Evaluating Cost Trade-Offs between Hydropower and Fish Passage Mitigation

Terese E. Venus, Nicole Smialek, Joachim Pander, Atle Harby and Juergen Geist
Additional contact information
Terese E. Venus: Agricultural Production and Resource Economics, Technical University of Munich, Alte Akademie 14, 85354 Freising, Germany
Nicole Smialek: Aquatic Systems Biology, Technical University of Munich, Mühlenweg 22, 85354 Freising, Germany
Joachim Pander: Aquatic Systems Biology, Technical University of Munich, Mühlenweg 22, 85354 Freising, Germany
Atle Harby: SINTEF Energy Research, Water Resources Group, P.O. Box 4761 Torgarden, 7465 Trondheim, Norway
Juergen Geist: Aquatic Systems Biology, Technical University of Munich, Mühlenweg 22, 85354 Freising, Germany

Sustainability, 2020, vol. 12, issue 20, 1-30

Abstract: 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.

Keywords: fish passage; power production loss; river restoration; fish migration; hydropower mitigation costs (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: O13 Q Q0 Q2 Q3 Q5 Q56 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2020
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8520/pdf (application/pdf)
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/20/8520/ (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:20:p:8520-:d:428529

Access Statistics for this article

Sustainability is currently edited by Ms. Alexandra Wu

More articles in Sustainability from MDPI
Bibliographic data for series maintained by MDPI Indexing Manager ().