Investigation of the Hydroelectric Development Potential of Nonpowered Dams: A Case Study of the Buyuk Menderes River Basin
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Site
2.2. Hydrological Model Development
2.3. The WEAP Model Calibration and Validation
2.4. Economic Analysis
2.5. Minimum Flow Considerations
3. Results
3.1. Model Calibration and Evaluation
3.2. Energy Production with NPDs
3.3. Cost of Retrofitting
3.4. Economic Analysis
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
- By investing in these retrofitting projects, Turkey could avoid the release of about 276,447 ton of CO into the atmosphere over a 49-year period of operation. With the results of this study, attention can be drawn to the hydroelectric potential of existing dams, a renewable energy source with less environmental impact.
- The economic impacts of agricultural losses from water scarcity caused by hydropower can be a potential barrier to the successful implementation of these retrofitting projects.
- As a result of the comparison of the minimum flow release with the cost of maintaining the river ecology and the total annual electricity generation income, it was shown that the minimum flow cost is not an economic barrier to the implementation of these projects.
- Analysis of climate change and the impact of data from different climates on the retrofitting potential.
- Investigation of the retrofitting potential including groundwater data.
- The development of technical guidelines for retrofitting with equipment to be used in the dam based on dam type, dam size, and new technologies.
- Investigation of socioeconomic, environmental, and legal barriers to the retrofitting of NPDs by considering the legislative aspect.
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
DSI | General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works in Turkiye |
HEPP | Hydroelectric power plant |
ICOLD | International Commission on Large Dams |
IEA | International Energy Agency |
NPD | Non-powered dam |
NVE | Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate |
WEAP | Water Evaluation and Planning |
References
- Tortajada, C. Water infrastructure as an essential element for human development. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev. 2014, 30, 8–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IEA. Net Zero by 2050 A Roadmap for the Global Energy. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/net-zero-by-2050 (accessed on 22 December 2022).
- World Commission of Dams. Dams and Development—A New Framework; The Report of the World Commission of Dams; World Commission of Dams: London, UK, 2020; ISBN 1-85383-798-9. [Google Scholar]
- IPBES. Summary for Policymakers of the Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019; 56p. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hansen, C.; Musa, M.; Sasthav, C.; DeNeale, S. Hydropower development potential at non-powered dams: Data needs and research gaps. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 145, 111058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- International Commission on Large Dams. World Register of Dams; International Commission on Large Dams ICOLD-CIGB: Paris, France, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Duncan, B.; Grubb, M.; Windram, C. International Trade and Climate Change Policies; Earthscan: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Rodriguez, H.R.; Helgenberger, S.H.; Ertör, P.E.; Nagel, L.N. (Eds.) Securing Turkey’s Energy Supply and Balancing the Current Account Deficit through Renewable Energy Assessing the Co-Benefits of Decarbonising the Power Sector; COBENEFITS: Potsdam, Germany, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- IEA—Turkey. Turkey 2021 Energy Policy Review. 2021. Available online: https://www.iea.org/reports/turkey-2021 (accessed on 22 December 2022).
- Fjøsne, N.R.; Bakken, T.H. Potential from retrofitting non-powered dams for hydro production. Int. J. Hydropower Dams 2021, 28. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Shnynat, N. Challenges of integrating a small hydropower plant at existing Mujib Dam. Eur. J. Electr. Eng. 2018, 20, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Van Vuuren, S.J.; Blersch, C.L.; Van Dijk, M. Modelling the feasibility of retrofitting hydropower to existing South African dams. In Proceedings of the Water Research Commission 40-Year Celebration Conference, Kempton Park, South Africa, 31 August–1 September 2011; Volume 37, pp. 679–692. [Google Scholar]
- Hadjerioua, B.; Wei, Y.; Kao, S.C. An Assessment of Energy Potential at Non-Powered Dams in the United States. Oak Ridge Natl. Lab. 2012, 37, 679–692. [Google Scholar]
- DSI Master Plan. Büyük Menderes Basin Master Plan Report. Alter and Akarsu. 2019.
