Since 2012, hydropower has been the leading renewable energy provider Worldwide and from an economic standpoint, it is a cost effective, sustainable and indispensable commodity (Pedraza, 2015; Pedraza, 2015b). The need for hydropower and additional renewable energy sources (wind, solar) is brought on by the rapid growth of the human populace, economic developments, amplified worldwide energy requirements and the mounting effects of climate change on a worldwide scale; with, hydropower providing an installed capacity of ~990 GW (gigawatt hour) from 2012, contributing to climate security (Kaunda et al., 2012; Spanhoff, 2014; Pedraza, 2015b; Zarfl et al., 2015; World Energy Council, 2016). It is a multifunctional technology which is imperative for the future as fossil fuels presently exploited are insufficient at sustaining the energy demands during approaching year (Spanhoff, 2014). Hydropower is the main renewable electricity source within the European Union, accounting for 69% power production with large dams accounting for over 90% of that electricity production (Spanhoff, 2014). This is followed by wind- 15%; primary solid biomass- 7; municipal waste- 4%; biogas- 3%; solar- 1% and geothermal- 1% (Pedraza, 2015b) and globally, excess of 14,000 TWh is available via hydropower capacity of which, a mere 2,500TWh is, in actuality exploited as an energy source (Pedraza, 2015b).
In countries such as the USA, Canada, Norway, Japan, China and the EU the hydropower industry had been established 30-60 years prior to that of emergent markets in countries such as Brazil, Ethiopia, India, Malaysia, Iran, Laos, Turkey, Venezuela, Ecuador and Vietnam (Kumar et al., 2011b; Donovan and Nunez, 2012 ;Urban et al., 2013; Pedraza, 2015); with China ranking first in the world for hydraulic resources (Chang et al., 2010). For such countries, new hydropower schemes are scheduled, in development or under construction, with at least 3,700 major dams that have capacities > 1MW; and is expected to reduce the world’s free flowing large rivers by 21% (Zarfl et al., 2015).The USA, Canada, Brazil and China account for over 46% of hydroelectricity production worldwide with China exceeding 100 million kW of installed hydropower capacity during 2004 (Chang et al., 2010; World Energy Council, 2016); furthermore, the above cities are also included in the world’s most industrialised countries including: USA, Canada, Brazil, China, Norway, Japan and Sweden (Kumar et al., 2011; Pedraza, 2015b).
Although hydropower is a huge contributor to energy and is a requisite resource, power production is variable with fluctuations ensuing depending upon year and season variants and local hydrological conditions (Pedraza, 2015b). Geographical conditions, climate, precipitation patterns and obtaining access to alternative energy sources are also affected by the variability associated with hydropower (Pedraza, 2015b). Countries such as Norway and Albania have abundant water resources available for hydropower generation and national energy production is almost solely acquired via hydropower; whereas, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands do not obtain such natural geological formations and thus, have virtually no hydropower generation prospective (Pedraza, 2015b).
As fluctuations in energy generation are variable, hydropower technologies have been adapted to stabilise such fluctuations between the demand and supply and the subsequent influencing factors must be clarified:
- Modifications to the exploitable river flow, largely induced via climate change
- Modifications to the current hydropower technology installed capacity in the individual countries/ areas
Hydropower is harnessed via sunlight energy which is stored and taken from the water; hydro-kinetic energy is created through pressures and angular momentum produced through falling water from an elevated area. This causes the propulsion of the turbine blades, resulting in the rotation movement of the turbines and creating hydrokinetic energy (the greater the height the greater the energy potential due to increased driving force) (Kaunda et al., 2012; Pedraza, 2015b). The energy from sunlight causes evapotranspiration from the water bodies which is then deposited onto land as rain (Pedraza, 2015b). Variation of terrestrial areas and their variable ranges of altitudes instigate the level of rainfall which, also delivers variable runoff intensities, facilitating some of the energy found within sunlight to be captured via hydroelectric power (Pedraza, 2015b). These power plants are categorised in accordance to the way they utilise inflows, which is dependable upon the time frame in which the flow must be used (short or long periods) and what it is used for (e.g. emergency backup water supply during droughts) (Pedraza, 2015b). Depending upon the operational mode needed by a hydroelectric plant, they can be divided into two categories:
1. Run off river power plant schemes
Generally, this utilises the natural water flow from upstream without a need for any substantial water storage. These types of schemes can be effected by water use further upstream and the output of a run of river plant is completely dependable upon water availability; fluctuations are common in this type of electricity production owing to low or high flow periods (Pedraza, 2015b). Furthermore, seasons, rainfall and snowmelt affect water availability; due to their lack of storage, these plants are restricted in their intake abilities and restrictions include regulations of water levels at the intake in accordance with the incoming flows (Pedraza, 2015b). This being said, these schemes are size variable and larger facilities located on major rivers can reach >1MW with, smaller facilities attaining <10MW (Anderson et al., 2015). Typically in Europe these systems are collectively the most common, with facilities normally meeting <1MW or <100kW energy generation and are situated upon minor rivers which have been specifically selected owing to their geological and hydrological profile (Anderson et al., 2015).
