Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
of California's current water needs with desalination, would require as much as 52% of
the state's electricity. Comparable and even more detailed U.S. values for unit electricity
consumption are available for public water supplies, wastewater treatment facilities ,
and self-supply by end users (EPRI, 2002). Cooley et al. (2007) note that increased water
consumption also drives additional wastewater treatment, which results in additional
energy consumption.
6) ENERGY DEMAND IN OTHER INDUSTRIES
Climate change likely will afect energy consumption in a few other climate sensitive
sectors, such as transportation and agriculture (non-irrigation uses). For example SAP
4.5 discussed increases air conditioning in transportation (personal cars and refrig-
erated vans) and additional needs for cooling in livestock and poultry operations. The
literature review for this study did not ind any new U.S. studies that estimated efects
of climate change on energy use in transportation or agriculture.
7) IMPACTS OF ADAPTATION AND MITIGATION ACTIONS
Buildings can reduce their air-conditioning loads by insulation, shading, and modiica-
tions such as relective rooftops (SAP 4.5; Rosenzweig et al., 2006, 2009; Scot et al., 2008;
Jo et al., 2010; Levinson and Akbari, 2010), but the degree of ofset to climate change is
less frequently computed. In one example, Shorr et al. (2009) modeled the impact of en-
ergy eiciency activities and calculated impacts on electric energy consumption in three
groups of Northeast states. In most of that region, heating energy savings, eiciency
upgrades, and market responses to increased cost (including fuel switching) could more
than ofset the impacts of additional market penetration of air conditioning and higher
CDDs. But, signiicantly for states with warmer climates, that was not true of the south-
ernmost tier of the northeastern states. These states saw increases both in energy use and
cost. For a general overview of adaptation approaches and prospects in California, see
Vine (2011).
Jo et al. (2010) modeled 677 buildings in Phoenix using U.S. DOE's EnergyPlus
TM
model in Phoenix under today's climate, increased the average rooftop albedo (relec-
tivity) and estimated an annual electricity savings of a 4.3% in average annual elec-
tricity use. Under today's climate, Levinson and Akbari (2010) noted cooling energy sav-
ings on prototype high-relectance commercial roofs in 236 U.S. cities per ranging from
3.30 kWh/m
2
in Alaska to 7.69 kWh/m
2
in Arizona (5.02 kWh/m
2
nationwide); the corre-
sponding heating energy penalty in natural gas consumption ranged from 0.003 therm/
m
2
in Hawaii to 0.14 therm/m
2
in Wyoming (0.065 therm/m
2
nationwide).
Under current climate, Rosenzweig et al. (2006, 2009) estimated that a combination of
tree planting and green roof cooling strategies could reduce peak electricity use in some
New York City neighborhoods by as much as 2 to 3 percent. Reducing the demand for
water also reduces the demand for energy to withdraw water from the environment,
convey it, treat it, distribute it, and gather, convey, and treat wastewater. This can be an
adaptive response to increases in water demand related to climate change. Several au-
thors have discussed the impacts of water eiciency on regional or national water con-
sumption, but generally have studied the impacts in the context of constrained supplies
in today's climate, not climate change, and have not necessarily computed the resulting
