RESOURCE DEMANDS FOR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN THE YELLOWSTONE RIVER BASIN¹

Abstract

This paper reports on the development of a mathematical model for forecasting energy development in the Yellowstone study area for the years 1985 and 2000, and determining the associated economic demands for water, land, labor, capital, and mineral resources. The study was prepared for use by the Missouri River Basin Commission in conducting a comprehensive, “Level B” planning study of the water and related land resources in the Yellowstone River Basin. The study results indicate that the amount of coal development in the Yellowstone study area will depend primarily upon state and federal energy policies and regulations. Policies related to slurry pipeline transportation of coal will be particularly important in determining the level and pattern of future energy development in the area. Coal production under the “most probable” scenario is expected to increase from about 40 million tons in 1976 to 163 million tons per year by 1985, and 513 million tons in the year 2000. Consumptive water use for energy development in the study area could be as much as 556,000 acre‐feet per year by the year 2000 (under the high scenario). A parametric analysis was conducted on the 1985 most probably scenario to determine the influence on the study results of variations in the delivered price of water. Water requirements were reduced by nearly one‐fourth as water costs increased from zero to over $750 per acre‐foot.

Water Supply for Power in Texas‐Gulf Region

“…Abbey and Lucero (2) report that in the Colorado and upper Missouri river basins, 80% of new generation capacity will use one of these alternative sources. Several water for energy studies have considered the costs of a more realistic range of options, including alternative water supplies and dry cooling (1,4,9,11,18,22,23,38). But none give a detailed representation of a region while simultaneously including: (1) Subbasin-specific estimates of the availability and cost of several types of water sources; and (2) demand functions reflecting the expense of dry and wet/dry cooling.…”