Advertisement

Life cycle assessment of run-of-river hydropower plants in the Peruvian Andes: a policy support perspective

  • Daniel Verán-Leigh
  • Ian Vázquez-RoweEmail author
LCA FOR ENERGY SYSTEMS AND FOOD PRODUCTS

Abstract

Purpose

Low-carbon emissions are usually related to hydropower energy, making it an attractive option for nations with hydropower potential as it enables them to meet increasing electricity demand without relying on burning fossil fuels. In fact, the new wave of hydropower plant construction is occurring mainly in tropical areas where an additional environmental impact must be considered: biogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions due to the degradation of biogenic carbon in reservoirs. Peru is planning to install up to 2000 MW in hydropower until 2021, but the input and output flows, as well as the environmental impacts that these generate, have not been explored. Hence, a set of three hydropower plants built in the past decade located in the Peruvian Andes were analyzed from a life cycle perspective. The main objective of the study is to generate detailed life cycle inventories for each of these three hydropower plants with the aim of obtaining specific information for current conditions in Peru.

Methods

The life cycle assessment methodology was applied to compute the environmental impacts. Data collection was based mainly on primary data obtained directly from the hydropower companies, although biogenic emissions were modeled considering local net primary productivity conditions and other site-specific conditions. Although the calculation of GHG emissions related to hydropower plants was a priority, considering the important policy implications of decarbonizing the Peruvian electricity grid, other environmental categories, such as eutrophication or the depletion of abiotic resources, were also considered. The IPCC method was used to calculate GHG emissions, whereas a set of eight additional impact categories were computed using the ReCiPe 2016 method.

Results and discussion

Results show that GHG emissions per unit of electricity generated were in the lower range of emissions observed in the literature, in all three cases below 3 g CO2eq/kWh. Biogenic emissions represented less than 5% of the total GHG emissions despite their location in a tropical nation, due to the arid conditions of the landscape in the Andean Highlands, as well as the mild temperatures that are present in the reservoirs. In terms of stratospheric ozone depletion, a GHG with ozone depletion properties, N2O, was the main source of impact.

Conclusions

The results are intended to be of utility for an array of applications, including relevance in decision-making in the energy sector and policy-making at a national level, considering the implications in terms of meeting the nationally determined contributions to mitigate climate change in the frame of the Treaty of Paris.

Keywords

Biogenic emissions Electricity Industrial ecology LCA Peru Run-of-river hydropower plants 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This project is part of the International Climate Initiative (IKI). The Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (BMUB) supports this initiative on the basis of a decision adopted by the German Bundestag. The authors thank Ignacio Sánchez and Adriana Zacarías, from UN Environment, as well as personnel from the Peruvian Ministry of Environment (MINAM), especially Ricardo Estrada, Giuliana Becerra and Roxana Díaz, for their critical review. Prof. Ramzy Kahhat, from PUCP, is gratefully thanked for valuable scientific exchange and for his critical revision of the manuscript. Gustavo Larrea-Gallegos, Kurt Ziegler-Rodriguez, Carlos Adrianzén, and Marco Chávez are all acknowledged for valuable scientific exchange.

Supplementary material

11367_2018_1579_MOESM1_ESM.docx (260 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 259 kb)