It is generally advised that with these schemes upstream plants (with storage facility) or reservoirs should be constructed within the upper catchment, as this enables run of river power plants to continually generate energy as the upstream flow is already regulated via the upstream reservoir or plant, which will result in uniform outflows for further downstream plant systems (Pedraza, 2015b)..
2. Reservoir power plant schemes
The reservoirs enables water to be held for long periods, facilitating a consistent water source to sustain electrical use for the designated geographical area and are self-regulating and therefore, variations in short term flows should not affect their electricity production (Pedraza, 2015b).
Hydropower energy generation is essential with regards to worldwide energy. As an average, growth rates of hydroelectricity generation have increased roughly 2.4% per annum and are expected to do so until 2020 (Pedraza, 2015b). This being said, the opinions for the amplified utilisation of hydropower are based upon the advantages it offers, comparative to that of other energy sources. The key characteristics of hydropower are:
- Low cost
- Effective
- Sustainable
- Stored in large capacities
There are some issues facing the application of hydropower schemes as it can be an inconsistent source (seasonal) comparative to that of solar and wind energy with large hydropower projects seeing disapproval from the public due to the environmental, social and ecological effects (Pedraza, 2015b). It is also necessary that an integrated approach is applied to not only the management of water resources, but planning, development and partnerships with other water source sectors (Pedraza, 2015b). There is great necessity for an environmental, ecological and social approach, which must assess the pros, cons, impacts, effects and benefits of the scheme (Pedraza, 2015b). Policies must consider, address and resolve concerns such as:
- Providing protection for the livelihoods, properties and lives of residents from floods, droughts and environmental degradation
- Safeguarding rights of the residents and protecting, conserving and maintaining he expropriation of land to be inundated
- Improving the economical equity amongst residents
- Safeguarding the environment regarding the air, land, water, biodiversity and concerns relating to climate change (Pedraza, 2015b).
Large scale schemes provide an enormous quantity of electrical energy but, they have a very high investment cost; what with the inflation of climate costs, growth of global energy consumption and the decline of available fossil fuels has resulted in electricity prices – within the EU, to rise by an average of 4% per year, until 2030 (Pedraza, 2015b).
In Europe, pump storage plants are a common occurrence and supplies water during peak loading periods (Pedraza, 2015b). The highest progression in energy development rates are anticipated to be located in developing or highly industrial countries, particularly areas in Eastern Europe, which obtain a large niche for untapped hydropower potential (Pedraza, 2015b). However, hydropower schemes are renowned for their negative effects concerning social and environmental concerns and these impacts must be implemented into the development of any new hydropower facility (Pedraza, 2015b). Over the last 30 years, hydropower plants have gradually increased; in 1995, the installed capacity was 90.8 GW, 2008 saw a rise to 102.3 GW and in 2009, the hydropower capacity was 136 GW; respectively, this was an increase of 32.9% in a single year (Pedraza, 2015b).
In over 60 countries worldwide hydropower contributes to a minimum of 50% of the electricity supply and within the EU, this accounts for 11.6% of gross electricity generation (Pedraza, 2015b). below are the top five countries within Europe which provide hydro-electrical power:
- Austria – 59.3%
- Latvia – 49.5%
- Sweden – 43.5%
- Romania – 29.3%
- Slovenia – 24.3%
Norway, unlike other countries, supplies ~ 95% of electricity through hydropower, even though there is still abundant and unexploited hydropower potential available (Pedraza, 2015b). Although the EU hydropower prospective is at present, relatively well exploited, it is far from being exhausted; growth rate are expected to rise significantly during the coming decades in China, India, Turkey, Canada and Latin America (Pedraza, 2015b). Furthermore, other renewable energy sources are forecast to increase substantially and from a worldwide perspective, the use of renewable based electricity production is expected to potentially triple from 3,900 TWh to 1,100 TWh by 2035 (Pedraza, 2015b). This growth in production is determined by government policies, including subsidies which depicts 44% of the growth of the overall electricity generation up to 2035 (Pedraza, 2015b).
As an electricity source, hydropower is invaluable and is a key component for electricity generation for the future globally (Kaunda et al., 2012; Pedraza, 2015b). Throughout the EU the total net electricity energy generation was dominated by Germany, accounting for 19.2%, France 17.7% and the UK 11% (Eurostat, 2015). Hydropower further accounted for 16.6% of the total renewable energy production in the EU and produces a yearly revenue of EUR 120-180 million (Eurostat, 2015b; European Commission, 2015; Anderson et al., 2015). Case in point, an example of the sheer importance of this renewable energy source is the offshore grid initiative of the countries bordering the North Sea with, expectations of generating an additional 100GW of electricity, available to the whole of Europe (Pedraza, 2015b).
