric power plant effluent: Incorporating biology into the energy-water nexus. Appl. Energy 210, 434–450 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Lubega, W. N. & Stillwell, A. S. Maintaining electric grid reliability under hydrologic drought and heat wave conditions. Appl. Energy 210, 538–549 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Allan, J. A. Virtual water: a strategic resource. Ground Water 36, 545–547 (1998).

    Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Konar, M. et al. Water for food: the global virtual water trade network. Water Resour. Res. 47, W05520 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Konar, M., Dalin, C., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. Temporal dynamics of blue and green virtual water trade networks. Water Resour. Res. 48, W07509 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Dalin, C., Konar, M., Hanasaki, N., Rinaldo, A. & Rodriguez-Iturbe, I. Evolution of the global virtual water trade network. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 109, 5989–5994 (2012).

    Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Carr, J. A., D’Odorico, P., Laio, F. & Ridolfi, L. Recent history and geography of virtual water trade. PLoS One 8, e55825 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Shi, J., Liu, J. & Pinter, L. Recent evolution of China’s virtual water trade: analysis of selected crops and considerations for policy. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 18, 1349–1357 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Dang, Q., Lin, X. & Konar, M. Agricultural virtual water flows within the United States. Water Resour. Res. 51, 973–986 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Chini, C. M., Konar, M. & Stillwell, A. S. Direct and indirect urban water footprints of the United States. Water Resour. Res. 53, 316–327 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Marston, L., Konar, M., Cai, X. & Troy, T. J. Virtual groundwater transfers from overexploited aquifers in the United States. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 112, 8561–8566 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Chini, C. M., Schreiber, K. L., Barker, Z. A. & Stillwell, A. S. Quantifying energy and water savings in the US residential sector. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 9003–9012 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  44. 44.

    Cohen, E. & Ramaswami, A. The water withdrawal footprint of energy supply to cities. J. Ind. Ecol. 18, 26–39 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Ruddell, B. L., Adams, E. A., Rushforth, R. & Tidwell, V. C. Embedded resource accounting for coupled natural–human systems: An application to water resource impacts of the western US electrical energy trade. Water. Resources Res. 50, 7957–7972 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Bartos, M. D. & Chester, M. V. The conservation nexus: Valuing interdependent water and energy savings in Arizona. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 2139–2149 (2014).

    Google Scholar 

  47. 47.

    Grubert, E. A. & Webber, M. E. Energy for water and water for energy on Maui Island, Hawaii. Environ. Res. Lett. 10, 064009 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  48. 48.

    DeNooyer, T. A., Peschel, J. M., Zhang, Z. & Stillwell, A. S. Integrating water resources and power generation: the energy–water nexus in Illinois. Appl. Energy 162, 363–371 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  49. 49.

    Ryan, N. A., Johnson, J. X. & Keoleian, G. A. Comparative assessment of models and methods to calculate grid electricity emissions. Environ. Sci. Technol. 50, 8937–8953 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  50. 50.

    Zhang, C. et al. Virtual scarce water embodied in inter-provincial electricity transmission in China. Appl. Energy 187, 438–448 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  51. 51.

    Liao, X., Zhao, X., Hall, W. & Guan, D. Categorising virtual water transfers through China’s electric power sector. Appl. Energy 226, 252–260 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  52. 52.

    Rushforth, R. R. & Ruddell, B. L. A spatially detailed blue water footprint of the United States economy. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 22, 3007–3032 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Kelley, S. & Pasqualetti, M. Virtual water from a vanishing river. J. Am. Water Works Ass. 105, E471–E479 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  54. 54.

    Zhang, C. et al. International energy trade impacts on water resource crises: An embodied water flows perspective. Environ. Res. Lett. 11, 074023 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  55. 55.

    Net Generation by Energy Source: Electric Utilities, 2006–2016 Table 3.2.a. (US Energy Information Administration, 2017);

  56. 56.

    McCall, J., Macknick, J. & Hillman, D. Water-related Power Plant Curtailments: an Overview of Incidents and Contributing Factors (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2016);

  57. 57.

    Chini, C. M. & Stillwell, A. S. The state of U.S. Urban water: data and the energy-water nexus. Water Resour. Res. 54, 1796–1811 (2018).

    Google Scholar 

  58. 58.

    Beck, R. & Kelley, A. Waters and Water Rights (Lexis-Nexis, New York, 2009).

  59. 59.

    Christian-Smith, J. et al. A Twenty-first Century US Water Policy (Oxford University Press, 2012).

  60. 60.

    Ji, L., Jia, X., Chiu, A. & Xu, M. Global electricity trade network: structures and implications. PLoS One 11, e0160869 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  61. 61.

    Qu, S., Liang, S. & Xu, M. CO2 emissions embodied in interprovincial electricity transmissions in China. Environ. Sci. Technol. 51, 10893–10902 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  62. 62.

