Estimated capital costs of fish exclusion technologies for hydropower facilities

Paul G. Matson; Kevin M. Stewart; Gbadebo A. Oladosu; Emrat Nur Marzan; Scott T. DeNeale

doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119800

Estimated capital costs of fish exclusion technologies for hydropower facilities

Paul G. Matson, Kevin M. Stewart, Gbadebo A. Oladosu, Emrat Nur Marzan, Scott T. DeNeale

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

1 Scopus citations

Abstract

Hydropower is a reliable source of renewable energy, and its future expansion is likely to be in the form of either smaller new stream development (NSD) projects or powering existing non-powered dams. Thresholds for entrainment risk to fish and the requirements for fish exclusion at hydropower facilities often differ depending on the species involved, the characteristics of the facility, and the goals of stakeholders, but little quantitative information is present within the literature regarding the specific costs of fish exclusion measures. Cost data associated with protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures related to positive barrier screening were identified using keyword searches of an existing environmental mitigation cost data set and manual extraction from regulatory licensing documents available in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) eLibrary. This approach yielded a total of 50 p.m.&E mitigation measures with estimated capital construction costs pertaining to positive barrier screens and represented <10% of the 171 total FERC project dockets available in the data set. These data were highly skewed toward conventional relicensing projects, as <7% were associated with NSD projects. Results indicate highly variable costs are associated with fish screening, with flow-normalized costs one to two orders of magnitude higher for screening with the highest exclusion capability (≤0.09 in. spacing) compared with coarser screening (1–2 in.). These data provide an initial baseline for estimating exclusion costs for hydropower development and may help developers consider options for more fish-friendly generation technologies, though gaps remain relating to a lack of data, particularly for NSD projects.

Original language	English
Article number	119800
Journal	Journal of Environmental Management
Volume	351
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119800
State	Published - Feb 2024

Funding

Note: This manuscript has been authored by UT-Battelle, LLC under Contract No. DE-AC05-00OR22725 with the U.S. Department of Energy. The United States Government retains and the publisher, by accepting the article for publication, acknowledges that the United States Government retains a non-exclusive, paid-up, irrevocable, world-wide license to publish or reproduce the published form of this manuscript, or allow others to do so, for United States Government purposes. The Department of Energy will provide public access to these results of federally sponsored research in accordance with the DOE Public Access Plan (http://energy.gov/downloads/doe-public-access-plan).This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Water Power Technology Office (WPTO), as part of a Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA-0001836 Topic Area 1 awarded to Natel Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. The authors would like to thank Abe Schneider and Jessica Penrod at Natel Energy for technical guidance and feedback on this work, and Natalie Griffiths and Carly Hansen at ORNL, and Kathryn Jackson, Dana McCoskey, and Colin Sasthav at DOE WPTO for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy , Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy , Water Power Technology Office ( WPTO ), as part of a Funding Opportunity Announcement DE-FOA-0001836 Topic Area 1 awarded to Natel Energy. Oak Ridge National Laboratory is managed by UT-Battelle, LLC, for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC05-00OR22725. The authors would like to thank Abe Schneider and Jessica Penrod at Natel Energy for technical guidance and feedback on this work, and Natalie Griffiths and Carly Hansen at ORNL, and Kathryn Jackson, Dana McCoskey, and Colin Sasthav at DOE WPTO for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

Funders	Funder number
DOE Public Access Plan
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy , Water Power Technology Office
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Water Power Technology Office
United States Government
U.S. Department of Energy
Oak Ridge National Laboratory	DE-AC05-00OR22725
Water Power Technologies Office

Keywords

Cost
Exclusion
Fish
Hydropower
Mitigation
Screen

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119800

Cite this

@article{6057e54bfe4348b090581f372e33e200,

title = "Estimated capital costs of fish exclusion technologies for hydropower facilities",