References

  1. Abd-El Monsef H, Smith SE, Darwish K (2015) Impacts of the Aswan high dam after 50 years. Water Resour Manag 29(6):1873–1885CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abril G, Guerin F, Richard S, Delmas R, Galy-Lacaux C, Gosse P et al (2005) Carbon dioxide and methane emissions and the carbon budget of a 10-year old tropical reservoir (Petit Saut, French Guiana). Global Biogeochem Cycles 19:4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amponsah NY, Troldborg M, Kington B, Aalders I, Lloyd Hough R (2014) Greenhouse gas emissions from renewable energy sources: a review of lifecycle considerations. Renew Sust Energ Rev 39:461–475CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson EP, Jenkins CN, Heilpern S, Maldonado-Ocampo JA, Carvajal-Vallejos FM, Encalada AC, Rivadeneira JF, Hidalgo M, Cañas CM, Ortega H, Salcedo N, Maldonado M, Tedesco PA (2018) Fragmentation of Andes-to-Amazon connectivity by hydropower dams. Sci Adv 4(1):eaao1642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Asner GP, Knapp DE, Martin RE, Tupayachi R, Anderson CB Mascaro J et al (2014) The high resolution carbon geography of Perú. A collaborative report of the Carnegie Airborne Observatory and the Ministry of Environment of Perú. ISBN: 978-0-9913870-7-6Google Scholar
  6. Bakken TH, Modahl IS, Engeland K, Raadal HL, Arnøy S (2016) The life-cycle water footprint of two hydropower projects in Norway. J Clean Prod 113:241–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barnett TP, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438(7066):303–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barros N, Cole JJ, Tranvik LJ, Prairie YT, Bastviken D, Huszar VL et al (2011) Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to reservoir age and latitude. Nat Geosci 4:593–596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bazán J, Rieradevall J, Gabarrell X, Vázquez-Rowe I (2018) Low-carbon electricity production through the implementation of photovoltaic panels in rooftops in urban environments: a case study for three cities in Peru. Sci Total Environ 622:1448–1462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bekele G, Tadesse G (2012) Feasibility study of small hydro/PV/wind hybrid system for off-grid rural electrification in Ethiopia. Appl Energy 97:5–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Botelho A, Ferreira P, Lima F, Pinto LMC, Sousa S (2017) Assessment of the environmental impacts associated with hydropower. Renew Sust Energ Rev 70:896–904CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Boulay A-M, Bare J, De Camillis C, Döll P, Gassert F, Gerten D et al (2015) Consensus building on the development of a stress-based indicator for LCA-based impact assessment of water consumption: outcome of the expert workshops. Int J Life Cycle Assess 20(5):577–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bradley RS, Vuille M, Diaz HF, Vergara W (2006) Threats to water supplies in the tropical Andes. Science 312(5781):1755–1756CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Briones-Hidrovo A, Uche J, Martínez-Gracia A (2017) Accounting for GHG net reservoir emissions of hydropower in Ecuador. Renew Energy 112:209–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cho R (2011) Removing dams and restoring rivers. State of the planet. Retrieved in: http://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2011/08/29/removing-dams-and-restoring-rivers/. Accessed March 2nd 2018
  16. Chu S, Majumdar A (2012) Opportunities and challenges for a sustainable energy future. Nature 488(7411):294–303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ciroth A, Muller S, Weidema B, Lesage P (2016) Empirically based uncertainty factors for the pedigree matrix in ecoinvent. Int J Life Cycle Assess 21(9):1338–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. COES-SINAC (2016) Informe de la operación anual del SEIN. Comité de operación económica del sistema interconectado nacional. Retrieved from: http://www.coes.org.pe/Portal/PostOperacion/Informes/EvaluacionAnual. Accessed January 17th 2017; in Spanish
  19. Conway D, Van Garderen EA, Deryng D, Dorling S, Krueger T, Landman W et al (2015) Climate and southern Africa’s water–energy–food nexus. Nat Clim Chang 5(9):837–846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. De Faria FA, Jaramillo P, Sawakuchi HO, Richey JE, Barros N (2015) Estimating greenhouse gas emissions from future Amazonian hydroelectric reservoirs. Environ Res Lett 10(12):124019CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. de Miranda Ribeiro F, Da Silva GA (2010) Life-cycle inventory for hydroelectric generation: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 18(1):44–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deemer BR, Harrison JA, Li S, Beaulieu JJ, DelSontro T, Barros N, Bezerra-Neto JF, Powers SM, dos Santos MA, Vonk JA (2016) Greenhouse gas emissions from reservoir water surfaces: a new global synthesis. BioScience 66(11):949–964CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. DOE (2017) Types of hydropower plants. United States Department of Energy (DOE). Retrieved from: https://energy.gov/eere/water/types-hydropower-plants. Accessed February 11th 2018
