dammed or damned: the role of hydropower in the water and energy nexus
TRANSCRIPT
Andrea Castelletti Dipartimento di Elettronica, Informazione, e Bioingegneria, Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy Institute of Environmental Engineering ETH-Z, Zurich
Dammed or damned: the role of hydropower in the water and energy nexus
E4D Winter School 2005 3-‐23 January 2015
Son La Dam Vietnam, 2012
Outline
• What is water-energy nexus?
• Hydropower and the nexus
• An added challenge: global change
• What can we do: the soft path approach
• Case study
• Conclusions
Outline
• What is water-energy nexus?
• Hydropower and the nexus
• An added challenge: global change
• What can we do: the soft path approach
• Case study
• Conclusions
The water and energy (watergy) nexus
water needs energy Water production, processing, distribution, and end-use require energy • Extraction • Treatment (drinking/waste) • Distribution • Use
energy needs water Energy production requires water • Hydropower • Thermo electric cooling • Mineral Extraction and refining • Fuel production (fossil, non-
fossil, and biofuel) • Emission control
Source: adapted from WWAP, 2014
Energy needs water
Source: IEA, 2012
• Energy production consumes 15% of water withdrawals
More than 580 billion m3 withdrawn every year (the average
annual discharge of the River Gange), of which 66 billion is
consumed)
Energy needs water
Source: IEA, 2012
• Energy production consumes 15% of water withdrawals
More than 580 billion m3 withdrawn every year (the average
annual discharge of the River Gange), of which 66 billion is
consumed)
• Thermal power plants (roughly 80% of global electricity
production) is responsible for:
• 43% of total water withdrawals in Europe,
• 50% in the US, and
• more than 10% in China.
Energy needs water
89
Section II – Water for Energy
Figure 23. Flow Chart of Embedded Water in Energy
ExtractionMining, drilling(oil, natural gas)
Biomass
WastewaterCollection,
treatment anddischarge or reuse
Resource
Raw MaterialRefining
Coal, petrol, natural gas,
uranium, biofuels
RenewableEnergy
Wind, solar,hydroelectric, tidal
Water Source(e.g., lakes, rivers,
aquifiers, sea)
Energy RecyclingCogeneration,desalination
Transport &Transmission
Pipelines,waterways
End UseIndustrial
CommercialResidential
Public UtilitiesTransportation
EnergyGeneration
Discharge Water
Transportation Fuels, Natural Gas
Note: Water inputs and outputs may be in different water bodies.
1. Cooling Technologies
1.1 Once-Through (Open-Loop) CoolingOnce-through cooling uses an ample supply of water
(from an ocean, river, lake, cooling pond or canal) to run through the system’s heat exchanger to condense the low-pressure steam at the exhaust of the turbines (Figure 24). Water is returned to the water body about 10°C to 20°C warmer. Until the 1970s, thermoelectric power plants commonly used water withdrawal intensive open-loop cooling and were built next to abundant surface waters near large population centers (U.S. DOE, 2006). These are cheap and sturdy systems (about $20/kW – EPRI, 2007). Today, open-loop cooling power plants account for about 31 percent of U.S. generating capacity.
Although these plants do not consume much water (i.e., they return about 99 percent of the water to the source), the availability of water is critical to plant operation because of the huge demand. This makes these plants extremely vulnerable to droughts,
high-temperature events and competition for water resources. This is particularly exacerbated by the fact that electricity demand is disproportionately high in water-scarce areas such as the Southwest. Moreover, the large intake of water is extremely disruptive for aquatic life, and the discharge temperatures alter aquatic ecosystems considerably. The intake structures kill millions of fish and other aquatic organisms per plant each year and the discharge of heated water can be particularly lethal to native aquatic species. The 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Section 316(a) of the Clean Water Act (regulating intake structures and thermal pollution discharges) placed restrictions on the impact of open-loop cooling. Following this act, construction of open-loop cooling power plants slowed abruptly. Only 10 such power plants have been built since 1980, mainly along the coast (U.S. DOE, 2006).
Source: adapted from Wilkinson, 2000
Energy needs water
29WWDR 2014 ENERGY’S THIRST FOR WATER
In some places, water is used for transporting fuels, such as waterways throughout Europe and many parts of Asia that float barges carrying coal from mines to power plants. In other places water is used to permit coal slurry to be transported from coal mines to power plants through pipelines.
Energy accounts for a significant fraction of a country’s water use (both consumptive and non-consumptive). In developing countries, 10% to 20% of withdrawals are used to meet industrial needs, including energy (Boberg, 2005). In some developed countries, where a smaller fraction is used for agriculture, more than 50% of water withdrawals are used for power plant cooling alone (Section 3.3.1).
The following sections describe the potential implications and impacts of energy production on water and examine supply and demand trends for different forms of primary energy8 and electrical power generation.
3.2 Primary energyWater is used to produce fuels in the extractive industries in a variety of ways, each requiring different quantities of water (Figure 3.1). For example, many coal seams need to be dewatered before mining can commence. That water use is often classed as consumptive because the water might not subsequently be available for other uses. Water is also used for leaching minerals in uranium mining, with significant impacts on the downstream environment. Significant volumes of water are used for oil and gas production. Generally, biofuels require more water per unit energy than extracted fuels because of the water needed for photosynthesis, and unconventional fossil fuels require more water than conventional fossil fuels.
There is evidence that demand for all types of primary energy will increase over the period 2010–2035 (IEA, 2012a) (Figure 3.2). Despite the ongoing progress of ‘clean’ technology policies promoting renewables, the world’s global energy system appears to remain on a relatively fixed path with respect to its continued reliance on fossil fuels. A shift away from oil and coal (and, in some
FIG
URE
3.1 Water withdrawals and consumption vary for fuel production
* The minimum is for primary recovery; the maximum is for secondary recovery. ** The minimum is for in-situ production, the maximum is for surface mining. *** Includes carbon dioxide injection, steam injection and alkaline injection and in-situ combustion. **** Excludes water use for crop residues allocated to food production.Note: toe, tonne of oil equivalent (1 toe = 11.63 MWh = 41.9 GJ). Ranges shown are for ‘source-to-carrier’ primary energy production, which includes withdrawals and consumption for extraction, processing and transport. Water use for biofuels production varies considerably because of differences in irrigation needs among regions and crops; the minimum for each crop represents non-irrigated crops whose only water requirements are for processing into fuels. EOR, enhanced oil recovery. For numeric ranges, see http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org.Source: IEA (2012a, fig. 17.3, p. 507, based on sources cited therein). World Energy Outlook 2012 © OECD/IEA.
