Climate change mitigation
policies typically fall into three categories: demand
side, supply side and sequestration or storage
focused strategies (IPCC
2007b). Demand
side policies aim to reduce energy consumption and thus emissions
of greenhouse gasses
. Supply side policies shift the generation of energy away from fossil fuels
to low-carbon sources. Sequestration approaches encourage the use of natural storage of greenhouse gasses in the landscape. Reducing greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere to achieve an oft-expressed desire to limit global warming below 2 °C will require all of these approaches (Rogelj et al.
2013), and they all have implications for groundwater
storage
inventories. However, the groundwater consumption and storage implications of different mitigation measures vary considerably. Wallis et al. (
2014) reviewed the water use implications of 74 mitigation measures for Australia
and found that positive synergies existed between conserving energy and conserving water in a variety of demand management
interventions. However, they also found that neutral and negative outcomes for water consumption
are evident for a range of emerging low-emission energy technologies
, and similarly, that very negative consequences could be expected from carbon sequestration measures.
These findings are elaborated on below, specifically in relation to groundwater.
4.2.2.1 New and Emerging Energy Technologies
The quest for low-emission energy sources is driving rapid policy
change as regulations
, carbon pricing and technological innovation combine to favour rapid deployment
of more modern energy technologies
. The focus on reducing greenhouse gas emissions
has meant that the impacts on water resources have received very little attention. Booming industries, such as biofuels in the United States (US) and unconventional gas
production globally, have developed in advance of efforts by government
regulators to require application of better practices, including sustaining groundwater
resources (Hussey and Pittock
2012). In Australia
, new financial incentives for low-emission energy sources have been adopted without fully considering how well
carbon, energy and water markets
are harmonised to avoid externalities
(Pittock et al.
2013). To inform this analysis a number of cases with risks to groundwater from expansion of emerging energy technologies are considered, including biofuels, (hot-rock) geothermal
, unconventional gas
, solar thermal
and ground-source heating and cooling systems.
Biofuels
First generation biofuels use crops that are frequently irrigated from groundwater
like corn, sugar cane and beet to produce ethanol
and oil palm
and soy to generate biodiesel. Water consumption
to grow these feed stocks means that these alternative
fuels have water footprints several orders of magnitude higher than most conventional and renewable energy
systems (Gerbens-Leenes et al.
2008). Yet, there has been a rapid expansion of these industries driven by subsidies and renewable fuel quotas in jurisdictions including Australia
, Brazil
, the European Union
and the US (Pittock
2011).
There are reports that up to 28 l of irrigation
water are needed to produce enough soybeans to propel an average vehicle 1 km. In comparison, water needs for gasoline (petrol) are merely 0.33 l of water for each vehicle 1 km (King and Webber
2008). As is true for the agricultural sector generally, limiting the impacts on groundwater
resource
use by biofuels requires good governance
, including allocation
systems that cap extraction at sustainable
levels and maximise social and economic benefits from the water consumed. However, the political power of biofuel industries in some countries may compel policies that encourage non-sustainable use and allocation (Notaras
2011). For example, the 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act in the US mandates an increase in annual biofuels production, requiring an additional 56.8 billion litres of ethanol
by 2015 and an additional 60.6 billion litres of biofuels from cellulosic crops by 2022 (Dominguez-Faus et al.
2009). These mandated increases will likely increase the demand
for groundwater resources
, potentially pitting biofuel production against other irrigated agriculture
, including food
production
. In the absence of appropriate governance arrangements to allocate water resources efficiently between uses, this increased competition could have deleterious effects on both the water supply
base and commodity prices.
Simultaneously a number of transitions in less developed countries are beginning to revolve around biofuel related opportunities. Many producers are securing land and water resources in developing countries for production of crops, including for export of biofuels (Vermeulen and Cotula
2010; Zoomers
2010). In Africa, for example, agricultural proponents are pointing to little exploited groundwater
resources
as a major opportunity to expand production (MacDonald et al.
2012). To avoid the depletion
of aquifers that has taken place in developed economies, groundwater governance
will need to be strengthened in developing countries so as to manage these resources sustainably for both consumptive and non-consumptive purposes.
At the same time, there is a considerable global research effort into second generation biofuels from processing grass or timber cellulose (Sims et al.
