The water footprint of hydroelectricity: a methodological comparison from a case study in New Zealand

Herath, Indika; Deurer, M.; Horne, David J.; Singh, Ranvir; Clothier, Brent

doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.05.007

Cited by 108 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(22 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Pressure can even be on land as there may be need to replace such resources as fish with livestock or crops (Orr et al, 2012;Herath, et al, 2011). Example is the result of the construction of the Mekong dam along Mekong River.…”

Section: 'Opportunity Cost' Wf:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Countries downstream like Myanmar who used to get fish from the river may need to increase livestock production to replace the lost food and income from fish. Herath et al (2011) looks at the change in the land use due to the hydroelectricity generation infrastructure development. Such replacement water footprint can be used to analyse the cost-benefit analysis of newly suggested projects that are water intensive.…”

Section: 'Opportunity Cost' Wf:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Review of Methodologies of Water Footprint.

Takawira.¹

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: 'Opportunity Cost' Wf:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 'Opportunity Cost' Wf:-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Review of Methodologies of Water Footprint.

Takawira.¹

2017

IJAR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The estimates provided in Table 1 vary considerably in their spatial extent, from estimates valid for one specific (single) plant as, for example, Herath et al (2011), via estimates given as average values for a region (e.g., one US State as for instance given by Gleick, 1992) to a global average as provided by Gerbens-Leenes et al (2009). This means that the estimates are not applicable for use on all scales and support different types of decision-making.…”

Section: Available Publications and Their Range In Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The main data sources providing single-plant estimated with identifiable plants are Herath et al (2011), Mekonnen and Hoekstra (2012), Arnøy (2012), Yesuf (2012), Tefferi (2012) and Demeke et al (2013). In the following, these data sources are merged and represent the compiled data set that was used in the analysis.…”

Section: Data Sources Providing Single-plants Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Water consumption from hydropower plants – review of published estimates and an assessment of the concept

Bakken

Killingtveit

Engeland

et al. 2013

Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Since the report from IPCC on renewable energy (IPCC, 2012) was published; more studies on water consumption from hydropower have become available. The newly published studies do not, however, contribute to a more consistent picture on what the "true" water consumption from hydropower plants is. The dominant calculation method is the gross evaporation from the reservoirs divided by the annual power production, which appears to be an oversimplistic calculation method that possibly produces a biased picture of the water consumption of hydropower plants. This review paper shows that the water footprint of hydropower is used synonymously with water consumption, based on gross evaporation rates. This paper also documents and discusses several methodological problems when applying this simplified approach (gross evaporation divided by annual power production) for the estimation of water consumption from hydropower projects. A number of short-comings are identified, including the lack of clarity regarding the setting of proper system boundaries in space and time. The methodology of attributing the water losses to the various uses in multi-purpose reservoirs is not developed. Furthermore, a correct and fair methodology for handling water consumption in reservoirs based on natural lakes is needed, as it appears meaningless that all the evaporation losses from a close-to-natural lake should be attributed to the hydropower production. It also appears problematic that the concept is not related to the impact the water consumption will have on the local water resources, as high water consumption values might not be problematic per se. Finally, it appears to be a paradox that a reservoir might be accorded a very high water consumption/footprint and still be the most feasible measure to improve the availability of water in a region. We argue that reservoirs are not always the problem; rather they may contribute to the solution of the problems of water scarcity. The authors consider that an improved conceptual framework is needed in order to calculate the water footprint from hydropower projects in a more reasonable way.

show abstract

“…Bueno et al (2016) used the conventional gross water footprint method for the Camargos Hydropower Reservoir in Brazil, and reported that the average hydropower footprint in Brazil exceeded the global average. Herath et al (2011) estimated the hydropower footprint of all major hydropower reservoirs in New Zealand using a combination of the consumptive water use method, the net consumptive water use method, and the net water balance method. Zhao and Liu (2015) developed a method that utilises an allocation coefficient to allocate water footprint among the different ecosystem services offered by the Three Gorges Reservoir in China.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Water, energy and agricultural landuse trends at Shiroro hydropower station and environs

Adegun¹,

Ajayi²,

Badru³

et al. 2018

Proc. IAHS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. The study examines the interplay among water resources, hydropower generation and agricultural landuse at the Shiroro hydropower station and its environs, in north-central Nigeria. Non-parametric trend analysis, hydropower footprint estimation, reservoir performance analysis, change detection analysis, and inferential statistics were combined to study the water-energy and food security nexus. Results of Mann-Kendall test and Sen's slope estimator for the period 1960 to 2013 showed a declining rainfall trend at Jos, around River Kaduna headwaters at −2.6 mm yr −1 , while rainfall at Kaduna and Minna upstream and downstream of the reservoir respectively showed no trend. Estimates of hydropower footprint varied between 130.4 and 704.1 m 3 GJ −1 between 1995 and 2013. Power generation reliability and resilience of the reservoir was 31.6 and 38.5 % respectively with year 2011 being the most vulnerable and least satisfactory. In addition to poor reliability and resilience indices, other challenges militating against good performance of hydropower generation includes population growth and climate change issues as exemplified in the downward trend observed at the headwaters. Water inflow and power generation shows a weak positive relationship with correlation coefficient (r) of 0.48, indicating less than optimal power generation. Total area of land cultivated increased from 884.59 km 2 in 1986 prior to the commissioning of the hydropower station to 1730.83 km 2 in 2016 which signifies an increased contribution of the dam to ensuring food security. The reality of reducing upstream rainfall amount coupled with high water footprint of electricity from the reservoir, therefore requires that a long term roadmap to improve operational coordination and management have to be put in place.

show abstract

The water footprint of hydroelectricity: a methodological comparison from a case study in New Zealand

Cited by 108 publications

References 17 publications

Review of Methodologies of Water Footprint.

Review of Methodologies of Water Footprint.

Water consumption from hydropower plants – review of published estimates and an assessment of the concept

Water, energy and agricultural landuse trends at Shiroro hydropower station and environs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About