101
Sugar cane ethanol
Cornethanol
Soybean
Rapeseed
Palm oil
Lignocellulosic
Refined oil
Coal-to-liquids
Gas-to-liquids
Refined oil
Refined oil
Shale gas
Coal
Conventional gas
Litres per toe<1
WithdrawalConsumption
102 103 104 105 106 107
biodiesel
biodiesel
biodiesel
ethanol****
(EOR)***
(oil sands)**
(conventional)*
8 The term ‘primary energy’ is associated with any energy source that is extracted from a stock of natural resources or captured from a flow of resources and that has not undergone any transformation or conversion other than separation and cleaning. Examples include coal, crude oil, natural gas, solar power and nuclear power. ‘Secondary energy’ refers to any energy that is obtained from a primary energy source by a transformation or conversion process. Thus oil products or electricity are secondary energies as these require refining or electric generators to produce them (IEA, 2004).
countries, nuclear power) is expected in OECD countries, where energy demand is not expected to rise appreciably. Despite the growth in low carbon sources of energy, however, fossil fuels are expected to remain dominant in the global energy mix (IEA, 2012a).
36
plants tend to be less efficient and thus consume more water (using the same cooling system under similar meteorological conditions).
[ See Chapter 21 (Volume 2) for the case study ‘Water use efficiency in thermal power plants in India’. ]
For power plants with similar efficiency levels, the cooling system used will determine how much water is required. The three most prevalent cooling methods are open-loop, closed-loop and dry cooling (hybrid wet-dry systems exist, but are not widely used). Open-loop, or once-through, cooling withdraws large volumes of surface water, fresh and saline, for one-time use and returns nearly all the water to the source with little being consumed by evaporation (Figure 3.8). Closed-loop cooling requires less water withdrawal, as the water is recirculated through use of cooling towers or evaporation ponds, leading to much higher water consumption (Table 3.2) (Stillwell et al., 2011).
Dry cooling does not require water, but instead cools by use of fans that move air over a radiator (similar to those in automobiles). Power plant efficiency is lower, and this option is often the least attractive economically. While dry cooling is less effective in warmer and dryer climates, such installations do operate in warm and dry areas, including China, Morocco, South Africa and south-western USA, because these systems offer resilience against drought, but have parasitic losses on power plant output. It has been estimated that cost reductions of 25% to 50% are needed for air cooled condensers (ACC) to become economically competitive in most regions of the world (Ku and Shapiro, 2012).
The volatility of price fluctuations of the three main fuels for thermal power generation – coal, natural gas and oil – renders the projection of future trends in plant development and related fuel consumption problematic. The future energy mix is likely to be determined by factors such as developments in the exploration and production of unconventional oil and gas, the economic implications of these developments, and their impact on the market price of fuels. The future of unconventional gas is itself uncertain, according to the IEA (2012a, p. 125): ‘the prospects for unconventional gas production worldwide remain uncertain and depend, particularly, on whether governments and industry can develop and apply rules that effectively earn the industry a “social
* Includes trough, tower and Fresnel technologies using tower, dry and hybrid cooling, and Stirling technology. ** Includes binary, flash and enhanced geothermal system technologies using tower, dry and hybrid cooling.Notes: Ranges shown are for the operational phase of electricity generation, which includes cleaning, cooling and other process related needs; water used for the production of input fuels is excluded. Fossil steam includes coal-, gas- and oil-fired power plants operating on a steam cycle. Reported data from power plant operations are used for fossil-steam once-through cooling; other ranges are based on estimates summarized in the sources cited. Solar PV, solar photovoltaic; CSP, concentrating solar power; CCGT, combined-cycle gas turbine; IGCC, integrated gasification combined-cycle; CCS, carbon capture and storage. For numeric ranges, see http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org.Source: IEA (2012a, fig. 17.4, p. 510, from sources cited therein). World Energy Outlook 2012 © OECD/IEA.
FIG
URE
3.8 Water use for electricity generation by cooling technology
Nuclear
Fossil steam
Gas CCGT
Nuclear
Fossil steam
Gas CCGT
Nuclear
Fossil steam (CCS)
Fossil steam
Coal IGCC (CCS)
Coal IGCC
Gas CCGT (CCS)
Gas CCGT
Gas CCGT
Geothermal**
Litres per MWh
Wind
Solar PV
CSP*
Oth
er/n
one
Dry
Co
olin
g to
wer
Cool
ing
pond
O
nce-
th
roug
h
101 <1 102 103 104 105 106
Withdrawal
Consumption
Several factors determine how much cooling water is needed by thermal power plants, including the fuel type, cooling system design and prevailing meteorological conditions. However, efficiency is often the main factor that drives water requirements: the more efficient the power plant, the less heat has to be dissipated, thus less cooling is required (Delgado, 2012). Older power
STATUS, TRENDS AND CHALLENGESCHAPTER 3
Primary production Energy generation
Source: IEA, 2012
Water needs energy
• Water related energy consumption is estimated to be about
2-3% of worldwide energy production
Water needs energy
• California consumes approximately 20%of the state’s electricity,
and 30% of the state’s non-power plant natural gas
(source: California Energy Commission)
• Running the hot water faucet for 5 minutes uses about the same
amount of energy as burning a 60-watt bulb for 14 hours
(source US-EPA)
• Water related energy consumption is estimated to be about
2-3% of worldwide energy production
Water needs energy
21
Section I – Energy for Water
Figure 11. Water Flowchart (Highlighting Source)
SourceLakes, reservoirs,
aquifers
WaterTreatment
WaterDistribution
Water Extractionand Conveyance
Recycled WaterDistribution
Recycled WaterTreatment
End UseAgriculture
Energy ProductionIndustrial
CommercialResidential
Leaks
WastewaterTreatment
EnergyProduction
BiogasNitrous oxide
Net LossDischarge to
ocean
Net LossEvaporationTranspiration
WastewaterCollection
Leaks
Storm Water
Recycled Water
Leaks
Leaks
Discharge Water
Direct Use (Irrigation, energy production, industrial)
RawWater
RawWater
PotableWater
Wastewater
Discharge Water
BiosolidsBiogas
Source: Adapted from Wilkinson, 2000
1. Water Conveyance
Research on the energy use of water conveyance clearly reveals that U.S. water conveyance systems – the networks of canals, pipes and pumps that carry water from one place to another – are in some places energy intensive, while energy producing in others. One of the fundamental determinants of the energy intensity of any particular water supply is the relationship between the elevation of where water is sourced and where it is used. Water volume and the distance the water travels are other key factors. As population expands into places where water must be imported, water supplies become more energy intensive. Most water-transfer
systems, which are used to import water to these areas, have both pumps and generators to get water up and over hills and mountains and do allow for the recapture of some energy lost in pumps. Whether a system is a net consumer or producer of energy depends upon the relationship between geographical characteristics, e.g., elevation, and a particular system’s ability to both utilize and capture energy (Bennett et al., 2010a&b; GEI, 2012; Gleick, 1994). As the climate changes, altered precipitation patterns could affect water conveyance and storage infrastructure, as their original locations may no longer be where the needs are.
Source: adapted from Wilkinson, 2000
Water needs energy
24
these calculations do not take environmental flows into account, necessary for the future delivery of water supply and water-based ecosystem services.