2010) and third generation feedstock crops and techniques, which also raises interception questions for aquifer
recharge
. These ‘wonder’ crops, like jatropha
, are untested. While these species may be able to grow on degraded lands and generate benefits for people in developing countries (Openshaw
2000), it is likely that widespread plantings would more effectively intercept precipitation
and reduce aquifer recharge and surface runoff as land is cleared to establish the new crop (van Dijk and Keenan
2007). Proposals for third generation biofuels from farming microbes suggest that saline or wastewater may be used in these processes in the future (Yang et al.
2011), though commercial scale application has yet to be demonstrated. Each technological advance offers improvements in fuel production and may also meet other goals
such as a reduction in GHG emissions
, but biofuels are intrinsically linked with groundwater
resources
and can compete directly with agricultural food
crops for water and land.
In essence, current commercial biofuel production consumes significant water, for crop production, processing and transport, and if production is increased then pressures to exploit aquifers globally will also increase. Biomass for fuel production where irrigation and crop chemicals are also used results in greater risks of aquifer contamination and hence a potential reduction of economically-usable groundwater. Given the complex and often uncertain knock-on consequences of biofuels, policy interventions which aim to increase biofuel production must account for these risks.
Geothermal
The generation
of electricity
from steam from underground aquifers where circulating groundwater
is “boiled” by geological heat sources is a commercial energy technology and is sustainable
in regions with substantial aquifer
recharge
, such as in Iceland and New Zealand. Geothermal energy proponents are now exploring ways of generating electricity
from ‘hot rock’ sources, where aquifers are small or absent, by injecting water in one borehole
to be heated through fractured strata, then extracted as steam up a parallel borehole to generate electricity
. Geothermal generation may be sustainable in regions where there is plentiful water but in dry areas the source of water is uncertain. For example, much of the geothermal ‘hot rock’
resource in Australia
is located in arid areas or in the wet-dry tropics where surface water
resources are seasonal or absent (Goldstein et al.
2009).
Linking strata through boreholes and by fracking also raises the same questions (as for unconventional gas production) of managing potential risks of natural contaminants becoming incorporated in the production water and moving into previously constrained aquifers through fractures or borehole failures.
Unconventional Gas
Rising costs
of petroleum on international markets, the political drive to achieve greater energy independence, and the development of directional drilling and hydraulic fracturing techniques have significantly improved the economics
of natural gas as an energy source. Compared to conventional, free-flowing natural gas extraction, unconventional gas development involves production of methane
from multiple types of geological strata where the deposits are dewatered and/or fractured (fracked) to enable withdrawal
. This discussion will focus on the two most widespread resources, those in coal seams and those in shale (Cook et al.
2013).
Natural gas is a fossil fuel
and government
s around the world facilitate its exploitation for reasons of domestic energy security and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
. Scientists disagree on the extent to which unconventional gas production reduces greenhouse gas emissions owing to the risk of fugitive methane
leaking from poorly maintained valves and connections in the surface storage
and pipe-line infrastructure (Burnham et al.
2011). Nevertheless, in the best case scenario natural gas may reduce greenhouse gas emissions
by around half compared to coal-fired
generators (Burnham et al.
2011), thus receiving favourable treatment under carbon pricing schemes.
Coal seam, or coal bed, methane deposits are usually closer to the surface and production requires dewatering strata, resulting in the production of lower quality water. Shales with gas potential generally lie deeper in the earth, and gas development and most production methods currently used require the injection of large volumes of water. The directional drilling process and the subsequent hydraulic fracture of the shale target area involve the addition of various chemicals, compounds and proppants which are pumped under pressure to liberate natural gas from the rock formations. Contaminated flow-back water from hydraulic fracturing and ‘produce water’ (from the geological formations) over the lifetime of the gas well requires careful attention with respect to storage, treatment and disposal so as to avoid contamination risks to both surface and groundwater resources.
Common concerns
for aquifer
management
for coal seam, coal bed,
and shale gas
production identified by representatives from industry, researchers and regulators (Williams and Pittock
2012; Mauter et al.
2014), include potential for the creation of pathways for contaminant
migration both at depth and from surface infrastructure, toxicity information
for fracking chemicals, and to a lesser extent risks from induced seismicity
. Fracking chemicals are used to develop and maintain boreholes
and prop open the cracks in the strata to allow the gas to flow out. The toxicity of these chemicals is disputed, however many companies involved in the industry are supporting public disclosure laws and practices to demonstrate their confidence that the fluids will cause no harm. There are concerns that fracking may connect different rock strata
and enable contaminated water and methane
to migrate up into overlying freshwater aquifers, or even to the surface. The industry disputes
this concern
, saying that fracking is able to be limited to the target
, gas producing coal seam or shale strata. However, industry and other stakeholder
groups agree that inadequate borehole
construction may enable methane
and contaminated water to migrate into higher freshwater aquifer and to the surface.
