Challenges in the Development of Hydropower in Selected European Countries ^†

Abstract

Hydropower (HP) in Europe is playing an increasingly important role. Its share in final energy consumption varies from country to country, which is associated with different challenges for each of them. This article presents the challenges of HP development in three countries with a diversified domestic share, i.e., Albania (100% share in 2019), Slovenia (25.7%) and Estonia (0.3%). Particular attention was paid to issues of rational management of water resources in conjunction with the objectives of nature protection and European energy policy. As a result of the analysis, the following challenges in the development of HP were identified: the need to modernize the current HP network, conflicts related to the implementation of HP projects in naturally valuable areas, dependence on external electricity supply due to adverse environmental conditions, problems with the diversification of energy sources and lack of cooperation between environments representing different interests. The countries described have different local specificities; therefore, the challenges in the development of HP are different in each of them. The key to solving them is especially mutual cooperation between various environments, integration of energy markets and diversification of used energy sources, with an indication of renewable energy sources (RES). This will enable harmonious development of each country. Furthermore, it cannot be clearly determined whether the assumed objectives of EU energy policy will be achieved. Achieving these goals is possible because the share of RES in final energy consumption in the countries described is growing.

1. Introduction

Hydropower in Europe is playing an increasingly important role. In 2019, its share in electricity production was 18% and varied significantly between countries (Figure 1). Hydropower is used to the least extent in Denmark, the Netherlands and Estonia (share in domestic electricity production below 0.5%), while its use is largest in Albania (100%) and Norway (95.8%), according to data for 2019 [1].

The climate and energy package is an important element in Europe’s energy policy. It is based on the assumption that the energy supplied to consumers should be sustainable, competitive and affordable. This policy is the foundation of the transformation of Europe’s energy system. It assumes achievement of the assumed goals by 2020 and then by 2030. They concern the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, increasing the energy efficiency of countries, as well as the increase in the share of renewable energy sources (RES) in final energy consumption [2].

The article discusses the challenges in the development of hydropower in selected European countries. A country with a low share of hydropower (HP) in domestic electricity production was selected for analysis (Estonia, 0.3% in 2019), along with a medium share (Slovenia, 25.7%) and a high share (Albania, 100%) [1]. Particular attention was paid to issues of rational management of water resources in conjunction with the objectives of nature protection and socio-economic interests in individual countries (including the implementation of the European energy policy).

2. Challenges in the Development of Hydropower in Europe

2.1. Albania

At present, Albania is fully dependent on HP. This is due to its natural conditions; it is a mountainous country (70% of the area), and the rivers have large slopes. Its energy potential is large; however, only 35% of Albania’s hydropower potential has been developed. Total electricity production in 2013 amounted to 6.956 GWh, of which over 5.8 GWh came from the production of the Drin River Cascade (hydropower plants—HPPs—Fierza, Koman, Vau and Dejës) [3]. It should be mentioned that this production does not cover the demand for electricity, and this demand increases every year [4].

Over the years, especially after the change of political system, there has been a tendency towards modernizing the existing HP network—all large hydropower plants are over 30 years old. An example of such modernization is the Drin River Hydropower Rehabilitation Project in 1995–2017 [5]. Due to the implementation of the project, the efficiency of electricity supply for the population has improved, the export index has increased and the number of failures has decreased. No negative environmental effects were found for the project [6].

Contrary to the project described, the Albanian Ministry of the Environment’s decision regarding planned projects to create a HPP in the Vjosa river basin raises a lot of controversy. The river basin is a habitat for rare organisms, as well as a place with an important socio-economic function [7]. The decision of the Ministry of the Environment caused a wave of protests among pro-environmental organizations that took a number of actions to suspend this decision [8]. Thanks to the implemented measures, the project has not been completed to this day, and further decisions are to be taken by 2021 [9].

As the above examples show, despite the fact that conventional energy in Albania practically does not exist, there are still problems with reconciling social, economic and environmental interests in the case of new investments. However, this country is developing dynamically, as evidenced by, for example, changes in applicable law in which certain disputable issues were regulated. An example is the inclusion in the National Renewable Energy Plan for 2015–2020 [10] of entries from the Renewable Energy Directive in force in the EU. The second example is EU-funded pro-environmental projects that focus on improving the current system of protected areas, e.g., the IPA Transition Assistance and Institution Building—National Program for 2013 [11].