2.3 Energy requirements for water provisionEnergy is required for two components of water provision: pumping and treatment. The energy needed for pumping water depends on elevation change (including depth in the case of groundwater), distance, pipe diameter and friction. Pumping water requires a lot of energy because of its high density. The amount of energy needed in water and wastewater treatment processes varies greatly and is dependent upon factors such as the quality of the source water, the nature of any contamination, and the types of treatment used by the facility (Section 7.3).
Different levels of treatment are required for different uses. Drinking water typically requires extensive treatment, and once used, it needs to be treated again to reach a standard safe for return to the environment. Many of these steps are highly energy intensive. Some treatment processes, such as ultraviolet (UV), consume relatively little energy (0.01–0.04 kWh/m3). More sophisticated techniques, such as reverse osmosis, require larger amounts (1.5–3.5 kWh/m3). Water for agriculture generally requires little or no treatment, so energy requirements are mainly for pumping (Section 6.4). Globally, the amount of energy used for irrigation is directly related to the enormous quantities of water required for irrigation and the irrigation methods used.
Co-operation and Development (OECD) accounting for 90% of demand (IEA, 2012a) (Chapter 3).
According to the OECD, in the absence of new policies (i.e. the Baseline Scenario), freshwater availability will be increasingly strained through 2050, with 2.3 billion more people than today (in total more than 40% of the global population) projected to be living in areas subjected to severe water stress, especially in North and South Africa and South and Central Asia. Global water demand in terms of water withdrawals is projected to increase by some 55% due to growing demands from manufacturing (400%), thermal electricity generation (140%) and domestic use (130%) (OECD, 2012a) (Figure 2.1). It should be noted that
Note: BRIICS, Brazil, Russia, India, Indonesia, China, South Africa; OECD, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development; ROW, rest of the world. This graph only measures ‘blue water’ demand and does not consider rainfed agriculture.Source: OECD (2012a, fig. 5.4, p. 217, output from IMAGE). OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050 © OECD.
FIGUR
E
2.1 Global water demand (freshwater withdrawals): Baseline Scenario, 2000 and 2050
ElectricityManufacturing
LivestockDomesticIrrigation
0
1 000
2 000
3 000
4 000
5 000
6 000
km3
2000 2050OECD
2000 2050BRIICS
2000 2050ROW
2000 2050World
Note: This diagram does not incorporate critical elements such as the distance the water is transported or the level of efficiency, which vary greatly from site to site. Source: WBSCD (2009, fig. 5, p. 14, based on source cited therein).
FIGUR
E2.2 Amount of energy required to provide 1 m3
water safe for human consumption from various water sources
The global demand for water is expected to grow significantly for all major water use sectors, with the largest proportion of this growth occurring in countries with developing or emerging economies.
CHAPTER 2 STATUS, TRENDS AND CHALLENGES
Source: WBSCD, 2009
Amount of energy for 1 m3 of safe water
Water needs energy
64
the technologies used. Electricity costs are estimated at 5% to 30% of the total operating cost of water and wastewater utilities (World Bank, 2012b), but in some developing countries such as India and Bangladesh, it is as high as 40% of the total operating cost (Van Den Berg and Danilenko, 2011). A survey of water and wastewater management in 71 Indian cities found that electricity is the single highest cost for water utilities. In some cities, such as Jodhpur, where water is pumped and transported from the Indira Gandhi Canal more than 200 km away, electricity cost is as high as 77% of the total operating cost (Narain, 2012). As cities continue to grow, they will have to go further or dig deeper to obtain water, which will further increase demand for energy, particularly in developing countries where energy is already in short supply and in many cases expensive. Energy supply will therefore have direct implications on availability as well as affordability of water in the rapidly growing cities of developing countries in the future.
In urban water supply and wastewater management systems, water conveyance and the use of advanced water treatment options are generally the most energy intensive activities (Figure 7.3). Water reuse may also require significant energy, depending on the technology used, but this is still less energy intensive than desalination or transporting water over extremely long distances (Lazarova et al., 2012).
but in developing countries where the per capita energy consumption in rural areas is very low, urban residents have much higher per capita energy consumption. For example, the per capita energy use in urban China is almost twice as high as the national average due to higher average incomes and better access to modern energy services in the cities (IEA, 2008b). More than 90% of the future urbanization will happen in developing countries, resulting in a huge increase in global energy demand, which in turn will result in increasing water demand. The IEA (2012a) predicts that the water needs for energy production will grow at twice the rate of energy demand. The rapid growth of cities will therefore result in serious challenges associated with access to both water and energy in cities and their surrounding areas.
7.3 The water–energy nexus in the urban contextWater supply and wastewater management are significant consumers of energy in the urban context. The United States Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the supply of treated water and wastewater management consumes 3% of the total energy use by cities in the USA, but in some states (e.g. California) it can be as high as 20% (Novotny, 2012). The amount of energy required at each step varies significantly depending on site-specific conditions including distance to the water source, its quality (and in the case of groundwater, its depth), and
Note: GWRS, groundwater replenishment system; WWTP, wastewater treatment plant. Source: Lazarova et al. (2012, fig. 23.1, p. 316, adapted from sources cited therein). © IWA Publishing, reproduced with permission.
FIG
URE
7.3 Typical energy footprint of the major steps in water cycle management with examples from different treatment plants using specific technologies
5
4
3
2
1
0
2.5 kWh/m3,State WaterProject, CA
0.35 kWh/m3,Strass WWTP,
Austria
2.5
1.5
0.24 0.3 0.4 0.6
1.4
2.5 2.5
1.5
2.5
0.3
1.2
5.0
4.0
0.1 0.2 0.05 0.160.24 0.25 0.3
0.50.2
1.0
1.4 1.41.1
0.53 kWh/m3,GWRS, Orange
County, CA
2.9 kWh/m3,Desalination
Ashkelon,Israel
Waterconveyance
Watertreatment
Waterdistribution
Preliminarytreatment
Tricklingfilters
Activatedsludge
Activatedsludge withnitrification
Membranebioreactor
Water reuse Brackishwater
desalination
Seawaterdesalination
Rainwaterharvesting
Ener
gy c
onsu
mpt
ion
(kW
h/m
3 )
THEMATIC FOCUSCHAPTER 7
Source: Lazarova et al. 2012
Typical energy footprint of the major steps in the water cycle
Implications and benefits of the nexus
• Nexus implies that decisions made in one domain affect the
other and viceversa
Implications and benefits of the nexus
• Nexus implies that decisions made in one domain affect the
other and viceversa
• Policies that benefit one domain can pose significant risks
and detrimental effects to the other (e.g. biofuels) …
Implications and benefits of the nexus
• Nexus implies that decisions made in one domain affect the
other and viceversa
• Policies that benefit one domain can pose significant risks
and detrimental effects to the other (e.g. biofuels) …
• … but can also generate co-benefit (e.g. energy attracts
greater political attention than water in many countries)
How serious is the water constraint?
VIETNAM/PHILIPPINES In 2010 an El Nino induced drought caused electricity shortages and rationing for several months
How serious is the water constraint?
VIETNAM/PHILIPPINES In 2010 an El Nino induced drought caused electricity shortages and rationing for several months
CHINA In 2011 drought limited generation along the Yangtze river with higher coal demand and prices and electricity rationing
How serious is the water constraint?
INDIA In 2012 delayed monsoon reduced hydropower and raised energy demand for irrigation causing 2 days black out for 600 milion people
VIETNAM/PHILIPPINES In 2010 an El Nino induced drought caused electricity shortages and rationing for several months
CHINA In 2011 drought limited generation along the Yangtze river with higher coal demand and prices and electricity rationing
How serious is the water constraint?
INDIA In 2012 delayed monsoon reduced hydropower and raised energy demand for irrigation causing 2 days black out for 600 milion people
VIETNAM/PHILIPPINES In 2010 an El Nino induced drought caused electricity shortages and rationing for several months
CALIFORNIA In 2012 and 2014 drought caused significant hydropower energy loss due to reduced snowpack and limited precipitation
CHINA In 2011 drought limited generation along the Yangtze river with higher coal demand and prices and electricity rationing
How serious is the water constraint?
INDIA In 2012 delayed monsoon reduced hydropower and raised energy demand for irrigation causing 2 days black out for 600 milion people
VIETNAM/PHILIPPINES In 2010 an El Nino induced drought caused electricity shortages and rationing for several months
CALIFORNIA In 2012 and 2014 drought caused significant hydropower energy loss due to reduced snowpack and limited precipitation
CHINA In 2011 drought limited generation along the Yangtze river with higher coal demand and prices and electricity rationing
US MID-WEST In 2006 heat wave forced substantial reduction of nuclear energy production to control temperature in the Missisipi river
To know more …
VOLUME 1
Report
Outline
• What is water-energy nexus?
• Hydropower and the nexus
• An added challenge: global change
• What can we do: the soft path approach
• Case study
• Conclusions
Hydropower and the nexus
Source: WWAP, 2014 and IEA, 2013
186 DATA AND INDICATORS ANNEX
Trends in world electricity generation by energy source
0
4 000
8 000
12 000
16 000
20 000
24 000
1971 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2011
Fossil thermal Nuclear Hydro Other*
TWh
Oil 24.6%
Coal and peat 38.3%
Coal and peat 41.3%
Hydro 21.0% Hydro 15.8%
Nuclear 3.3%
Nuclear 11.7%
Natural gas 12.2%
Natural gas 21.9%
Oil 4.8%
Other* 0.6% Geothermal0.3%
Biofuels, waste1.9%
Solar PV 0.3%
Wind 2.0% and other sources
(a) 1971–2011 (b) 1973: 6 115 TWh total(c) 2011: 22 126 TWh totalNote: Excludes pumped storage. * ‘Other’ includes geothermal, solar, wind, biofuels and waste, and heat. PV, solar photovoltaic.Source: IEA (http://www.iea.org/statistics/statisticssearch/report/?&country=WORLD&year=2011&product=ElectricityandHeat) and (2013, p. 24). Key World Energy Statistics 2013 © OECD/IEA.
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2013. Key World Energy Statistics 2013. Paris, OECD/IEA.
IND
ICAT
OR
13
(a)
(b) 1973 (c) 2011
Trend in electricity generation by energy source
Role of dams and reservoirs
in out
time, space time, space
disc
ha
rge
disc
ha
rge
The first dam (2700 BC)
Sadd-el-Kafara, Egypt 2700-2600 BC
Source: http://www.hydriaproject.net, last visit 31.12.14
Dam development in the XIX and XX century
Source: B. Lehner- McGill University
Dam development in the XIX and XX century
Dams by purpose
189WWDR 2014 DATA AND INDICATORS ANNEX
Source: WWAP, with data from IEA (2013).
IEA (International Energy Agency). 2013. World Indicators. World energy statistics and balances database. Paris, OECD/IEA. doi: 10.1787/data-00514-en (Accessed Dec 2013)
(a) Single purpose dams(b) Multi purpose damsSource: WWAP, with data from ICOLD (n.d.).
ICOLD (International Commission on Large Dams). n.d. General Synthesis. Paris, ICOLD. http://www.icold-cigb.net/GB/World_register/general_synthesis.asp (Accessed Dec 2013)
IND
ICAT
OR
IND
ICAT
OR
18
19
Trends in electricity consumption per capita (2000–2011)
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2011
World OECD Europe Africa Asia (excluding China)
Elec
tric
ity c
onsu
mpt
ion
(TW
h pe
r cap
ita)
0
4 000
6 000
14 000
China (PR of China and Hong Kong) India Russian Federation United States of America
2008 2009 2010
8 000
12 000
2 000
1
Use of dams by purpose
Hydropower 18.0%
Water supply 12.0%
Navigation andfish farming 0.6%
Irrigation50.0%
Other 5.0%
Recreation5.0%
Flood control10.0%
Irrigation24.0%
Navigation andfish farming 8.0%
Recreation12.0%
Other 4.0%
Flood control20.0%
Hydropower 16.0%
Water supply 17.0%
(a) (b)
Source: WWAP, 2014 and ICOLD, 2014
single purpose multi purpose
Dams by purpose and country
Source: Lehner, 2011
Capacity chart of hydropower HYPERBOLE
Annual Conference, September 30 2014 8
Capacity Chart of Hydroelectric Power Station
ρ= ×hP Q gH
Source: Avelan, 2014 DISCHARGE
HY
DRA
ULI
C H
EAD
Capacity chart of hydropower HYPERBOLE
Annual Conference, September 30 2014 8
Capacity Chart of Hydroelectric Power Station
ρ= ×hP Q gH
Source: Avelan, 2014 DISCHARGE
HY
DRA
ULI
C H
EAD
Capacity chart of hydropower HYPERBOLE
Annual Conference, September 30 2014 8
Capacity Chart of Hydroelectric Power Station
ρ= ×hP Q gH
Source: Avelan, 2014 DISCHARGE
HY
DRA
ULI
C H
EAD
Largest hydropower plants (the first 25)
2
1
2
1
1
4
4
11
canada
U.S. venezuela
paraguay
brazil
pakistan
russia
china
Hydropower impact
Is HP generating conflicts with other water uses and ecosystem services? As a non-consumptive water use HP is not removing water from the system … … but for evaporation or seepage So, should we consider HP a clean, green and fair energy production source?
Impacted sectors
People Resettlement
HYDROPOWER
Environment Water Quality
Sediment balance
GHG emission Competing uses • Agriculture • Water supply • Energy (cooling) • Recreation • ….