There is a wealth of anecdotal accounts in the news media about the negative environmental
impacts of shale-gas development. However, a common concern
expressed by many groundwater
specialists about gas production, is the lack of hard data and information
in relation to migratory pathways. Knowledge and characterization about potential flow paths in the zone between the deep shale targets
(usually 2–3 km beneath the surface) and the freshwater aquifer
zones that may occur at depths up to 1 km is limited (Council of Canadian Academies
2014). At the same time, risks from gas related contamination
appear to be low, to date very few instances of possible methane
migration are documented in the US. Well
blowouts (casing failure) are rare because industry standard operating practices require a test of vertical well
casing integrity before proceeding with any hydraulic fracturing. Added to this is increased risk of earthquakes
induced by the injection of fluids, which in turn compounds the risk of that injected fluid leaking into other aquifers, either during the production of gas or at some later date. However, while research undertaken in the US indicates that injection-via-disposal wells may cause tremors (National Research Council
2013), there is very little evidence hitherto of fault or fracture propagation resulting from hydraulic fracturing.
Industry and many researchers consider that the greatest risk to water resources from gas production is leaks from production water containment ponds and other spills on the surface, including accidents with fluid transport trucks on rural roads (Mauter et al.
2014; Williams and Pittock
2012). Once production water is at the surface it requires treatment, re-use or disposal. In the US, the reinjection of production waters into saline zones in deep geological formations is common practice but not all gas producing areas have the geologic conditions for disposal by injection, and there is increased environmental
risk involved in transport to suitable areas. This raises questions as to the risk of polluting potentially beneficial aquifers in other locations. The practice of using closed or evaporative basins
to treat production water, especially saline water, was abandoned in Texas
as erosion often resulted in the breakdown of containment structures.
This analysis exposes a number of risks to aquifers from unconventional gas production that each has a technical solution, but only if the industry is consistently well governed and adheres to the highest standards of practice. As a result of public and political concerns, and because of the economic costs related to water use and disposal, the US oil and gas industry is currently researching and field-testing many different on-site water treatment technologies. In addition, technologies that reuse water or actually use zero water for the hydraulic fracturing process are in development. However, until there is a rise in the market value of gas, many of the promising technologies are unlikely to achieve widespread implementation.
One concern that has not yet been well addressed in the development of the unconventional gas industry is the future of groundwater in depleted and abandoned gas fields. Aquifer depletion can be expected over long periods of time if associated with gas deposits, or fractured strata newly capable of holding water will recharge. What is unclear is how this will affect other water resources on basin scales, for example whether other surface and groundwater deposits may be depleted if they begin to fill the new, often deeper voids that are left behind.
Solar Thermal
Solar thermal power is an emerging technology that uses mirrors in large scale facilities to boil water and generate steam for electricity production. Currently deployed in California and Spain, these power stations work best when located in sunny, arid and semi-arid regions where water is naturally scarce. While the volumes of water required are modest compared with many other forms of energy technologies, sustainable groundwater availability may be a limiting factor for the location of these stations in deserts.
The world’s largest solar thermal plant in the Mojave Desert
near the border of California
and Nevada
is the 392-MW Ivanpah project. At the official opening in 2014, the US Energy secretary stated that the station’s water needs for steam production “…will use roughly the same amount of water as two holes at the nearby golf course” (Phillips
2014). An additional water demand
from the desert
aquifers will be to regularly wash dust from the project’s 347,000 mirrors.
As with all thermal power stations, there is the option of deploying dry rather than wet cooling technology. Dry cooling
systems use less than 10 % of the water of a wet cooling system but have several drawbacks, including a higher, upfront capital cost; reduction in energy generation of around 8 %; and less effective operation with higher air temperatures, such as the arid areas where these power stations are located (DoE
2008).
Ivanpah uses a directly heated steam cycle that can only generate power when the sun shines. In the future, large-scale solar plants will likely use an energy storage
technology (such as the process that heats molten salt) so that energy can be stored and then ‘released’ whenever there is a load demand
(Phillips
2014). Globally, large schemes have been proposed to power countries like Australia
(BZE
2010) or whole regions such as northern Africa and Europe
based on solar thermal power stations, though the economies of such ventures has yet to prove favourable.
