Next Article in Journal
The Effect of Students’ Experience with the Transition from Primary to Secondary School on Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation
Next Article in Special Issue
Hydropower Case Study Collection: Innovative Low Head and Ecologically Improved Turbines, Hydropower in Existing Infrastructures, Hydropeaking Reduction, Digitalization and Governing Systems
Previous Article in Journal
Gender-Typed Sport Practice, Physical Self-Perceptions, and Performance-Related Emotions in Adolescent Girls
Previous Article in Special Issue
Archimedes Screw Turbines: A Sustainable Development Solution for Green and Renewable Energy Generation—A Review of Potential and Design Procedures
Article

Evaluating Cost Trade-Offs between Hydropower and Fish Passage Mitigation

1
Agricultural Production and Resource Economics, Technical University of Munich, Alte Akademie 14, 85354 Freising, Germany
2
Aquatic Systems Biology, Technical University of Munich, Mühlenweg 22, 85354 Freising, Germany
3
SINTEF Energy Research, Water Resources Group, P.O. Box 4761 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2020, 12(20), 8520; https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208520
Received: 21 August 2020 / Revised: 9 October 2020 / Accepted: 9 October 2020 / Published: 15 October 2020
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. View Full-Text
Keywords: fish passage; power production loss; river restoration; fish migration; hydropower mitigation costs fish passage; power production loss; river restoration; fish migration; hydropower mitigation costs
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Venus, T.E.; Smialek, N.; Pander, J.; Harby, A.; Geist, J. Evaluating Cost Trade-Offs between Hydropower and Fish Passage Mitigation. Sustainability 2020, 12, 8520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208520

AMA Style

Venus TE, Smialek N, Pander J, Harby A, Geist J. Evaluating Cost Trade-Offs between Hydropower and Fish Passage Mitigation. Sustainability. 2020; 12(20):8520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208520

Chicago/Turabian Style

Venus, Terese E., Nicole Smialek, Joachim Pander, Atle Harby, and Juergen Geist. 2020. "Evaluating Cost Trade-Offs between Hydropower and Fish Passage Mitigation" Sustainability 12, no. 20: 8520. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12208520

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop