Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. 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.

  • Article
  • Published:

Global assessment of the carbon–water tradeoff of dry cooling for thermal power generation

Nature Water volume 1, pages 682–693 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

Water scarcity and climate change are dual challenges that could potentially threaten energy security. Yet, integrated water–carbon management frameworks coupling diverse water- and carbon-mitigation technologies at high spatial heterogeneity are largely underdeveloped. Here we build a global unit-level framework to investigate the CO2 emission and energy penalty due to the deployment of dry cooling—a critical water mitigation strategy—together with alternative water sourcing and carbon capture and storage under climate scenarios. We find that CO2 emission and energy penalty for dry cooling units are location and climate specific (for example, 1–15% of power output), often demonstrating notably faster efficiency losses than rising temperature, especially under the high climate change scenario. Despite energy and CO2 penalties associated with alternative water treatment and carbon capture and storage utilization, increasing wastewater and brine water accessibility provide potential alternatives to dry cooling for water scarcity alleviation, whereas CO2 storage can help to mitigate dry cooling-associated CO2 emission tradeoffs when alternative water supply is insufficient. By demonstrating an integrative planning framework, our study highlights the importance of integrated power sector planning under interconnected dual water–carbon challenges.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Age structure of global dry cooling generation capacity and associated water–carbon interactions.
Fig. 2: Spatial pattern of global dry cooling generation units associated water–carbon interactions.
Fig. 3: Share of generation capacity and water–carbon impacts by efficiency loss.
Fig. 4: Increasing dry cooling units’ efficiency loss under a warming climate.
Fig. 5: Historical integrated dry cooling with alternative water sourcing and carbon mitigation.

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability

Data used to perform this work can be found in Supplementary Information. Numerical results for Figs. 1–5 and Extended Data Fig. 1 will be provided with this paper as source data, any further data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding authors upon request. Source data are provided with this paper.

Code availability

Computer code or algorithm used to generate results that are reported in the paper and central to the main claims are available from the corresponding authors upon request.

References

  1. King, C. W., Holman, A. S. & Webber, M. E. Thirst for energy. Nat. Geosci. 1, 283–286 (2008).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Webster, M., Donohoo, P. & Palmintier, B. Water–CO2 trade-offs in electricity generation planning. Nat. Clim. Change 3, 1029–1032 (2013).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Liu, Z. et al. Carbon Monitor, a near-real-time daily dataset of global CO2 emission from fossil fuel and cement production. Sci. Data 7, 392 (2020).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Zhang, C., Zhong, L. & Wang, J. Decoupling between water use and thermoelectric power generation growth in China. Nat. Energy 3, 792–799 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Tidwell, V. C., Macknick, J., Zemlick, K., Sanchez, J. & Woldeyesus, T. Transitioning to zero freshwater withdrawal in the U.S. for thermoelectric generation. Appl. Energy 131, 508–516 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Siddiqi, A., Kajenthira, A. & DíazAnadónb, L. Bridging decision networks for integrated water and energy planning. Energy Strategy Rev. 2, 46–58 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Vulnerability of US and European electricity supply to climate change. Nat. Clim. Change 2, 676–681 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Wang, Y. et al. Vulnerability of existing and planned coal-fired power plants in Developing Asia to changes in climate and water resources. Energy Environ. Sci. 12, 3164–3181 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. van Vliet, M. T. H., Vogele, S. & Rubbelke, D. Water constraints on European power supply under climate change: impacts on electricity prices. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/8/3/035010 (2013).

  12. van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Multi-model assessment of global hydropower and cooling water discharge potential under climate change. Glob. Environ. Change 40, 156–170 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Behrens, P., van Vliet, M. T. H., Nanninga, T., Walsh, B. & Rodrigues, J. F. D. Climate change and the vulnerability of electricity generation to water stress in the European Union. Nat. Energy https://doi.org/10.1038/nenergy.2017.114 (2017).