Production of hydrogen
for use as a renewable fuel in fuel cells, from the electrolysis of water using solar generated electricity
, is another possibility. If this hydrogen is combined with atmospheric nitrogen at high temperatures (which is possible in a solar thermal power station) to produce ammonia (NH
3)
as a renewable energy
fuel, it could regenerate the water, but some loss of water might be expected (Andrews and Shabani
2012; Balat
2008).
Aquifer Thermal Energy Systems
Aquifer
thermal energy storage
systems (ATES)
are common in Europe
and typically operate by running groundwater
through a cooling tower in winter and returning it to the aquifer
for storage. In summer, the chilled water is withdrawn, used for air conditioning and put back into the aquifer as warm water for use in winter to reduce heating costs. If closed loops are used to transfer heat the loop pipes are typically filled with food
-grade glycol so that in the unlikely event of a leak, there is minimal risk to groundwater quality
. Now, there is a growing trend in the US for using ground source heating and cooling technology for individual homes, schools, churches and office buildings. There are already over one million such installations in operation in the US. Ball State
University in Muncie, Illinois has installed a ground source system involving 3,600 boreholes
to service 622,450 m
2 of building space which will save the burning of 36,000 t of coal that was previously used each year (Roulo
2011).
When applied on a large scale for college campuses, military installations etc. this technology is providing a developing field for hydrogeologists to characterize subsurface heat transfer capabilities and to assess potential impacts on aquifers, particularly if the heat dissipation is dependent on groundwater flow. A concern is the potential build-up of groundwater temperatures which could progressively decrease heat transfer efficiency.
ATES
technology and ground source heating and cooling raise a number of issues for future groundwater
management
. As with other technologies
, their rapid increase in popularity since the 1990s has seen deployment
in advance of adequate regulatory oversight (Bonte et al.
2011). Both systems can interfere with other underground infrastructure for electricity
, water distribution and telecommunications technologies. The technology also raises questions of who owns the underground lands and waters and under what circumstances they can be exploited. The open systems risk diminishing biological and chemical
water quality
of aquifers through moving water about, and heating and cooling. The closed systems raise questions as to standards for containing the chemicals used and responsibilities for leaks and decommissioning.
Fossil Substitution
As the above
examples illustrate, new energy technologies
offer opportunities to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
but with some risks for groundwater
resources
. A number of the proponents of these newer technologies argue that they can be substitutes for water-intensive fossil fuel-fired power stations and thus may free up water for other uses. For example, Beyond Zero Emissions
argues that its proposal for a solar thermal
power station in Port Augusta, Australia
can be watered by decommissioning the local coal-fired
power station (BZE
2010). Certainly in regions with high concentration of coal-fired power stations this may free up water, for example, in the Latrobe and Hunter valleys in Australia. However, this may also shift water consumption
from places where water use is well
-regulated to places where governance
is poorer, for instance, from the two Australian coastal valleys to arid locations in the interior, where each litre of water may have more environmental
and socio-economic value
to other users. If government
s and societies want this sort of water substitution to occur, then it will require active facilitation and regulation
.
4.2.2.2 Risks to Groundwater from Carbon Sequestration in the Landscape
Carbon sequestration in the landscape, a subset of geoengineering proposals, is another component of mitigation policies that may impact on groundwater management and use. Two approaches to store greenhouse gases in the landscape are discussed here: geological carbon capture and storage, and carbon farming, including plantations.
Carbon dioxide (CO
2)
capture and sequestration (CCS)
is a process that involves underground injection and geologic storage
(sequestration) of CO
2 in deep underground rock formations that are overlain by impermeable rock that trap the CO
2 and prevent it from migrating upward. CCS can significantly reduce emissions
from industrial sources such as fossil fuel-fired power plants (EPA
2013). The US Department of Energy estimates that between 1,800 and 20,000 billion metric
tons of CO
2 could be stored underground in the US (c, 2012), a volume that is equivalent to 600–6,700 years of current level emissions
from large stationary sources in the US (GHGRP 2012). Moreover, while sequestration removes CO
2, that might otherwise impact the atmosphere, according to the US EPA Greenhouse Gas
Reporting Program, CO
2 capture for industrial reuse is currently occurring at over 120 facilities in the US. End users of CO
2 include enhanced oil recovery, food
and beverage manufacturing, pulp and paper manufacturing, and metal fabrication.
The success of CCS
requires very low rates of leakage. The widespread drilling of gas wells has been cited as a risk to the security of potential CCS sites (Elliot and Celia
2012) and widespread bore-holes
used previously in searches for oil and other minerals may also cause leakages. Thousands of such bore-holes were drilled in the early twentieth century, and their precise locations and seals are often unknown. In terms of groundwater
, the primary concern
is whether placement of waste gases underground will result in reductions of
groundwater quality
.