  24. Dorber M, May R, Verones F (2018) Modelling net land occupation of hydropower reservoirs in Norway for use in life cycle assessment. Environ Sci Technol 52:2375–2384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ecoinvent (2016) Ecoinvent v3 database. ecoinvent Centre. Retrieved from: http://www.ecoinvent.org/. Accessed March 2nd 2018
  26. EEA (2016) EMEP/EEA emission inventory guidebook 2016. European Environment Agency. Retrieved from: https://www.eea.europa.eu/themes/air/emep-eea-air-pollutant-emission-inventoryguidebook/emep. Accessed January 20th 2018
  27. Egré D, Milewski JC (2002) The diversity of hydropower projects. Energ Policy 30(14):1225–1230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Erlewein A (2013) Disappearing rivers—the limits of environmental assessment for hydropower in India. Environ Impact Asses Rev 43:135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Flury K, Frischknecht R (2012) Life cycle inventories of hydroelectric power generation. ESU-Services, Fair Consulting in Sustainability, commissioned by OkoInstitute eV, 1–51Google Scholar
  30. Gagnon L, van de Vate JF (1997) Greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower: the state of research in 1996. Energ Policy 25:7–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Garegnani G, Sacchelli S, Balest J, Zambelli P (2018) GIS-based approach for assessing the energy potential and the financial feasibility of run-off-river hydro-power in Alpine valleys. Appl Energy 216:709–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gaudard L, Avanzi F, De Michele C (2018) Seasonal aspects of the energy-water nexus: the case of a run-of-the-river hydropower plant. Appl Energy 210:604–612CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Gloor MRJW, Brienen RJ, Galbraith D, Feldpausch TR, Schöngart J, Guyot JL et al (2013) Intensification of the Amazon hydrological cycle over the last two decades. Geophys Res Lett 40(9):1729–1733CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Gobierno del Perú (2015) Informe Final Comisión Multisectorial. Compromiso Perú Climático. Resolución Suprema N° 129-2015-PCMGoogle Scholar
  35. Google Earth (2016) Peru. November 26th 2016. January 23rd 2018Google Scholar
  36. Gorelick N, Hancher M, Dixon M, Ilyushchenko S, Thau D, Moore R (2017) Google Earth engine: planetary-scale geospatial analysis for everyone. Remote Sens Environ 202:18–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hellweg S, Milà i Canals L (2014) Emerging approaches, challenges and opportunities in life cycle assessment. Science 344(6188):1109–1113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hertwich EG (2013) Addressing biogenic greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower in LCA. Environ Sci Technol 47(17):9604–9611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Huntzinger DN, Eatmon TD (2009) A life-cycle assessment of Portland cement manufacturing: comparing the traditional process with alternative technologies. J Clean Prod 17(7):668–675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. ICLD (2011) World Register of Dams. International Commission on Large Dams. Retrieved from: http://www.icold-cigb.org. Accessed October 6th 2017
  41. Isambert F, Crepon O (2004) “Hydro and decommissioning.” Proc., Hydro 2004 (CD-ROM), Session 9, Int. Conf. sponsored by Int. J. of Hydropower and Dams, etc., Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  42. ISO (2006) ISO 14040—environmental management—life cycle assessment—principles and framework. International Organization for Standardization, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  43. Iyer G, Ledna C, Clarke L, Edmonds J, McJeon H, Kyle P, Williams JH (2017) Measuring progress form nationally determined contributions to mid-century strategies. Nat Clim Chang 7:871–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Kemenes A, Forsberg BR, Melack JM (2007) Methane release below a tropical hydroelectric dam. Geophys Res Lett 34:12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Köppen W (1936) “C”. In Köppen, W.; Geiger (publisher), Rudolf. Das geographische System der Klimate [The geographic system of climates] (PDF). Handbuch der Klimatologie. 1. Berlin: Borntraeger [in German]Google Scholar