    Meldrum, J., Nettles-Anderson, S., Heath, G. & Macknick, J. Life cycle water use for electricity generation: a review and harmonization of literature estimates. Environ. Res. Lett. 8, 015031 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  63. 63.

    Yan, Y. et al. Impact of Future Climate Variability on ERCOT Thermoelectric Power Generation. Tech. Rep. 75723 (Argonne National Laboratory, 2013).

  64. 64.

    Cook, M. A., King, C. W., Davidson, F. T. & Webber, M. E. Assessing the impacts of droughts and heat waves at thermoelectric power plants in the United States using integrated regression, thermodynamic, and climate models. Energy Reports 1, 193–203 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  65. 65.

    Pereira-Cardenal, S. J. Water-energy modelling: adaptation to water scarcity. Nat. Energy 1, 16004 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  66. 66.

    Van Vliet, M. T., Wiberg, D., Leduc, S. & Riahi, K. Power-generation system vulnerability and adaptation to changes in climate and water resources. Nat. Clim. Change 6, 375–380 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  67. 67.

    Zheng, X., Wang, C., Cai, W., Kummu, M. & Varis, O. The vulnerability of thermoelectric power generation to water scarcity in China: current status and future scenarios for power planning and climate change. Appl. Energy 171, 444–455 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  68. 68.

    Behrens, P. et al. Climate change and the vulnerability of electricity generation to water stress in the European Union. Nat. Energy 2, 17114 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Liu, L., Hejazi, M., Li, H., Forman, B. & Zhang, X. Vulnerability of US thermoelectric power generation to climate change when incorporating state-level environmental regulations. Nat. Energy 2, 17109 (2017).

    Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hoekstra, A. Y. & Chapagain, A. K. In Integrated Assessment of Water Resources and Global Change (eds. Craswell, E. et al.) 35–48 (Springer, Dordrecht, 2006).

  71. 71.

    Zhao, X. et al. Burden shifting of water quantity and quality stress from megacity Shanghai. Water Resour. Res. 52, 6916–6927 (2016).

    Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Electricity: Form EIA 923 (US Energy Information Administration, 2017);

  73. 73.

    Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2017);

  74. 74.

    Form no. 714 - Annual Electric Balancing Authority Area and Planning Area Report (US Federal Energy Reulatory Commission, 2017);

  75. 75.

    Hines, P., Cotilla-Sanchez, E. & Blumsack, S. Do topological models provide good information about electricity infrastructure vulnerability? Chaos 20, 033122 (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  76. 76.

    Bompard, E., Wu, D. & Xue, F. Structural vulnerability of power systems: a topological approach. Electr. Pow. Syst. Res. 81, 1334–1340 (2011).

    Google Scholar 

  77. 77.

    Wilson, W., Leipzig, T. & Griffths-Sattenspiel, B. Burning Our Rivers: The Water Footprint of Electricity (River Network, Portland, 2012).

Download references


C.M.C. was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship. L.A.D. received funding from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Civil and Environmental Engineering Department Fellowship. W.N.L. received funding from the Institute for Sustainability, Energy, and Environment at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. The authors thank B. Freitag, who helped create the network visualizations.

Author information




C.M.C., L.A.D., W.N.L. and A.S.S. formulated the study and wrote the manuscript. C.M.C. compiled the data, created figures and tables, and analysed the results. L.A.D. created the virtual water flow maps and provided results. W.N.L. provided analysis of the results. A.S.S. supervised the research.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashlynn S. Stillwell.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary figures

Supplementary figures 1–11

Supplementary tables

Supplementary tables 1–10

Supplementary Data 1

This zip file contains the Matlab and R scripts required to perform the analysis presented in this paper. There are four files: computeAnnualStatisticsRevised.m, computeTransferMatrix.m, ComputeGreyWaterFootprints.R, ComputeUncertainties.R. The file computeAnnualStatisticsRevised.m uses the electricity transfer matrices and datasets in Supplementary tables 3–9 to create blue and grey water transfer matrices, network statistics and other relevant data. The file computeTransferMatrix.m uses the dataset in Supplementary table 2 to create a set of matrices of electricity transfers, where one matrix corresponds to a single year of transfers (2010–2016).The file ComputeGreyWaterFootprints.R adds a supplemented value of grey water footprint to United States Energy Information Administration (EIA) form 923 using the methods described in the paper. The script relies on the dataset in Supplementary table 10. It provides the input for computing uncertainties and eventual aggregation of blue and grey water at the principal component analysis (PCA) level. The file ComputeUncertainties.R utilizes the supplemented EIA form 923 from the above R script to determine 25th percentile, median, and 75th percentile values of blue and grey water resources for each thermoelectric power plant. This script uses the methodology described in the main text and computes uncertainty based on all 12 months of the year. These data are used to compute a PCA-level water footprint.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chini, C.M., Djehdian, L.A., Lubega, W.N. et al. Virtual water transfers of the US electric grid. Nat Energy 3, 1115–1123 (2018).

Download citation

Further reading


Quick links