  14. Grubert, E., Beach, F. & Webber, M. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Qin, Y. et al. Air quality–carbon–water synergies and trade-offs in China’s natural gas industry. Nat. Sustain. 1, 505–511 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Johst, M. & Rothstein, B. Reduction of cooling water consumption due to photovoltaic and wind electricity feed-in. Renew. Sust. Energ. Rev. 35, 311–317 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 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).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Zhang, C., Anadon, L. D., Mo, H. P., Zhao, Z. N. & Liu, Z. Water–carbon trade-off in China’s coal power industry. Environ. Sci. Technol. 48, 11082–11089 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Macknick, J., Newmark, R., Heath, G. & Hallett, K. C. Operational water consumption and withdrawal factors for electricity generating technologies: a review of existing literature. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/045802 (2012).

  20. Jones, E., Qadir, M., van Vliet, M. T. H., Smakhtin, V. & Kang, S. M. The state of desalination and brine production: a global outlook. Sci. Total Environ. 657, 1343–1356 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Jones, E. R., Vliet, M. T. H., Qadir, M. & Bierkens, M. F. P. Country-level and gridded estimates of wastewater production, collection, treatment and reuse. Earth Syst. Sci. Data 13, 237–254 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Thorslund, J. & van Vliet, M. T. H. A global dataset of surface water and groundwater salinity measurements from 1980-2019. Sci. Data https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-020-0562-z (2020).

  23. van Vliet, M. T. H. et al. Global water scarcity including surface water quality and expansions of clean water technologies. Environ. Res. Lett. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abbfc3 (2021).

  24. Yu, X. Z. et al. Mapping research on carbon neutrality in WWTPs between 2001 and 2021: a scientometric and visualization analysis. Sustain. Horizons https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2022.100022 (2022).

  25. Qin, Y. et al. Flexibility and intensity of global water use. Nat. Sustain. 2, 515–523 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Ackerman, F. & Fisher, J. Is there a water–energy nexus in electricity generation? Long-term scenarios for the western United States. Energ. Policy 59, 235–241 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Sovacool, B. K. & Sovacool, K. E. Preventing national electricity-water crisis areas in the United States. Colum. J. Envtl. L. 34, 333 (2009).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Xing, X. et al. Spatially explicit analysis identifies significant potential for bioenergy with carbon capture and storage in China. Nat. Commun. 12, 1–12 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Sanchez, D. L., Nelson, J. H., Johnston, J., Mileva, A. & Kammen, D. M. Biomass enables the transition to a carbon-negative power system across western North America. Nat. Clim. Change 5, 230–234 (2015).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Wanders, N. & Wada, Y. Human and climate impacts on the 21st century hydrological drought. J. Hydrol. 526, 208–220 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wanders, N., Wada, Y. & Van Lanen, H. A. J. Global hydrological droughts in the 21st century under a changing hydrological regime. Earth Syst. Dynam. 6, 1–15 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Qin, Y. Global competing water uses for food and energy. Environ. Res. Lett. 16, 064091 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Vorosmarty, C. J., Green, P., Salisbury, J. & Lammers, R. B. Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth. Science 289, 284–288 (2000).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wei, Y. M. et al. A proposed global layout of carbon capture and storage in line with a 2 °C climate target. Nat. Clim. Change 11, 112–118 (2021).

  35. Irannezhad, M., Ahmadi, B., Liu, J., Chen, D. & Matthews, J. H. Global water security: a shining star in the dark sky of achieving the sustainable development goals. Sustain. Horizons https://doi.org/10.1016/j.horiz.2021.100005 (2022).

  36. Tong, D. et al. Committed emissions from existing energy infrastructure jeopardize 1.5 °C climate target. Nature 572, 373–377 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. World Electric Power Plants (WEPP) Database 2017 Version (S&P Global Commodity Insights, 2018); https://www.platts.com/products/world-electric-power-plants-database.