- Yates, D.; Sieber, J.; Purkey, D.; Huber-Lee, A. WEAP21—A Demand-, Priority-, and preference-driven water planning model. Water Int. 2005, 30, 487–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- WEAP Tutorial. Water Evaluation And Planning System Tutorial—A Collection of Stand-Alone Modules to Aid in Learning the WEAP Software. 2016. Available online: https://www.weap21.org/index.asp?action=213 (accessed on 22 December 2022).
- Eryani, I.G.A.P.; Jayantari, M.W.; Wijaya, I.K.M. Sensitivity analysis in parameter calibration of the WEAP Model for integrated water resources management in Unda watershed. Civ. Eng. Archit. 2022, 10, 455–469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1998; ISBN 92-5-104219-5. [Google Scholar]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SWECO Norge AS. Cost Base for Small-Scale Hydropower Plants (<10,000 kW); Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate: Oslo, Norway, 2012.
- Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate. The Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate Report; Norwegian Water Resources and Energy Directorate: Oslo, Norway, 2010.
- Bloomberg, L.P. Turkey Significantly Raises Electricity, Natural Gas Prices; Bloomberg: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
- International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2021; ISBN 978-92-9260-348-9.
- Bakken, T.H.; Sundt, H.; Ruud, A.; Harby, A. Development of small versus large hydropower in Norway comparison of environmental impacts. Energy Procedia 2012, 20, 185–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bor, A.; Uctug, F.G. Environmental and economic life cycle assessment of a run-of-the-river type hydroelectricity power plant in Turkey. Environ. Prog. Sustain. Energy 2021, 41, 1058–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Koc, C. A study on solutions and problems of hydroelectric power plants in the operation. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2022, 8, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- SPD Hidropolitik Akademi. Hidroenerji Raporu Yekdem’e Kayıtlı HES’lerin Üretim Verimliliği, Su Politikaları Derneği; Rapor No: 2019-2, Kavaklıdere-Ankara, s.28; SPD Hidropolitik Akademi: Ankara, Türkiye, 2019. [Google Scholar]
Basin Properties | |
---|---|
Drainage area | 2500 km |
Annual average precipitation | 633 mm |
Annual average temperature | 15.6 |
Total water potential | 3,649,854 hm/year |
Total agricultural irrigation area | 1,231,520 ha |
Total amount of irrigation water provided from dams and ponds | 1573 hm |
Total amount of drinking water provided from dams and ponds | 402 hm |
Dam | Outflow (m/s) | Head (m) | Annual Average Flow (hm) | Energy Equivalent (kWh/m) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Yavaslar | 1.50 | 37.00 | 11.84 | 0.09 |
Orenler | 1.75 | 19.85 | 19.16 | 0.05 |
Isikli | 20.00 | 6.40 | 250.00 | 0.02 |
Tavas Yenidere | 2.18 | 40.62 | 15.00 | 0.10 |
Topcam | 3.00 | 54.15 | 28.00 | 0.13 |
Gokbel | 16.00 | 37.10 | 246.60 | 0.09 |