Navigation
Inter-sector conflicts: the Colorado river
COLORADO RIVER, US-Mexico
Salt intrusion (violet)
Glen Canyon Dam
• Hydropower production ( 6 large dams)
• Agriculture (Imperial Valley)
• Water supply
Inter-sector conflicts: the Colorado river
COLORADO RIVER, US-Mexico
Salt intrusion (violet)
Glen Canyon Dam
• Hydropower production ( 6 large dams)
• Agriculture (Imperial Valley)
• Water supply
Inter-sector conflicts: the Red River basin, Vietnam
Hanoi
HoaBinh
TaBu
LaiChau
TamDuong
NamGiang
MuongTe
VuQuangYenBai
BaoLacHaGiang
BacMe
VIETNAM
CHINA
LAOS
CAMBODIA
THAILAND
Da
Thao Lo
Integrated Management of Red-Thai Binh Rivers System (IMRR) funded by the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs http://www.imrr.info/
Inter-sector conflicts: the Red River basin, Vietnam
Basin wide, anthropogenic changes over the last ~ 60 years
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Future
LAND USE CHANGE RESERVOIR CONSTRUCTION SEDIMENT MINING
Inter-sector conflicts: the Red River basin, Vietnam
Focus on 3 stations
Red River: Son Tay Ha Noi
Duong River: Thuong Cat
Inter-sector conflicts: the Red River basin, Vietnam
Morphologic changes aggravate water scarcity & endanger vital infrastructure
Inter-sector conflicts: the Red River basin, Vietnam
Irriga@on deficits Saltwater
intrusion
Before Now
Making things trickier: most rivers are transboundary …
Trans-national river basins collect 60% of the world freshwater.
… and power-asymmetric
Outline
• What is water-energy nexus?
• Hydropower and the nexus
• An added challenge: global change
• What can we do: the soft path approach
• Case study
• Conclusions
Earth is warming
source: IPCC, 2007
Climate is changing: extremes will be more frequent
source: IPCC, 2007
Climate is changing and so does the water cycle: natural availability is declining
Change in water natural availability, not considering production technology, access to water, etc 2050 vs [1961-90]
source: Arnell, 2004
Evidences from the future
source: National Geographic Rivers run dry (Colorado)
Forzieri et al. , HESS, 107(25), 2014.
Climate is changing and so does the water cycle: wetter in the north, drier in the south
40% reduction in minimum stream flow by the 2080s in the Iberian Peninsula, Italy and the Balkan Region
Society is changing as well: + people
source: UNEP, 2008
Society is changing as well: + people ++ energy demand
Global energy demand is expected to grow by more than one-third over the period to 2035, with China, India and the Middle Eastern countries accounting for about 60% of the increase.
Society is changing as well: + people ++ energy demand ++ water demand
Change in water withdrawal and consumption by 2025: more extraction less consumptive
source: UNESCO, 2001
Society is changing as well: + people ++ energy demand ++ water demand
Shift to alternate energy will require more water + load balancing e.g. • 1st generation biofuel consume 20 times as much water for mile traveled compare to
gasoline • All-electric vehicles will place added strains on utilities: 1 mile three time water than with
gasoline power (King and Webber, 2008)
source: IEA, 2014
© O
ECD/
IEA,
201
2
516 World Energy Outlook 2012 | Special Topics
most in the 450 Scenario, even though the increase after 2020 is stemmed somewhat by penetration of non-irrigated advanced biofuels.
In the New Policies Scenario, water use for power generation – principally for cooling at thermal power plants – accounts for the bulk of water requirements for energy production worldwide, although the needs for biofuels also become much more significant as their production accelerates (Figure 1 . ). Withdrawals for power generation in 2010 were some 540 bcm, over 0% of the total for energy production. These slowly rising requirements level o around 2015, before falling to 560 bcm at the end of the Outlook period. There are two counteracting forces at work a reduction of generation by subcritical coal plants that use once-through cooling, particularly in the United States, China and European Union, cu ng global withdrawals by coal-fired plants by almost 10% and growth in generation from newly built nuclear power plants that use once-through cooling (for instance, some that are constructed inland in China), which expands water withdrawals for nuclear generators by a third. Consumption of water in the world’s power sector rises by almost 40%, boosted by increased use of wet tower cooling in thermal capacity. Increasing shares of gas-fired and renewable generation play a significant role in constraining additional water use in many regions, as global electricity generation grows by some 0% over 2010-2035, much more than water withdrawal or consumption by the sector.
Figure 17.7 ⊳ Global water use for energy production in the New Policies Scenario by fuel and power generation type
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
2010 2020 2035
bcm
Withdrawal
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
2010 2020 2035bc
m
Consump!on
BiofuelsFossil fuels
BioenergyNuclearOilGasCoal
Fuels:
Power:
Energy-related water use rises as a direct consequence of steeply increasing global biofuels supply, which triples in the New Policies Scenario on government policies that mandate the use of biofuels. Water withdrawals for biofuels increase in line with global supply, from 25 bcm to 110 bcm over 2010-2035. owever, consumption increases from 12 bcm to almost 50 bcm during that time, equalling the water consumption for power generation by the end of the Outlook period. These higher water requirements for biofuels production stem from the irrigation needs for feedstock crops for ethanol and biodiesel – primarily
499-528_Part d - Chapitre 17weo_27-28.indd 516 18/10/2012 12:12:01
16
Global water use for energy by fuel and power generation source
Society is changing as well: + people ++ energy demand ++ water demand
Load balancing from renewable energy production
Pumped storage is the largest-capacity form of grid energy storage available in the world (99% of bulk storage capacity worldwide, representing around 127,000 MW). Energy efficiency varies in practice between 70% and 80%. The EU has 38.3 GW net capacity (36.8% of world capacity) out of a total of 140 GW of hydropower. Japan has 25.5 GW net capacity (24.5% of world capacity).
Global change is shrinking the pie
global change
Outline
• What is water-energy nexus?
• Hydropower and the nexus
• An added challenge: global change
• What can we do: the soft path approach
• Case study
• Conclusions
React/adapt to change: re-expand the pie
global change
Accessible freshwater is limited
Salt Water 98%
Fresh Water 2%
Worldwide distribution: 98% salt water 2% fresh water
Surface waters (lake and rivers) are just 0.01% of the total freshwater
Groundwater 12%
Rivers & Lakes 0.01%
Ice 87%
What can we do? We should adapt, of course
ADAPTATION MEASURE: Adjustment in natural or human systems in response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or exploits beneficial opportunities. Source: European Climate Adaptation Platform - EC
source: googling“adaptation program” – images
Supply-side adaptation: investing in centralized, large-scale physical infrastructures, and centralized water management systems
source: WRI 2003
The 20th century approach
Water supply expansion is constrained (PEAK WATER)
P.H. Gleick & M. Palanniappan, PNAS, 107(25), 2010.
decades of projectionsshows that planners consis-tently assumed continued,and even accelerated, expo-nential growth in total waterdemand (Fig. 3). Some pro-jections were that waterwithdrawals would have totriple and even quadruple incoming years, requiring ad-ditional dams and diver-sions on previously un-tapped water resources inremote or pristine areasonce declared off-limits todevelopment. Proposalshave been made to flood theGrand Canyon, dam theAmazon, and divert Siberi-an and Alaskan rivers tosouthern population centers.