  38. Zhang, C., Zhong, L., Fu, X., Wang, J. & Wu, Z. Revealing water stress by the thermal power industry in China based on a high spatial resolution water withdrawal and consumption inventory. Environ. Sci. Technol. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b05374 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  39. Spang, E. S., Moomaw, W. R., Gallagher, K. S., Kirshen, P. H. & Marks, D. H. The water consumption of energy production: an international comparison. Environ. Res. Lett. 9, 105002 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Delgado, A. & Herzog, H. J. A simple model to help understand water use at power plants. Massachusetts Institute of Technology Energy Initiative. Working paper. (2012).

  41. Fricko, O. et al. Energy sector water use implications of a 2 °C climate policy. Environ. Res. Lett. 11,034011 (2016).

  42. Sutanudjaja, E. H. et al. PCR-GLOBWB 2: a 5 arcmin global hydrological and water resources model. Geosci. Model Dev. 11, 2429–2453 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bosmans, J. et al. FutureStreams, a global dataset of future streamflow and water temperature. Sci. Data https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-022-01410-6 (2022).

  44. van Beek, L. P. H., Eikelboom, T., van Vliet, M. T. H. & Bierkens, M. F. P. A physically based model of global freshwater surface temperature. Water Resour. Res. 48, W09530 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Wanders, N., van Vliet, M. T. H., Wada, Y., Bierkens, M. F. P. & van Beek, L. P. H. High-resolution global water temperature modeling. Water Resour. Res. 55, 2760–2778 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Technical Development Document for the Final Regulations Addressing Cooling Water Intake Structures for New Facilities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division (EPA, 2001).

  47. Barbarossa, V. et al. Threats of global warming to the world’s freshwater fishes. Nat. Commun. 12, 1701 (2021).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Oki, T. & Kanae, S. Global hydrological cycles and world water resources. Science 313, 1068–1072 (2006).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Baines, S., Wright, A., Lashko, E. & Robertson, H. CO2 Storage Resource Catalogue-Cycle 2. 10365GLOB-Rep-02-03 (Global CCS Institute, 2021).

  50. Buscheck, T. A. et al. Combining brine extraction, desalination, and residual-brine reinjection with CO2 storage in saline formations: implications for pressure management, capacity, and risk mitigation. Energy Procedia 4, 4283–4290 (2011).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  51. Gonzalez-Nicolas, A. et al. Pressure management via brine extraction in geological CO2 storage: adaptive optimization strategies under poorly characterized reservoir conditions. Int. J. Greenh. Gas Control 83, 176–185 (2019).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Breunig, H. M. et al. Assessment of Brine Management for Geologic Carbon Sequestration (Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Environmental Energy Technologies Division, Indoor Environment Group, 2013).

  53. Free vector and raster map data. Natural Earth https://www.naturalearthdata.com/ (2022).

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant 72140003 to C.H., grant 42277482 to Y.Q., and grant 42130708 and grant 42277087 to C.H.). C.H. acknowledges support from the Scientific Research Start-up Funds (QD2021030C) from Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School. J.M.B. was funded by the United States National Science Foundation Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems (INFEWS grant 1739909) and National Research Traineeship (NRT grant 1922666) and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation’s Net-Zero and Negative Emissions Technologies programme (grant 2020–12,466). G.H. acknowledges support from the Global Energy Initiative at ClimateWorks Foundation (no. 23-2515). J.B. at RU was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO), grant number 016.Vici.170.190.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Key Laboratory of Water and Sediment Sciences, Ministry of Education, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Yue Qin

  2. College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Yue Qin, Shiyu Li & Liangdian Huang

  3. Institute of Carbon Neutrality, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Yue Qin & Hang Deng

  4. Environmental Sciences Division and Climate Change Science Institute, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN, USA

    Yaoping Wang

  5. College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing, China

    Hang Deng

  6. Department of Physical Geography, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

    Niko Wanders

  7. Department of Environmental Science, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Joyce Bosmans

  8. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Ecological Remediation and Carbon Sequestration, Institute of Environment and Ecology, Tsinghua Shenzhen International Graduate School, Tsinghua University, Shenzhen, China