2.2. Estonia

Estonia, unlike Albania, is a country with a low share of HP in overall consumption. The main energy source is bituminous shale (over 70% of energy production in 2019). HP is treated in this country as a supporting energy source [1]. There are only 47 small HPPs with a total installed capacity of approximately 8 MW and annual production of 30 GWh. This results from natural conditions—Estonia is a lowland country with a low density of river networks. The largest HPP is Linnamäe on the Jägala River with a capacity of 1.2 MW and an annual production of 7000 MWh [12].

Despite the fact that there are not many HPPs in this country, the example of the largest of them clearly shows that their impact on living organisms is negative. The ecological status above the dam is good, and the ecological potential below is poor [13]. A significant decrease in the number of salmonids as well as decrease in fish mortality has been observed since the HPP began to operate. According to the water management plan, the main activities are the construction of a natural fish pass and restoration of natural spawning grounds. Additionally, this area is part of the Jägala Natura 2000 site, which was established to protect rare fish species as well as valuable river habitats [14,15].

Using the example of Estonia, it can be seen how dynamically the country can adapt to EU recommendations, and thanks to support measures, such as investment grants from the EU budget and technological modernizations, the share of RES is increasing dynamically [14]. Despite such a good situation, HP is also associated with problems, and we should constantly strive to minimize its impacts. An example of such minimization is the modernization of the Linnamäe HPP in 2001.

2.3. Slovenia

The Slovenian energy policy is regulated by the National Renewable Energy Action Plan 2010–2020 [15]. The most important assumptions of this document are an increase to 25% of the share of RES in final energy consumption, a 10% share of RES in transport in 2020, an increase in energy efficiency and a reduction in final energy consumption. In Slovenia, these assumptions are implemented and an improvement in the rate of use of RES is recorded (21.9% in 2019) [1,15].

Despite the increase in the share of RES, the development of HP in this country is a complicated issue. An example is the planned Mokrice HPP on the Sava river [16]. The investment will be located in the Natura 2000 area, near the Croatian border. The venture would have both negative and positive consequences. Threats resulting from the construction of a HPP concern, e.g., destruction of valuable river habitats, changes in the hydrological regime and resettlement of the population [17]. Examples of the opportunities related to the construction of this HPP include new jobs, increased flood safety and increased energy efficiency and energy exports abroad [18]. The investor envisages using environmentally friendly technologies that will minimize the environmental impact of the project.

Based on the cited example, it can be concluded that cooperation between specialists from various disciplines, as well as from different countries, is necessary. Comprehensive planning and impact assessment of the activities carried out, including the development of compensatory measures and a monitoring system [16], are necessary. This is in line with the principle of sustainable development, taking into account natural, social and economic interests.

3. Implementation of Energy Policy in Selected European Countries

The countries described meet the energy goals imposed by the EU to varying degrees. In Estonia, the assumed level of RES in final energy consumption (25%) has been achieved—it was 26.5% in 2019—while Slovenia did not meet this target (goal: 25%; share: 21.9%). Albania implements its energy policy in a dynamic way, and the share of RES in final energy consumption is 27% [1,2].

It is worth mentioning that the energy independence of selected countries is at different levels. Estonia has a particularly favorable situation, which is only about 9% dependent on energy imports, Slovenia is the most dependent of the four countries—44.6% of its energy is imported from other countries. Importantly, however, dependence on external energy supplies was reduced in all cases [19].

In addition, diversification of energy sources, suppliers and routes is necessary in these countries to ensure security and stability of energy supply. Furthermore, the focus should be on cooperation between EU neighboring countries in the context of energy policy, which may allow markets to be integrated more widely in Europe [20].

4. Summary

To sum up, the countries described have different local specificities; therefore, the challenges in the development of HP are different in each of them. The key to solving them is especially mutual cooperation between various environments, integration of energy markets and diversification of used energy sources, with an indication of RES. This will enable harmonious development of each country, in accordance with the assumptions of the sustainable development policy, supporting solutions reconciling natural, social and economic interests.

In addition, it cannot be clearly determined whether the assumed objectives of EU energy policy will be achieved. Achieving these goals is possible because the share of renewable energy sources in final energy consumption in the countries described is growing.