In contrast with CCS, sequestration of carbon in land and vegetation is practised internationally. In some nations, it is used either to earn or sell carbon credits in a formal market or in schemes to offset emissions in other sectors. As an example, many airlines now offer passengers the option of paying extra to offset the emissions from their flights through tree planting.
Planting trees
to sequester carbon is the most common method advanced because of its many co-benefits, in terms of such services as biodiversity and soil conservation, production of non-timber forest
products, and aesthetic improvements to the landscape. However, forests will normally intercept more precipitation
than non-forested land uses
, diminishing surface runoff into streams and aquifer
recharge
(van Dijk and Keenan
2007; Jackson et al.
2005). This inflow interception may not have significant impacts in wet environments such as in the wet tropics, but in the temperate zone significant reductions in flows are likely. In past decades in Australia
, tree planting
has been actively encouraged to reduce groundwater
recharge
in areas subject to salinity. Several means of reducing these impacts on water resources are possible, including: incorporating the plantation sector into cap and trade water markets
, as occurs in South Australia and South Africa
; limiting afforestation to landscapes where the impacts may be acceptable, such as the wet tropics and salinity prone lands; or scheduling planting over decades so that the impacts are spread over a longer period of time (Pittock et al.
2013).
A number of other methods are being actively promoted to sequester more carbon in soils
, although there is little evidence of widespread application thus far. Incorporating more biomass
into soils is promoted as a way of enhancing agricultural productivity by improving soil structure, fertility and water infiltration, as well
as sequestering carbon (Henriksen et al.
2011). Biochar – adding charcoal to soils – has a very active group of promoters (Kleiner
2009; Sohi et al.
2009). A lot of research investment has focussed at the field scale on the longevity of the carbon sequestration
with often disappointing results (Lam et al.
2013). A common claim is that by developing more friable soils
that these methods will enable more precipitation
to be stored in the soil and advantage crop growth. If this proves to be the case one potential outcome is diminished surface runoff and aquifer
recharge
.
Internationally, carbon sequestration
in the landscape has a mandate under the umbrella of ‘land use
change and forestry’ and it is being deployed through two programs of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change. The Clean Development Mechanism
and proposed REDD+ scheme (Reduced Emissions
from Degradation and Deforestation plus) enable projects applying approved methodologies for reducing emissions or sequestering carbon in land and vegetation
in developing countries to generate carbon credits (CDM Executive Board
2010; Pritchard
2009). However, the Clean Development Mechanism
’s current procedures for assessing and considering any negative impacts of proposed projects on water resources are token (Pittock
2010).
Australia
is one nation that has legislated in the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2012 for market-based carbon sequestration
in the landscape, based on the Clean Development Mechanism
’s approach of approved methodologies (Australian Government
2011). The Act’s regulations
attempt to limit the impact of carbon plantations on water by prohibiting commercial timber production and planting in areas within the 600 mm/year and above rainfall isohyet, subject to a number of exemptions (DCCEE
2011). The 600 mm/year rainfall isohyet was chosen as a threshold
above which surface water
runoff may be expected, however this may unreasonably restrict planting in environments where impacts may be insignificant, as in the tropics. The exemptions include planting for biodiversity conservation, and those agreed by poorly-resourced, state
government
mandated natural resource management
organisations. National policy
agreements to include significant inflow interception activities (including groundwater
recharge
) within cap and trade water markets
have only been implemented by one of the eight states and territories (NWC
2011). Consequently this odd collection of half implemented policies and the exemptions mean that there is a strong prospect of perverse impacts on groundwater recharge.
Many other nations have prioritised reforestation in their climate mitigation policies, including China
, India
and Mexico
, indicating that managing the trade-offs
between planting for carbon sequestration
and water use is a growing global challenge (Pittock
2011). The links between the projected impacts of climate change and the sustainable
management
of surface and groundwater
resources
makes the challenge all the more complex. For example, with so many countries pursuing carbon sequestration
through tree plantings
, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s projections for increased wildfire frequency and intensity, it is not inconceivable that government
s may be increasing the risks of even bigger and more devastating wildfires by pursuing policies that are, ironically, attempting to mitigate the impacts of climate change. And, of course, the knock-on consequences of more frequent and intense wildfires are insidious: denuded catchments which in turn lead to more floods
, erosion and siltation of water storages
, which has important implications for the sustainable use of
groundwater resources.