abstract = "Hydropower is a reliable source of renewable energy, and its future expansion is likely to be in the form of either smaller new stream development (NSD) projects or powering existing non-powered dams. Thresholds for entrainment risk to fish and the requirements for fish exclusion at hydropower facilities often differ depending on the species involved, the characteristics of the facility, and the goals of stakeholders, but little quantitative information is present within the literature regarding the specific costs of fish exclusion measures. Cost data associated with protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures related to positive barrier screening were identified using keyword searches of an existing environmental mitigation cost data set and manual extraction from regulatory licensing documents available in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) eLibrary. This approach yielded a total of 50 p.m.&E mitigation measures with estimated capital construction costs pertaining to positive barrier screens and represented <10% of the 171 total FERC project dockets available in the data set. These data were highly skewed toward conventional relicensing projects, as <7% were associated with NSD projects. Results indicate highly variable costs are associated with fish screening, with flow-normalized costs one to two orders of magnitude higher for screening with the highest exclusion capability (≤0.09 in. spacing) compared with coarser screening (1–2 in.). These data provide an initial baseline for estimating exclusion costs for hydropower development and may help developers consider options for more fish-friendly generation technologies, though gaps remain relating to a lack of data, particularly for NSD projects.",

keywords = "Cost, Exclusion, Fish, Hydropower, Mitigation, Screen",

author = "Matson, {Paul G.} and Stewart, {Kevin M.} and Oladosu, {Gbadebo A.} and Marzan, {Emrat Nur} and DeNeale, {Scott T.}",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2023",

year = "2024",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119800",

language = "English",

volume = "351",

journal = "Journal of Environmental Management",

issn = "0301-4797",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Estimated capital costs of fish exclusion technologies for hydropower facilities

AU - Matson, Paul G.

AU - Stewart, Kevin M.

AU - Oladosu, Gbadebo A.

AU - Marzan, Emrat Nur

AU - DeNeale, Scott T.

PY - 2024/2

Y1 - 2024/2

N2 - Hydropower is a reliable source of renewable energy, and its future expansion is likely to be in the form of either smaller new stream development (NSD) projects or powering existing non-powered dams. Thresholds for entrainment risk to fish and the requirements for fish exclusion at hydropower facilities often differ depending on the species involved, the characteristics of the facility, and the goals of stakeholders, but little quantitative information is present within the literature regarding the specific costs of fish exclusion measures. Cost data associated with protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures related to positive barrier screening were identified using keyword searches of an existing environmental mitigation cost data set and manual extraction from regulatory licensing documents available in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) eLibrary. This approach yielded a total of 50 p.m.&E mitigation measures with estimated capital construction costs pertaining to positive barrier screens and represented <10% of the 171 total FERC project dockets available in the data set. These data were highly skewed toward conventional relicensing projects, as <7% were associated with NSD projects. Results indicate highly variable costs are associated with fish screening, with flow-normalized costs one to two orders of magnitude higher for screening with the highest exclusion capability (≤0.09 in. spacing) compared with coarser screening (1–2 in.). These data provide an initial baseline for estimating exclusion costs for hydropower development and may help developers consider options for more fish-friendly generation technologies, though gaps remain relating to a lack of data, particularly for NSD projects.

AB - Hydropower is a reliable source of renewable energy, and its future expansion is likely to be in the form of either smaller new stream development (NSD) projects or powering existing non-powered dams. Thresholds for entrainment risk to fish and the requirements for fish exclusion at hydropower facilities often differ depending on the species involved, the characteristics of the facility, and the goals of stakeholders, but little quantitative information is present within the literature regarding the specific costs of fish exclusion measures. Cost data associated with protection, mitigation, and enhancement (PM&E) measures related to positive barrier screening were identified using keyword searches of an existing environmental mitigation cost data set and manual extraction from regulatory licensing documents available in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) eLibrary. This approach yielded a total of 50 p.m.&E mitigation measures with estimated capital construction costs pertaining to positive barrier screens and represented <10% of the 171 total FERC project dockets available in the data set. These data were highly skewed toward conventional relicensing projects, as <7% were associated with NSD projects. Results indicate highly variable costs are associated with fish screening, with flow-normalized costs one to two orders of magnitude higher for screening with the highest exclusion capability (≤0.09 in. spacing) compared with coarser screening (1–2 in.). These data provide an initial baseline for estimating exclusion costs for hydropower development and may help developers consider options for more fish-friendly generation technologies, though gaps remain relating to a lack of data, particularly for NSD projects.

KW - Cost

KW - Exclusion

KW - Fish

KW - Hydropower

KW - Mitigation

KW - Screen

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85179496450&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119800

DO - 10.1016/j.jenvman.2023.119800

M3 - Article

C2 - 38071919

AN - SCOPUS:85179496450

SN - 0301-4797

VL - 351

JO - Journal of Environmental Management

JF - Journal of Environmental Management

M1 - 119800

ER -

Estimated capital costs of fish exclusion technologies for hydropower facilities

Abstract

Funding

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this