Instead, as Figs. 3 and 4show, total water withdraw-als began to stabilize in the1970s and 1980s, andconstruction activities be-gan to slow as the unquan-tified but real environmental and socialcosts of dams began to be recognized. Morerecently, the economic costs of thetraditional hard path have also risen tolevels that society now seems unwillingor unable to bear. The most cited estimateof the cost of meeting futureinfrastructure needs for water is $180billion per year to 2025 for watersupply, sanitation, wastewater treat-ment, agriculture, and environmentalprotection—a daunting figure, givencurrent levels of spending on water(19). This figure is based on theassumption that future global demandfor water and water-related serviceswill reach the level of industrializednations and that centralized andexpensive water supply and treatmentinfrastructure will have to provide it.If we focus on meeting basic human needsfor water for all with appropriate-scaletechnology, the cost instead could be inthe range of $10 billion to $25 billion peryear for the next two decades—a far moreachievable level of investment (20).Similarly, as large-infrastructure solutionshave become less attractive, new ideasare being developed and tried and someold ideas are being revived, such asrainwater harvesting and integrated landand water management. These alternativeapproaches must be woven together tooffer a comprehensive toolbox ofpossible solutions.
A New Approach for WaterWhat is required is a “soft path,” one thatcontinues to rely on carefully planned andmanaged centralized infrastructure butcomplements it with small-scale decentral-ized facilities. The soft path for water
strives to improve the pro-ductivity of water use ratherthan seek endless sources ofnew supply. It delivers wa-ter services and qualitiesmatched to users’ needs,rather than just deliveringquantities of water. It ap-plies economic tools such asmarkets and pricing, butwith the goal of encouragingefficient use, equitable dis-tribution of the resource,and sustainable system op-eration over time. And it in-cludes local communities indecisions about water man-agement, allocation, and use(21–23). As Lovins noted for theenergy industry, the industrialdynamics of this approach arevery different, the technical risksare smaller, and the dollarsrisked far fewer than those of thehard path (24).
Rethinking water usemeans reevaluating the objec-
tives of using water. Hard-path planners erro-neously equate the idea of using less water, orfailing to use much more water, with a loss ofwell-being. This is a fallacy. Soft-path plannersbelieve that people want to satisfy demands forgoods and services, such as food, fiber, and
Fig. 4. Construction of large reservoirs worldwide in the 20th century. Averagenumbers of reservoirs with volume greater than 0.1 km3 built by decade,through the late 1990s, are normalized to dams per year for different periods.Note that there was a peak in construction activities in the middle of the 20thcentury, tapering off toward the end of the century. The period 1991 to 1998is not a complete decade; note also that the period 1901 to 1950 is half acentury. “Other regions” include Latin America, Africa, and Oceania (46).
Fig. 5. Economic productivity of water use in the United States, 1900 to 1996. The economicproductivity of water use in the United States, measured as $GNP (gross national product, correctedfor inflation) per cubic meter of water withdrawn, has risen sharply in recent years, from around $6to $8/m3 to around $14/m3. Although GNP is an imperfect measure of economic well-being, itprovides a consistent way to begin to evaluate the economic productivity of water use.
28 NOVEMBER 2003 VOL 302 SCIENCE www.sciencemag.org1526
source: Gleick, 2003
Soft is wiser: the “soft path”
Supply and demand integrated management: improving overall productivity of water by making water management more efficient rather than seeking new sources of supply
P.H. Gleick, Nature, 418, 373, 2002.
P.H. Gleick, Science, 302, 1524-1528, 2003.
by • EXPLORE THE TRADE-OFFs
• Distributed and coordinated management
• Better informed decisions (pervasive monitoring)
• Smart economics (option contracts, ensurances)
• Participatory decision-making
• ….
Outline
• What is water-energy nexus?
• Hydropower and the nexus
• An added challenge: global change
• What can we do: the soft path approach
• Case study
• Conclusions
An example: Lake Como
Reservoirs
Lake Como 247 Mm3
Alpine hydropowers 545 Mm3
Catchment area
Lake Como 4500 km2
Stakeholders
Hydropower producers: 25% national hydropower production
Farmers: 5 districts for a total area of 1400 km2
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
DISTRILAKE enhancing water resources management efficiency and sustainability via integration and coordination
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
Virtual and physical storages
SNOW PACK
HYDROPOWER RESERVOIRS
LAKE COMO
GROUNDWATER
GREEN WATER
DISTRILAKE alpine hydro – lake como
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
Virtual and physical storages
SNOW PACK
HYDROPOWER RESERVOIRS
LAKE COMO
GROUNDWATER
GREEN WATER
Anghileri, D. et al. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(5), 492–500, 2013
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
Virtual and physical storages
SNOW PACK
HYDROPOWER RESERVOIRS
LAKE COMO
GROUNDWATER
GREEN WATER
Anghileri, D. et al. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(5), 492–500, 2013
R2
R1
DISTRILAKE alpine hydro – lake como
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
R2
R1
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
10
20
30
40
Flow
[m3 /s]
Inflow Release
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Flow
[m3 /s]
Time [days]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 2. Historical inflow (dashed) and release (solid) of the hydropower reservoir R1(a) and lake Como (b) (14-days moving median over the period 1996-2005).
22
R1
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Dem
and
[m3 /
s]
(a)
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pric
e [e
uro/
MW
]
(b)
J F M A M J J A S O N D−20’000
−10’000
0
10’000
20’000
30’000
Reve
nue [euro
/day]
(c)
Time [days]
FIG. 5. (a): Yearly pattern of water demand. (b): Yearly pattern of the energy price(each colour band represents the energy price in the j-th most profitable hour). (c):Di↵erence in daily hydropower revenue (14-days moving average over years 1996-2005)between centralized policy C6 and uncoordinated UC.
25
energy price
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Dem
and
[m3 /
s]
(a)
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pric
e [e
uro/
MW
]
(b)
J F M A M J J A S O N D−20’000
−10’000
0
10’000
20’000
30’000
Reve
nue [euro
/day]
(c)
Time [days]
FIG. 5. (a): Yearly pattern of water demand. (b): Yearly pattern of the energy price(each colour band represents the energy price in the j-th most profitable hour). (c):Di↵erence in daily hydropower revenue (14-days moving average over years 1996-2005)between centralized policy C6 and uncoordinated UC.
25
water demand
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
10
20
30
40
Flow
[m3 /s]
Inflow Release
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Flow
[m3 /s]
Time [days]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 2. Historical inflow (dashed) and release (solid) of the hydropower reservoir R1(a) and lake Como (b) (14-days moving median over the period 1996-2005).
