Evaluating Cost Trade-Offs between Hydropower and Fish Passage Mitigation

Terese E. Venus,Joachim Pander,Atle Harby,Juergen Geist,Nicole Smialek

doi:10.3390/su12208520

Terese E. Venus, Joachim Pander + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208520

Copy DOI

Journal: Sustainability	Publication Date: Oct 15, 2020
Citations: 17	License type: CC BY 4.0

Affiliation: Technical University of Munich, SINTEF

Abstract

To promote the sustainable management of hydropower, decision makers require information about cost trade-offs between the restoration of fish passage and hydropower production. We provide a systematic overview of the construction, operational, monitoring, and power loss costs associated with upstream and downstream fish passage measures in the European context. When comparing the total costs of upstream measures across different electricity price scenarios, nature-like solutions (67–88 EUR/kW) tend to cost less than technical solutions (201–287 EUR/kW) on average. Furthermore, nature-like fish passes incur fewer power losses and provide habitat in addition to facilitating fish passage, which presents a strong argument for supporting their development. When evaluating different cost categories of fish passage measures across different electricity price scenarios, construction (45–87%) accounts for the largest share compared to operation (0–1.2%) and power losses (11–54%). However, under a high electricity price scenario, power losses exceed construction costs for technical fish passes. Finally, there tends to be limited information on operational, power loss, and monitoring costs associated with passage measures. Thus, we recommend that policy makers standardize monitoring and reporting of hydraulic, structural, and biological parameters as well as costs in a more detailed manner.

Highlights

While hydropower represents the largest renewable energy source in Europe, it poses risks to river ecosystems, an array of animal species, and the downstream transport of sediments [1]
We provide a systematic overview of the construction, operational, monitoring, and power loss costs associated with upstream and downstream fish passage measures in the European context
Given that our results showed that nature-like solutions cost less to build and operate, incur fewer power losses, and provide habitat [52] in addition to facilitating fish passage, there is a strong basis for supporting their development in Europe

Summary

Introduction

While hydropower represents the largest renewable energy source in Europe, it poses risks to river ecosystems, an array of animal species, and the downstream transport of sediments [1]. The primary political instrument is the EU Water Framework Directive (Directive 2000/60/ EC, WFD), which, among other goals, mandates an improvement in the ecological status of waters including the restoration of fish passage and river connectivity of European rivers. While many studies focus on technical advancements and ecological assessments of fish passage technologies [2,3,4,5,6,7], there has been limited research on the costs of these measures in the European context [8]. It is important for decision makers to understand the trade-offs between restoring fish passage and hydropower production when they establish and plan cost-effective mitigation measures. Despite worldwide hydropower operation and mitigation programs, overviews of costs related to fish passage measures mainly come from North America [8]. It can be problematic to translate costs from one region to another, given differences related to legal and political frameworks, technologies, and input costs (i.e., land, labor, materials)

Methods

Results

Conclusion