Flow regime aspects in determining environmental flows and maximising energy production at run-of-river hydropower plants

• Published in: Applied energy Vol. 256; p. 113980
• Main Authors: Kuriqi, Alban, Pinheiro, António N., Sordo-Ward, Alvaro, Garrote, Luis
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier Ltd 15-12-2019
• Subjects: E-flows; Hydrological regime; Hydropower policy; Renewable energy; River management; Small hydropower plants; Hydrological regime; River management; Renewable energy; Hydropower policy; E-flows; Small hydropower plants
• ISSN: 0306-2619; 1872-9118
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.113980

[Display omitted]
•Pluvial stable hydro-sites resulted in stable hydropower production.•Pluvial highly fluctuating hydro-sites showed impulsive hydropower production.•Pluvial-nival hydro-sites indicated unstable hydropower production.•Minimum EFMs compromised the trade-off between hydropower production and e-flows.•Dynamic EFMs enhanced e-flows and maximised the hydropower production.
This study investigates the influence of the river flow regime type on the e-flows releases and hydropower production, constrained by eight hydrologically-based e-flows methods. For this purpose, 20 run-of-river hydropower plants up to 10 MW, from five Iberian Peninsula basins, located in regions with pluvial highly fluctuating, pluvial stable, pluvial winter, and pluvio-nival flow regimes were analysed. We integrated a hydropower model with a hydrological model, and eight e-flows methods to estimate mean daily hydropower production, e-flows, and hydrologic alteration. The results demonstrate little influence on hydropower production and e-flows releases for the pluvial regime type, notably, pluvial stable regime river reaches. Pluvio-nival regime provides unstable hydropower production and comparatively high e-flows alteration. Overall, hydrologic parameters represented by five global indices derived from Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration were affected differently for the e-flows releases regime induced by tested e-flows methods. In general, e-flows methods that involve annual minimum flow and indices of flow duration curve show inconsistent results among all study cases and hydrological regimes types; either they result in high e-flows releases while sharply reducing hydropower production or vice versa. However, so-called dynamic approaches demonstrate consistent results and are more suitable, both in terms of hydropower production and e-flows releases by therefore providing 10–35% more energy production while having little impact in several hydrological parameters. The findings of this study may serve as a starting point to initiate a new discussion on the methods and criteria that should be established regarding e-flows determination at run-of-river hydropower plants.