  46. Lee U, Han J, Elgowainy A, Wang M (2018) Regional water consumption for hydro and thermal electricity generation in the United States. Appl Energy 210:661–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Liu J, Mao G, Hoekstra AY, Wang H, Wang J, Zheng C, van Vliet MTH, Wu M, Ruddell B, Yan J (2018) Managing the energy-water-food nexus for sustainable development. Appl Energy 210:377–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Mao G, Wang S, Teng Q, Zuo J, Tan X, Wang H, Liu Z (2017) The sustainable future of hydropower: a critical analysis of cooling units via the theory of inventive problem solving and life cycle assessment methods. J Clean Prod 142:2446–2453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Meinshausen M, Meinshausen N, Hare W, Raper SCB, Frieler K, Knutti R, Frame DJ, Allen MR (2009) Greenhouse-gas emission targets for limiting global warming to 2 6C. Nature 458:1158–1163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. MINEM (2007) Anuarios estadísticos de electricidad. Ministerio de Energía y Minas. Retrieved from: http://www.minem.gob.pe/_estadisticaSector.php?idSector=6. Accessed October 6th 2017; in Spanish
  51. MINEM (2016) Anuario Estadístico de Electricidad 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.minem.gob.pe/_estadistica.php?idSector=6&idEstadistica=11738. Accessed October 6th 2017; in Spanish
  52. Moreira JR, Poole AD (1993) Hydropower and its constraints. In: Johanson TB, Kelley H, Reedy AKN, Williams RH (eds) Renewable energy: sources for fuels and electricity. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  53. MTC (2003) Reglamento Nacional de Vehículos. Decreto Supremo N° 058-2003-MTC. Peruvian Ministry of Transport and Communications. Retrieved from: http://transparencia.mtc.gob.pe/idm_docs/normas_legales/1_0_70.pdf. Accessed March 2nd 2018; in Spanish
  54. NPI (2016) Emission estimation technique manual for explosives detonation and firing ranges. Version 3.1 August 2016. National Pollutant Inventory. Department of Environment and Energy. Commonwealth of Australia. ISBN: 978-0-642-55384-3Google Scholar
  55. Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión en Energía y Minería (OSINERGMIN) (2013). Decreto Legislativo de promoción de la inversión para la generación de electricidad con el uso de energías renovables. Retrieved from: http://www2.osinerg.gob.pe/MarcoLegal/docrev/D.%20Leg.%201002-CONCORDADO.pdf. Accessed March 2nd 2018
  56. Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión en Energía y Minería (OSINERGMIN) (2017) Centrales de Generación en Construcción. Retrieved from: http://www.osinergmin.gob.pe/empresas/electricidad/proyectos/generacion. Accessed October 6th 2017; in Spanish
  57. OSIGNERMIN (2016) La industria de la electricidad en el Perú. 25 años de aportes al crecimiento económico del país. Organismo Supervisor de la Inversión en Energía y Minería. ISBN: 978-612-47350-0-4Google Scholar
  58. Pascale A, Urmee T, Moore A (2011) Life cycle assessment of a community hydroelectric power system in rural Thailand. Renew Energy 36(11):2799–2808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Pehnt M (2006) Dynamic life cycle assessment (LCA) of renewable energy technologies. Renew Energy 31(1):55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Pinho P, Maia R, Monterroso A (2007) The quality of Portuguese environmental impact studies: the case of small hydropower projects. Environ Impact Assess Rev 27(3):189–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. PRé-Product Ecology Consultants (2018) SimaPro 8.4. PRè Consultants, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  62. Ravishankara AR, Daniel JS, Portmann RW (2009) Nitrous oxide (N2O): the dominant ozone-depleting substance emitted in the 21st century. Science 326(5949):123–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. ReCiPe (2016) ReCiPe Web Site. Retrieved in: http://www.lciarecipe.net/projectdefinition. Accessed December 12th 2017
  64. Rosenzweig ML (1968) Net primary productivity of terrestrial communities: prediction from climatological data. Am Nat 102(923):67–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Rubio J, Escobedo A, Vallejos C, Oyague E, Vera A, Estrada M (2017) Marañón: Costo social de los impactos acumulativos de cinco proyectos hidroeléctricos. Conservation Strategy Fund; Conservación Estratégica; SERIE TÉCNICA No. 50. Retrieved from: http://conservation-strategy.org/sites/default/files/field-file/Maranon_Costo_Social_0.pdf. Accessed February 11th 2018; in Spanish
  66. Rule BM, Worth ZJ, Boyle CA (2009) Comparison of life cycle carbon dioxide emissions and embodied energy in four renewable electricity generation technologies in New Zealand. Environ Sci Technol 43(16):6406–6413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Running SW, Thornton PE, Nemani R, Glassy JM (2000) Global terrestrial gross and net primary productivity from the earth observing system. Method Ecosyst Sci 3:44–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Servicio Nacional de Meteorología e Hidrología del Perú (SENAMHI) (2017) Mapa de estaciones. Retrieved in: http://www.senamhi.gob.pe/include_mapas/_map_data_tesis.php?drEsta=15. Accessed March 2nd 2018; in Spanish