22
Lake Como
DISTRILAKE alpine hydro – lake como
Anghileri, D. et al. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(5), 492–500, 2013
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
460’000
470’000
480’000
490’000
Irrigation deficit [m3/s]2
Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
[eur
o/da
y]
H
ab
C6C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
CO2 CO1 UCUC
UN-COORDINATED
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
460’000
470’000
480’000
490’000
Irrigation deficit [m3/s]2
Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
[eur
o/da
y]
H
ab
C6C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
CO2 CO1 UCUC
UN-COORDINATED
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
CENTRALIZED (SOCIAL PLANNER)
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
460’000
470’000
480’000
490’000
Irrigation deficit [m3/s]2
Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
[eur
o/da
y]
H
ab
C6C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
CO2 CO1 UCC6 C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
UC
UN-COORDINATED
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
CENTRALIZED (SOCIAL PLANNER)
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
460’000
470’000
480’000
490’000
Irrigation deficit [m3/s]2
Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
[eur
o/da
y]
H
ab
C6C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
CO2 CO1 UCC6 C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
UC
UN-COORDINATED
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
CENTRALIZED (SOCIAL PLANNER)
?
LakeComo
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
(•)
(•)
COORDINATED
r
coordinationmechanism
FIG. 4. The model scheme under coordinated management.
24
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
460’000
470’000
480’000
490’000
Irrigation deficit [m3/s]2
Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
[eur
o/da
y]
H
ab
C6C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
CO2 CO1 UCC6 C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
UC
COORDINATED
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
CENTRALIZED (SOCIAL PLANNER)
?
LakeComo
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
(•)
(•)
COORDINATED
r
coordinationmechanism
FIG. 4. The model scheme under coordinated management.
24
800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
460’000
470’000
480’000
490’000
Irrigation deficit [m3/s]2
Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
[eur
o/da
y]
H
ab
C6C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
CO2 CO1 UCC6 C5
C4
C3
C2
C1
UC
COORDINATED
LakeComo
LakeComo
r
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 1
u 2
u 3
R2
R1
R2
R1
hydropower plant
irrigated area
H2
H1
H3
H2
H1
H3
q 3
q 2
q 1
q 3
q 2
q 1
s 1
s 2
s 3
u 2
u 3
u 1 m 1
m 2
m 3
(•)
m (•) (•)
(•)
UNCOORDINATED CENTRALIZED
(a) (b)
r
FIG. 3. The model scheme under uncoordinated (left) and centralized (right) man-agement.
23
CENTRALIZED (SOCIAL PLANNER)
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5x 108
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Lake reservoir [m3]
Rel
ease
dec
isio
n (R
1) [m
3 /s]
C6UCConstraint
FIG. 7. Hydropower release decision of reservoir R1 as a function of lake storageunder centralized policy C6 (red circles) and uncoordinated policy UC (blue points).The minimum release constraint on R1 is represented by the black line.
27
?
DISTRILAKE enhancing water resources management efficiency and sustainability via integration and coordination
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
Virtual and physical storages
SNOW PACK
HYDROPOWER RESERVOIRS
LAKE COMO
GROUNDWATER
GREEN WATER
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
Virtual and physical storages
SNOW PACK
HYDROPOWER RESERVOIRS
LAKE COMO
GROUNDWATER
GREEN WATER
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Dem
and
[m3 /
s]
(a)
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pric
e [e
uro/
MW
]
(b)
J F M A M J J A S O N D−20’000
−10’000
0
10’000
20’000
30’000
Reve
nue [euro
/day]
(c)
Time [days]
FIG. 5. (a): Yearly pattern of water demand. (b): Yearly pattern of the energy price(each colour band represents the energy price in the j-th most profitable hour). (c):Di↵erence in daily hydropower revenue (14-days moving average over years 1996-2005)between centralized policy C6 and uncoordinated UC.
25
water demand
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
10
20
30
40
Flow
[m3 /s]
Inflow Release
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Flow
[m3 /s]
Time [days]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 2. Historical inflow (dashed) and release (solid) of the hydropower reservoir R1(a) and lake Como (b) (14-days moving median over the period 1996-2005).
22
Lake Como
water demand = Σ water use concessions
[ - Irrigation - Industrial water supply - Run-off river hydro ]
Is that the actual water demand?
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
green water resource
blue water resource
blue water resource
blue water flow
satu
rate
d
zon
e
un
satu
rate
d
zon
e
green water flow
rain
• BLUE WATER: surface and ground water
• GREEN WATER: water in the unsaturated root zone
Falkenmark, M. and Rockström, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 132(3), 129–132, 2006
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Author's personal copy
worst case actually occur and, when it does not, a water loss isproduced (see Fig. 10(b)). Hence the availability of a canal infra-structure manageable on-demand is only a physical pre-conditionfor exploiting the opportunities offered by a policy which accountsfor the water demand.
A final comment. As stated in Section 3.1, nowadays there is noconflict on water uses between hydropower companies andfarmers, because, in the irrigation season, the a priori given irri-gation demand is larger than the hydropower demand (seeFig. 11(a)). Thus, when the first is satisfied, the second is satisfied as
well. However, it is important to note that the true irrigation waterdemand (as estimated by the distributed-parameter model) isoccasionally lower than the hydropower demand (see Fig. 11(b)). Asa consequence, if the system was regulated on-demand, a conflictwould emerge between the two users and the definition of thewater demand at the lake outlet (see eq. (17)) would not beaccepted any longer. To overcome the problem, the reduced policymay be recalculated by solving a three-objective problem, whichexplicitly considers two separate objectives for the two down-stream users.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Ji (m3/s)2
Jf (m2 /g
/a)
Naive OCP FrontierReduced OCP FrontierNaive OCP Utopia pointReduced OCP Utopia pointhistorical management
C
B
B’
C’
AU’U
UU’
h
h
Fig. 7. Image of the Pareto-Frontiers of the Naive (dashed line) and Reduced (solid line) OCP obtained by simulating the Lake Como system over the period 1993–2004. Point h is thehistorical performance, while points U’ and U are the Utopia points of the Naive and Reduced OCP respectively. The meaning of the labelled points is explained in the text.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
Mm
3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
200
400
m3 /s
m3 /s
m3 /s
m3 /s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
days
naive policystoragereduced policystorage
naive policyreleasereduced policyrelease
a priori givendemandmeta−modelestimated demand
water demanddiverted flowa priori givendemand
water demanddiverted flowmeta−modelestimated demand
a
b
c
d
e
Fig. 8. Comparison of the storages (panel (a)) and the reservoir releases (panel (b)) induced by the naive and reduced policy (dashed and solid lines respectively). A priori given(dashed line) and water demand forecasted (solid line) (panel (c)). Trajectories of diverted flows (cross-solid lines) and the water demands (grey lines) produced, in 2003, by thenaive (d) and reduced (e) policies, associated to l¼ 0.40.
S. Galelli, R. Soncini-Sessa / Environmental Modelling & Software 25 (2010) 209–222 219
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Dem
and
[m3 /
s]
(a)
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pric
e [e
uro/
MW
]
(b)
J F M A M J J A S O N D−20’000
−10’000
0
10’000
20’000
30’000
Reve
nue [euro
/day]
(c)
Time [days]
FIG. 5. (a): Yearly pattern of water demand. (b): Yearly pattern of the energy price(each colour band represents the energy price in the j-th most profitable hour). (c):Di↵erence in daily hydropower revenue (14-days moving average over years 1996-2005)between centralized policy C6 and uncoordinated UC.