    Chaopeng Hong

  9. State Environmental Protection Key Laboratory of Sources and Control of Air Pollution Complex, Beijing, China

    Chaopeng Hong

  10. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg, Austria

    Edward Byers

  11. Department of Civil, Environmental, and Geodetic Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Daniel Gingerich & Jeffrey M. Bielicki

  12. Department of Integrated Systems Engineering, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Daniel Gingerich

  13. Sustainability Institute, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Daniel Gingerich & Jeffrey M. Bielicki

  14. John Glenn College of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Jeffrey M. Bielicki

  15. Department of Technology and Society, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY, USA

    Gang He

  16. Marxe School of Public and International Affairs, Baruch College, City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Gang He

Authors
  1. Yue Qin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yaoping Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Shiyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hang Deng
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Niko Wanders
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joyce Bosmans
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Liangdian Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Chaopeng Hong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Edward Byers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Daniel Gingerich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Jeffrey M. Bielicki
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Gang He
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Y.Q. and C.H. designed this study, Y.Q., Y.W., S.L., H.D., N.W., J.B., L.H. and C.H. analysed the data, Y.Q., E.B., D.G., J.M.B. and G.H. wrote the paper with input from all co-authors.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Yue Qin or Chaopeng Hong.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Water thanks Vincent Tidwell, Kelly Sanders and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

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

Extended data

Extended Data Fig. 1 Unit-level and aggregated dry cooling units’ efficiency loss against ambient temperature.

(a) Exposure of unit-level dry cooling fleets with different engine types to monthly ambient temperature, and their corresponding turbine efficiency loss-temperature responses. n represents sample sizes. The mean (white dot), 25th and 75th percentiles (box), and 10th and 90th percentiles (botom and upper short black horizontal lines) are displayed, and minima/maxima are indicated by the violin plot range. The majority thermal units are exposed to ambient temperature either above its stationary point (for example, combustible steam) or between the minimum and maximum stationary points (as defined in Supplementary Table 1), thus are mostly demonstrating non-linear turbine efficiency loss increases with increasing temperature. (b) Relative share of different dry cooling engine types, which is dominated by combustible steam. (c) Relative increasing rates between unit-level turbine efficiency losses and ambient temperature (Tas), illustrating faster turbine efficiency loss increases than ambient temperature for different dry cooling engine types. (d) Slopes and corresponding linear regression for aggregated dry cooling fleets under different RCP scenarios in main text Fig. 4c, upper and lower 95% confidence interval indicate the 97.5th and 2.5th percentile, respectively. (e) Relative increasing rates between aggregated efficiency losses and corresponding ambient temperature (Tas).

Source data

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary notes, Figs. 1–23 and Tables 1–3.

Reporting Summary

Source data

Source Data Fig. 1

Age-specific dry cooling generation capacity.

Source Data Fig. 2

Unit-level geo-coordinates, avoided water withdrawal, increased CO2 emissions, increased efficiency losses and increased CO2 emissions per avoided water withdrawal for dry cooling units compared with once-through freshwater cooling.

Source Data Fig. 3

Generation capacity share for dry cooling units with different levels of efficiency losses by fuel, region and seasons.

Source Data Fig. 4

Model-specific ambient temperature, efficiency loss and Δefficiency loss/ΔTas under different RCP scenarios, together with unit-level scaling factors for three RCPs.

Source Data Fig. 5

Unit-level efficiency loss, RWA and CCS.

Source Data Extended Data Fig./Table 1

Fuel-specific ambient temperature exposure; statistic regression between temperature and efficiency loss.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Qin, Y., Wang, Y., Li, S. et al. Global assessment of the carbon–water tradeoff of dry cooling for thermal power generation. Nat Water 1, 682–693 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00120-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-023-00120-6

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Anthropocene

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Anthropocene newsletter — what matters in anthropocene research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Anthropocene