  69. Song C, Gardner KH, Klein SJ, Souza SP, Mo W (2018) Cradle-to-grave greenhouse gas emissions from dams in the United States of America. Renew Sust Energ Rev 90:945–956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Srinivasan S, Kholod N, Chaturvedi V, Ghosh PP, Mathur R, Clarke L, Evans M, Hejazi M, Kanudia A, Koti PN, Liu B, Parikh KS, Ali MS, Sharma K (2018) Water for electricity in India: a multi-model study of future challenges and linkages to climate change mitigation. Appl Energy 210:673–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Suwanit W, Gheewala SH (2011) Life cycle assessment of mini-hydropower plants in Thailand. Int J Life Cycle Assess 16(9):849–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Tester JF, Drake EM, Driscoll MJ, Golay MW, Peters WA (2012) Sustainable energy. Choosing among options. Massachustes Institute of Technology, Cambridge ISBN: 978-0-262-01747-3Google Scholar
  73. Torres O (2011) Life cycle assessment of a pumped storage power plant. Master thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)Google Scholar
  74. United Nations Environment Programme-Dams and Development Project (UNEP-DDP) (2006) Switzerland National Committee on large dams. Retrieved from: http://www.unep.org/dams/documents/default.asp?documentid=481. Accessed March 26th 2006
  75. Varun RP, Bhat IK (2010) Life cycle energy and GHG analysis of hydroelectric power development in India. Int J Green Energy 7(4):361–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Vattenfall (2008) Certified Environmental Product Declaration of Electricity from Vattenfalls’s Nordic Hydropower. Retrieved from: www.vattenfall.com. Accessed March 2nd 2018
  77. Vázquez-Rowe I, Reyna JL, García-Torres S, Kahhat R (2015) Is climate change-centrism an optimal policy making strategy to set national electricity mixes? Appl Energy 159:108–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Vázquez-Rowe I, Ziegler K, Laso J, Quispe I, Aldaco R, Kahhat R (2019a) Production of cement in Peru: understanding carbon-related environmental impacts and their policy implications. Resourc Conserv Recy.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.12.017
  79. Vázquez-Rowe I, Kahhat R, Larrea-Gallegos G, Ziegler-Rodriguez K (2019b) Peru's road to climate action: are we on the right path? The role of life cycle methods to improve Peruvian national contributions. Sci Total Environ.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.322
  80. Vergara W, Deeb A, Valencia A, Bradley R, Francou B, Zarzar A, Haeussling S (2007) Economic impacts of rapid glacier retreat in the Andes. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 88(25):261–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. WEC. World Energy Resources (2016) World Energy Council. Retrieved from: https://www.worldenergy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/World-Energy-Resources-Full-report-2016.10.03.pdf. Accessed March 1st 2018
  82. Weidema BP (1998) Multi-user test of the data quality matrix for product life cycle inventory data. Int J Life Cycle Assess 3(5):259–265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Weidema B, Wenzel H, Petersen C, Hansen K (2004) The product, functional unit and reference flows in LCA. Environ News 70:1–46Google Scholar
  84. Wilbanks TJ, Kates RW (2010) Beyond adapting to climate change: embedding adaptation in responses to multiple threats and stresses. Ann Assoc Am Geogr 100(4):719–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Winemiller KO, McIntyre PB, Castello L, Fluet-Chouinard E, Giarrizzo T, Nam S et al (2016) Balancing hydropower and biodiversity in the Amazon, Congo, and Mekong. Science 351(6269):128–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. WULCA (2016) Life cycle initiative group project on the assessment of use and depletion of water resources within LCA. Retrieved from: http://www.wulca-waterlca.org/. Accessed December 8th 2016
  87. Zarfl C, Lumsdon AE, Berlekamp J, Tydecks L, Tockner K (2015) A global boom in hydropower dam construction. Aquat Sci 77(1):161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zhang Q, Karney B, MacLean HL, Feng J (2007) Life-cycle inventory of energy use and greenhouse gas emissions for two hydropower projects in China. J Infrastruct Syst 13(4):271–279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. Zhang S, Andrews-Speed P, Perera P (2015a) The evolving policy regime for pumped storage hydroelectricity in China: a key support for low-carbon energy. Appl Energy 150:15–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Zhang J, Xu L, Li X (2015b) Review on the externalities of hydropower: a comparison between large and small hydropower projects in Tibet based on the CO2 equivalent. Renew Sust Energ Rev 50:176–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Peruvian LCA Network, Department of EngineeringPontificia Universidad Católica del PerúLimaPeru

Personalised recommendations