25
water demand
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
10
20
30
40
Flow
[m3 /s]
Inflow Release
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Flow
[m3 /s]
Time [days]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 2. Historical inflow (dashed) and release (solid) of the hydropower reservoir R1(a) and lake Como (b) (14-days moving median over the period 1996-2005).
22
Lake Como
Blue water
Blue & Green water
irrigation deficit
floo
de
d a
rea
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Author's personal copy
worst case actually occur and, when it does not, a water loss isproduced (see Fig. 10(b)). Hence the availability of a canal infra-structure manageable on-demand is only a physical pre-conditionfor exploiting the opportunities offered by a policy which accountsfor the water demand.
A final comment. As stated in Section 3.1, nowadays there is noconflict on water uses between hydropower companies andfarmers, because, in the irrigation season, the a priori given irri-gation demand is larger than the hydropower demand (seeFig. 11(a)). Thus, when the first is satisfied, the second is satisfied as
well. However, it is important to note that the true irrigation waterdemand (as estimated by the distributed-parameter model) isoccasionally lower than the hydropower demand (see Fig. 11(b)). Asa consequence, if the system was regulated on-demand, a conflictwould emerge between the two users and the definition of thewater demand at the lake outlet (see eq. (17)) would not beaccepted any longer. To overcome the problem, the reduced policymay be recalculated by solving a three-objective problem, whichexplicitly considers two separate objectives for the two down-stream users.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 14000
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Ji (m3/s)2
Jf (m2 /g
/a)
Naive OCP FrontierReduced OCP FrontierNaive OCP Utopia pointReduced OCP Utopia pointhistorical management
C
B
B’
C’
AU’U
UU’
h
h
Fig. 7. Image of the Pareto-Frontiers of the Naive (dashed line) and Reduced (solid line) OCP obtained by simulating the Lake Como system over the period 1993–2004. Point h is thehistorical performance, while points U’ and U are the Utopia points of the Naive and Reduced OCP respectively. The meaning of the labelled points is explained in the text.
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
Mm
3
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
200
400
m3 /s
m3 /s
m3 /s
m3 /s
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 3500
100
200
days
naive policystoragereduced policystorage
naive policyreleasereduced policyrelease
a priori givendemandmeta−modelestimated demand
water demanddiverted flowa priori givendemand
water demanddiverted flowmeta−modelestimated demand
a
b
c
d
e
Fig. 8. Comparison of the storages (panel (a)) and the reservoir releases (panel (b)) induced by the naive and reduced policy (dashed and solid lines respectively). A priori given(dashed line) and water demand forecasted (solid line) (panel (c)). Trajectories of diverted flows (cross-solid lines) and the water demands (grey lines) produced, in 2003, by thenaive (d) and reduced (e) policies, associated to l¼ 0.40.
S. Galelli, R. Soncini-Sessa / Environmental Modelling & Software 25 (2010) 209–222 219
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Dem
and
[m3 /
s]
(a)
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Pric
e [e
uro/
MW
]
(b)
J F M A M J J A S O N D−20’000
−10’000
0
10’000
20’000
30’000
Reve
nue [euro
/day]
(c)
Time [days]
FIG. 5. (a): Yearly pattern of water demand. (b): Yearly pattern of the energy price(each colour band represents the energy price in the j-th most profitable hour). (c):Di↵erence in daily hydropower revenue (14-days moving average over years 1996-2005)between centralized policy C6 and uncoordinated UC.
25
water demand
J F M A M J J A S O N D0
10
20
30
40
Flow
[m3 /s]
Inflow Release
J F M A M J J A S O N D50
100
150
200
250
Flow
[m3 /s]
Time [days]
(a)
(b)
FIG. 2. Historical inflow (dashed) and release (solid) of the hydropower reservoir R1(a) and lake Como (b) (14-days moving median over the period 1996-2005).
22
Lake Como
Blue water
Blue & Green water
irrigation deficit
floo
de
d a
rea
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
saving 75 Mm3 per year = ¼ of lake Como
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Blue water
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Blue water
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Blue water
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Blue water
Blue & green water
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Blue water
Blue & green water
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
DISTRILAKE lake como - greenwater
Galelli. et al. Environmental Modelling and Software, 25, 209–222, 2010
Network upgrade to supply on demand
FlumeGateTM by RUBICON WATER
Hydropower reservoir
Power plant
Como city
Penstock
River Adda
River Adda
LegendLario
Lario catchment
River
Irrigated area
0 10 20 30 40 505Kilometers
Downscaling
Catchment model
Water system model
Performance indicators
Management model
Regional climate scenario
Local climate scenario
Reservoir inflow scenario
Operation policy
Impacts on water resources
Anghileri, D. et al. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(6), 2025–2038, 2011
Uncertain futures and decision making
Scenario-based approach
possible future technological development and socio-economic development of the antropic forcings (IPCC 2007)
Scenario-based approach
from Le Treut et al., 2007 from www.wmo.int
Scenario-based approach
from www.wmo.int
from100 km to 25 km and higher resolution
Scenario-based approach
HBV model [Bergstrom, 1976]
from the atmosphere to local hydrological cycle
Scenario-based approach
Scenario-based approach
Wilby & Dessai, Weather, 65(7), 180-185, 2010
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000−5
−4.5
−4
−3.5
−3
−2.5
−2 x 105
Irrigation deficit (m3/s)2
−Hyd
ropo
wer r
even
ue (e
uro)
* Future optimal management policies
The impact of CC on Lake Como
Adaptation is better than myopic
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000−5
−4.5
−4
−3.5
−3
−2.5
−2 x 105
Irrigation deficit (m3/s)2
−Hyd
ropo
wer r
even
ue (e
uro)
* Future optimal management policies
Future is non stationary
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000−5
−4.5
−4
−3.5
−3
−2.5
−2 x 105
Irrigation deficit (m3/s)2
−Hyd
ropo
wer
rev
enue
(eu
ro)
2071-‐2080
2081-‐2090
2091-‐2100
Future is deeply uncertain
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000−5
−4.5
−4
−3.5
−3
−2.5
−2 x 105
Irrigation deficit (m3/s)2
−Hyd
ropo
wer
reve
nue
(eur
o)
HadRM3HREMOHIRHAMRCAOCHRMPROMESCLM
Uncertainty from different RCM projections
Conclusions
• Present day water and energy systems are tightly intertwined
• Hydropower has a role in the nexus
• Global change is challenging future hydropower operation
• Soft adaptation measures should be first considered to better exploit the potential of existing infrastructures
• Designing and implementing those measures require a trully mulidisciplinary approach
• Sationarity is dead and the future uncertain: implications for planning
That’s all