Hydropower production within the EU in 2008 produced 352TWh (according to the Eurostat statistics); in 2010, large scale hydropower dominated the energy generation totals of 296TWh, whilst small scale systems produced 45TWh – in total during 2010, hydropower generated 341TWh of energy (Pedraza, 2015b). During 2011, the total electricity generated through hydropower reached 347TWh, increasing by 1.8% comparative to that of 2010. As of 2012, the total energy produced via hydropower plants within the EU was 588.968 billion kWh, representing an increase from 2008 of 4.3% (Pedraza, 2015b).
Furthermore, Europe is reliant upon the hydropower technologies of Norway which, is anticipated to increase their overall electrical capacities (Pedraza, 2015b). The utilisation of both Norway, the North Sea and Europe’s outstanding hydroelectrical energy production provides both support and levels out the variables and inconsistent peaks and troughs governed via wind power generation (Pedraza, 2015b). The EU (omitting Russia) theoretically- on an annual basis, has a prospective hydropower production level close to 2,600 TWh (Pedraza, 2015b). As a whole, Europe utilises less than 36% of its hydropower potential, leaving more than 60% of the hydropower potential obtainable to investors which, can potentially deliver a surplus 600TWh per annum amongst the EU and non-EU member states (Pedraza, 2015b). Countries such as Albania, Bosnia- Herzegovina, Moldova, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia and Ukraine have only utilised 1/3rd of potential hydropower energy sources; whereas Denmark, Estonia and the Netherlands are extremely restricted in their ability to use hydropower (Euroelectrics, 2011; Pedraza, 2015b). Malta, being the exception, has no hydropower generation nor potential and as a whole and on a yearly basis, these four nations equate to a negligible 0.178TWh of hydropower energy production (Pedraza, 2015b). Relative to these four countries, Turkey is unique in its abilities to generate the highest hydropower, wind and geothermal energy capabilities in the EU (Baris and Kucukali, 2012).
Granting hydropower is a necessity for the production of electricity, large scale systems have met much controversy due to their detrimental effects upon water availability downstream. This affect upon downstream ecology has initiated the severe degradation to valuable and essential ecosystems which have on many instance, required the replacement and relocation of populations’ endemic to area of removal (Pedraza, 2015b). Comparative to that of former renewable energy technologies, hydropower is still a front runner for energy production with, new schemes and plants being developed, whilst old ones upgraded, improved and retrofitted to comply with the demands of the electricity loads and combined with reducing the environmental and social impacts that larger plants have on the ecosystem (Pedraza, 2015b).
XXX the top 10 producers of hydroelectricity and their percentage of total domestic electricity generation * excluding countries that do not produce hydropower
Top 10 hydroelectricity producers % of hydropower in total domestic electricity generation
- Norway 99
- Brazil 83.9
- Venezuela 73.4
- Canada 59
- Sweden 48.8
- Russia 19
- India 17.5
- China 15.5
- Italy 14
- France 8
- Rest of world* 14.3
1.1 Global Water
Freshwater environments, such as rivers and lakes, support ~10% of all known species (Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010) and yet, these habitats have been subjected to a vast range of physiological changes through anthropological manipulation. This manipulation of the environment has resulted in habitat degradation, misuse of natural fisheries, increased manifestation of alien species, alongside increased pollution and changes to flow regulations (Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010; Closs et al., 2015). These issues are a worldwide problem, which have resulted in a distressingly extensive reduction in biodiversity, species richness, range and abundancy; ~1 million dams’ worldwide have caused fragmentation of the river systems and surrounding water bodies (Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010; Closs et al., 2015).
Furthermore, human activity has harnessed the power of freshwater habitats and utilised these for the use of irrigation and flood control, waste removal, transportation, power generation, agricultural and urban uses and drinking water (Strayer and Dudgeon, 2010; Khan and Akbar, 2011; Miller and Spoolman, 2014a; Closs et al., 2015). This disruption has resulted in degradation and changes to the hydrological, physiochemical and biological aspects of the habitat (Maitland and Morgan, 2012). For example, dams, canals and other alike water bodies has constrained flows of ~40% of the world’s 237 largest rivers, causing fragmentation and connectivity of rivers and lakes, destroying terrestrial habitats and subsequently, reducing biodiversity, health and quality within the area (Miller and Spoolman, 2014b; Darwall and Freyhof, 2015). From this, flood control management has further disconnected rivers from their surrounding floodplains and altered and debilitated the functions of surrounding wetlands (Miller and Spoolman, 2014). Fisheries that reside within floodplains or low lying lands are subject to engulfing overflows of waters from rivers and lakes by which they are surrounded. These floods initiate changes in the physiochemical environment that species react to through morphological, anatomical, physiological or ecological adaptations and through changes in community structure (FAO, 2015).