Yaylakavak | 2.90 | 68.50 | 48.80 | 0.17 |
Ikizdere | 2.00 | 95.80 | 134.70 | 0.24 |
Gokpinar | 2.77 | 41.20 | 45.22 | 0.10 |
Akbas | 0.75 | 68.25 | 16.00 | 0.17 |
Karacasu | 1.10 | 53.20 | 30.00 | 0.13 |
NPD | Potential [GWh/Year] | Capacity Factor |
---|---|---|
Yavaslar | 0.35 | 0.33 |
Orenler | 0.79 | 0.85 |
Isikli | 2.27 | 0.58 |
Tavas Yenidere | 1.08 | 0.72 |
Topcam | 3.06 | 0.82 |
Gokbel | 12.50 | 0.56 |
Yaylakavak | 4.99 | 0.61 |
Ikizdere | 7.34 | 0.24 |
Gokpinar | 2.22 | 0.49 |
Akbas | 1.50 | 0.56 |
Karacasu | 2.64 | 0.68 |
Dam | Optimised Penstock Diameter (m) | Capital Cost (Mil $) | Turbine Type |
---|---|---|---|
Yavaslar | 0.84 | 0.29 | Francis |
Orenler | 1.02 | 0.36 | Kaplan |
Isikli | 3.00 | 0.71 | Kaplan |
Tavas Yenidere | 1.10 | 0.93 | Francis |
Topcam | 1.28 | 0.66 | Francis |
Gokbel | 2.75 | 1.82 | Francis |
Yaylakavak | 1.21 | 0.76 | Francis |
Ikizdere | 0.90 | 0.87 | Francis |
Gokpinar | 0.66 | 0.54 | Francis |
Akbas | 0.68 | 0.41 | Francis |
Karacasu | 0.80 | 0.54 | Francis |
Dam | Capital Cost (Mil $) | Operation and Maintenance Cost (Mil $) | Annual Natural Resource Tax (Mil $) | Annual Revenue (Mil $) | LCOE ($/kWh) | IRR(%) | NPV (Mil $) | B/C Ratio |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Yavaslar | 0.29 | 0.47 | 0.44 | 1.26 | 0.108 | −4.00 | −0.14 | 0.80 |
Orenler | 0.36 | 0.58 | 0.99 | 2.84 | 0.072 | 3.00 | 0.18 | 1.18 |
Isikli | 0.71 | 1.13 | 2.86 | 8.17 | 0.059 | 9.00 | 1.09 | 1.45 |
Tavas Yenidere | 0.93 | 1.48 | 1.36 | 3.88 | 0.109 | −4.00 | −0.48 | 0.78 |
Topcam | 0.66 | 1.05 | 3.86 | 11.02 | 0.050 | 17.00 | 1.96 | 1.71 |
Gokbel | 1.82 | 2.91 | 15.75 | 45 | 0.043 | 30.00 | 9.48 | 1.96 |
Yaylakavak | 0.76 | 1.21 | 6.28 | 17.95 | 0.044 | 28.00 | 3.73 | 1.94 |
Ikizdere | 0.87 | 1.39 | 9.25 | 26.42 | 0.041 | 38.00 | 5.90 | 2.09 |
Gokpinar | 0.54 | 0.87 | 2.8 | 7.99 | 0.053 | 14.00 | 1.31 | 1.62 |
Akbas | 0.41 | 0.66 | 1.89 | 5.4 | 0.055 | 12.00 | 0.81 | 1.54 |
Karacasu | 0.54 | 0.54 | 2.58 | 9.04 | 0.039 | 19.00 | 1.74 | 1.74 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Okang, Q.A.; Bakken, T.H.; Bor, A. Investigation of the Hydroelectric Development Potential of Nonpowered Dams: A Case Study of the Buyuk Menderes River Basin. Water 2023, 15, 717. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040717
Okang QA, Bakken TH, Bor A. Investigation of the Hydroelectric Development Potential of Nonpowered Dams: A Case Study of the Buyuk Menderes River Basin. Water. 2023; 15(4):717. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040717
Chicago/Turabian StyleOkang, Quentin Adjetey, Tor Haakon Bakken, and Aslı Bor. 2023. "Investigation of the Hydroelectric Development Potential of Nonpowered Dams: A Case Study of the Buyuk Menderes River Basin" Water 15, no. 4: 717. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040717
APA StyleOkang, Q. A., Bakken, T. H., & Bor, A. (2023). Investigation of the Hydroelectric Development Potential of Nonpowered Dams: A Case Study of the Buyuk Menderes River Basin. Water, 15(4), 717. https://doi.org/10.3390/w15040717