Literature DB >> 20496650

Burning water: a comparative analysis of the energy return on water invested.

Kenneth Mulder1, Nathan Hagens, Brendan Fisher.   

Abstract

While various energy-producing technologies have been analyzed to assess the amount of energy returned per unit of energy invested, this type of comprehensive and comparative approach has rarely been applied to other potentially limiting inputs such as water, land, and time. We assess the connection between water and energy production and conduct a comparative analysis for estimating the energy return on water invested (EROWI) for several renewable and non-renewable energy technologies using various Life Cycle Analyses. Our results suggest that the most water-efficient, fossil-based technologies have an EROWI one to two orders of magnitude greater than the most water-efficient biomass technologies, implying that the development of biomass energy technologies in scale sufficient to be a significant source of energy may produce or exacerbate water shortages around the globe and be limited by the availability of fresh water.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20496650      PMCID: PMC3357661          DOI: 10.1007/s13280-009-0003-x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ambio        ISSN: 0044-7447            Impact factor:   5.129


  15 in total

1.  Global water resources: vulnerability from climate change and population growth.

Authors:  C J Vörösmarty; P Green; J Salisbury; R B Lammers
Journal:  Science       Date:  2000-07-14       Impact factor: 47.728

2.  Energy returns on ethanol production.

Authors:  Nathan Hagens; Robert Costanza; Kenneth Mulder
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-06-23       Impact factor: 47.728

3.  US biofuels: a field in ferment.

Authors:  Katharine Sanderson
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2006-12-07       Impact factor: 49.962

Review 4.  The path forward for biofuels and biomaterials.

Authors:  Arthur J Ragauskas; Charlotte K Williams; Brian H Davison; George Britovsek; John Cairney; Charles A Eckert; William J Frederick; Jason P Hallett; David J Leak; Charles L Liotta; Jonathan R Mielenz; Richard Murphy; Richard Templer; Timothy Tschaplinski
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-01-27       Impact factor: 47.728

5.  Ethanol can contribute to energy and environmental goals.

Authors:  Alexander E Farrell; Richard J Plevin; Brian T Turner; Andrew D Jones; Michael O'Hare; Daniel M Kammen
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-01-27       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Biofuels bandwagon hits a rut.

Authors:  Lucy Odling-Smee
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2007-03-29       Impact factor: 49.962

7.  The water intensity of the plugged-in automotive economy.

Authors:  Carey W King; Michael E Webber
Journal:  Environ Sci Technol       Date:  2008-06-15       Impact factor: 9.028

8.  Energy return on investment: toward a consistent framework.

Authors:  Kenneth Mulder; Nathan John Hagens
Journal:  Ambio       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 5.129

9.  Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels.

Authors:  Jason Hill; Erik Nelson; David Tilman; Stephen Polasky; Douglas Tiffany
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2006-07-12       Impact factor: 11.205

10.  Carbon-negative biofuels from low-input high-diversity grassland biomass.

Authors:  David Tilman; Jason Hill; Clarence Lehman
Journal:  Science       Date:  2006-12-08       Impact factor: 47.728

View more
  1 in total

1.  Energy, water and fish: biodiversity impacts of energy-sector water demand in the United States depend on efficiency and policy measures.

Authors:  Robert I McDonald; Julian D Olden; Jeffrey J Opperman; William M Miller; Joseph Fargione; Carmen Revenga; Jonathan V Higgins; Jimmie Powell
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2012-11-21       Impact factor: 3.240

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.