Recent Trends in Water Use and Production for California Oil Production.

Recent droughts and concerns about water use for petroleum extraction renew the need to inventory water use for oil production. We quantified water volumes used and produced by conventional oil production and hydraulic fracturing (HF) in California. Despite a 25% decrease in conventional oil production from 1999 to 2012, total water use increased by 30% though much of that increase was derived from reuse of produced water. Produced water volumes increased by 50%, with increasing amounts disposed in unlined evaporation ponds or released to surface water. Overall freshwater use (constituting 1.2% of the state's nonagricultural water consumption) increased by 46% during this period due to increased freshwater-intensive tertiary oil production. HF has been practiced in California for more than 30 years, accounting for 1% of total oil production in 2012 from mostly directional and vertical wells. Water use intensity for HF wells in California averaged at 3.5 vol water/vol oil production in 2012 and 2.4 vol/vol in 2013, higher than the range from literature estimates and net water use intensity of conventional production (1.2 vol/vol in 2012). Increasing water use and disposal for oil production have important implications for water management and have potentially adverse health, environmental, and ecological impacts.

Long-term shifts in life-cycle energy efficiency and carbon intensity.

The quantity of primary energy needed to support global human activity is in large part determined by how efficiently that energy is converted to a useful form. We estimate the system-level life-cycle energy efficiency (EF) and carbon intensity (CI) across primary resources for 2005-2100. Our results underscore that although technological improvements at each energy conversion process will improve technology efficiency and lead to important reductions in primary energy use, market mediated effects and structural shifts toward less efficient pathways and pathways with multiple stages of conversion will dampen these efficiency gains. System-level life-cycle efficiency may decrease as mitigation efforts intensify, since low-efficiency renewable systems with high output have much lower GHG emissions than some high-efficiency fossil fuel systems. Climate policies accelerate both improvements in EF and the adoption of renewable technologies, resulting in considerably lower primary energy demand and GHG emissions. Life-cycle EF and CI of useful energy provide a useful metric for understanding dynamics of implementing climate policies. The approaches developed here reiterate the necessity of a combination of policies that target efficiency and decarbonized energy technologies. We also examine life-cycle exergy efficiency (ExF) and find that nearly all of the qualitative results hold regardless of whether we use ExF or EF.

Life cycle water consumption and withdrawal requirements of ethanol from corn grain and residues.

We assessed the water requirements of ethanol from corn grain and crop residue. Estimates are explicit in terms of sources-green (GW) and blue (BW) water, consumptive and nonconsumptive requirements across the lifecycle, including evapotranspiration, application and conveyance losses, biorefinery uses, and water use of energy inputs, and displaced requirements or credits due to coproducts. Ethanol consumes 50-146 L/vehicle kilometer traveled (VKT) of BW and 1-60 L/VKT of GW for irrigated corn and 0.6 L/VKT of BW and 70-137 L/VKT of GW for rain-fed corn after coproduct credits. Extending the system boundary to consider application and conveyance losses and the water requirements of embodied energy increases the total BW withdrawal from 23% to 38% and BW + GW consumption from 5% to 16%. We estimate that, in 2009, 15-19% of irrigation water is used to produce the corn required for ethanol in Kansas and Nebraska without coproduct credits and 8-10% after credits. Harvesting and converting the cob to ethanol reduces both the BW and GW intensities by 13%. It is worth noting that the use of GW is not without impacts, and the water quantity and water quality impacts at the local/seasonal scale can be significant for both fossil fuel and biofuel.