Natural fish stocks have declined in recent years due to natural and man-made disasters causing degradation to the environment, habitats, ecosystems and reducing wetland and water areas (Habiba et al., 2015). These changes have resulted in increased levels of pollutants, organic and inorganic matter and sediment within rivers and lakes. Eutrophication, pollutants and nutrient loading of these waterways are caused through excessive land usage, resulting in many unhealthy habitats that are now unable to fully support their natural communities (Strayer and Drudgeon, 2010; Miller and Spoolman, 2014b; Darwall and Freyhof, 2015; Scholz and McIntyre, 2015).
This lack of precautionary investment has jeopardized the biodiversity of our ecosystems and, for habitats associated with 65% of continental discharge, are classified as moderately to highly threatened (Vörösmarty et al., 2010). The cumulative threat framework offers a tool for prioritizing policy and management responses to this crisis, and underscores the necessity of limiting threats at their source instead of through costly remediation of symptoms in order to assure global water security for both humans and freshwater biodiversity. Furthermore, a study conducted by Vörösmarty, et al., (2010) suggested that nearly 80% of the world’s population is exposed to high levels of threat to water security and where wealthier nations can invest in water technologies to negate high stressor levels without alleviating, amending or mitigating their foremost fundamental causes, less wealthy nations endure vulnerability (Vörösmarty, et al., 2010).
1.2 Water Security: examples of abstraction facilities and their issues within the Everglades
WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM THIS? WHAT ARE THE PROS AND CONS? WHAT CAN WE USE FROM THIS EXAMPLE TO LINK TO THE UK? WHAT CAN WE TAKE FROM THE EXAMPLES GIVEN TO USE AS A GUIDE AS WHAT NOT TO DO/ WHAT TO DO/ HOW TO REMEDY
The Everglades, prior to development in the 1800’s, covered 18,000 square miles of slow moving waters, covering 11 physiographic provinces from the northern region including the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee and neighbouring coastal estuaries to the east and west of the area and to the South, extending to the reefs South West of the Florida Keys (Hill, 2000; Committee of Restoration of the Greater Everglades Ecosystem, 2005; Bohlen et al., 2009). Other rivers included Caloosahatchee, St Lucie and parts of the Indian River lagoon, Biscayne and Florida bays (Hill, 2000).
The Everglades was an entwined multifaceted system of wetlands, uplands, coastal and marine areas with every single one of these fragile habitats being interconnected, whilst preserving and supporting a vast range of essential fauna and flora (US Army Corps, 1999). Prior to the addition of drainage sites, the landscapes comprised of swamp forests, sawgrass plains, tree islands, prairies and cypress strands (US Army Corps, 1999). The upland areas was dominated by pine flatwoods and rocklands and tropical hardwood hammocks dominated by oaks (US Army Corps, 1999). Naturally, the seascape contained shallow seagrass beds, riverine and fringe mangrove forests, intertidal flats, coral reefs, hard bottom communities, mud banks and shallow, open inshore waters (US Army Corps, 1999).
Following a lethal hurricane which caused multiple deaths in 1928, the Hoover Dike was implemented into the eastern park of Lake Okeechobee (Raven et al., 2012). Although this terminated the flooding, the Hoover Dike disabled the water from Lake Okeechobee from replenishing the ecosystems of the Everglades, which was desperately required after the drought season (Raven et al., 2012). The implementation of an additional four canals drained 530,000 acres, which was converted into farmlands and the use of fertilisers, pesticides and fungicides entered the WCAs, ENP and surrounding areas, altering the natural habitat, ecosystem and biochemistry (Raven et al., 2012).
During 1947, frequent tropical storms hit the Everglades area and subsequently, this resulted in the construction of an extensive system comprising of canals, levees, pumping stations and reservoirs to end flooding, to provide drainage and supply water to southern Florida (Raven et al., 2012). Water that would have originally swamped and replenished the Everglades was diverted by this drainage system and rather than this water returning back to the Everglades, it was discarded into the Atlantic Ocean (Raven et al., 2012).
In Florida, agricultural lands supply the surrounding ecosystems and environments with abundant and advantageous ecosystem services with many providing more than just food (Bohlen et al., 2009). In the 1940s landowners and public agencies initiated plans to transform the region to enable and facilitate agricultural production and human settlement through an extensive drainage system (Bohlen et al., 2009). Currently, the hydrologic regime of the 1.4 million- ha upstream watershed is driven by hundreds of publicly managed flow control structures and thousands of miles of canals and ditches (Bholen et al., 2009). Changes to Lake Okeechobee watershed has largely fragmented many wildlife habitats in the region.
2017-1-5-1483620147