Comparative cost per kilowatt of the latest hydropower
projects in Ecuador
(Costo comparativo por kilovatio de los últimos
proyectos hidroeléctricos en Ecuador)
Sebastián Naranjo-Silva1, Diego Javier
Punina Guerrero2, Javier Álvarez del Castillo1
1 Universidad Politécnica de Cataluña, Barcelona,
España
2 Universidad Técnica Estatal de Quevedo, Quevedo,
Ecuador
hector.sebastian.naranjo@upc.edu, dpuninag2@uteq.edu.ec, javier.alvarez@upc.edu
Resumen: La hidroelectricidad es la mayor fuente renovable globalmente utilizada,
para el 2020 ésta constituye el 77% de la matriz energética en Ecuador, pero
los costos con los cuales se desarrollan estos proyectos generan el
cuestionamiento entre el costo y beneficio de dichas inversiones debido a los impactos
sociales, ambientales y culturales que se crean. Mediante una metodología
cuantitativa en base a términos de inclusión y exclusión se encontró que las
ultimas cinco centrales hidroeléctricas del Ecuador inauguradas en el período
2015 – 2019 contienen costos más altos del promedio global en comparación con
el cálculo de la Agencia Internacional de las Energías Renovables, específicamente,
para Coca Codo Sinclair se tiene un 79% de incremento, 34% para Sopladora, 21%
para Minas San Francisco, 12% para Delsintagua y 119% para la central
Manduriacu. Además, el costo promedio globalmente calculado por IRENA en el
2020 fue 1,472 USD/kWh, en el caso promedio de 499 MW del Ecuador se tiene un
costo de 2,018 USD/kWh, valor 37% adicional a manera comparativa. Las
decisiones de inversión en nuevos proyectos hidroeléctricos deben mejorarse con
base en los datos de las plantas existentes, buscando mitigar los impactos, generando
un análisis crítico y definiendo las metas del país con las poblaciones
involucradas.
Palabras clave: Ecuador, costo, hidroeléctricas, energía, renovable, kilovatio.
Abstract: Hydropower is the largest renewable source globally used, and in
Ecuador, by 2020, the energy grid was 77% hydroelectric, but the costs with
which these projects are developed generate questioning between the cost and
benefit of said investments due to the social, environmental and cultural
impacts created. Through a quantitative methodology based on inclusion and
exclusion terms that developed comparisons, it was found that the last five
hydropower projects in Ecuador inaugurated in the period 2015 - 2019 contain
higher costs than the global average in comparison by the calculation by the
International Renewable Energy Agency, specifically, for Coca Codo Sinclair,
there is a 79% increase, 34% for Sopladora, 21% for Minas San Francisco, 12%
for Delsintagua and 119% for the Manduriacu plant. In addition, the global
average cost calculated by IRENA in 2020 was 1,472 USD/kW in the average case
of 499 MW in Ecuador, there is a cost of 2,018 USD/kW, an additional 37% value
for comparison. Investment decisions in new hydropower projects should be
improved based on data from existing plants, seeking to mitigate the impacts, doing
critical analysis, and defining the country goals with the involved communities.
Keywords: Ecuador, cost, hydroelectric,
energy, renewable, kilowatt.
1. IntroducTION
Hydroelectricity is the largest renewable
source used; by 2020, around 14,000 projects operating activity as a widely
used technology from a total of 180 countries in the world that reported
benefiting [1], [2]. According to
the International Hydropower Association (IHA), the global hydroelectric
capacity in 2020 was 1,330 GW. In Figure 1, we see the
countries that lead this type of energy source.
Figure 1. World hydropower capacity
installed in 2020 [3].
But, despite its renewable nature, hydropower has
environmental and social impacts that produce its use, as well as limitations
of economic feasibility, making hydropower a subsector of special attention for
its development in a sustainable way [4], [5].
The
fact that hydropower is renewable should not suggest that adverse effects, the called
"clean" energies are never clean when they are produced on a large scale
or produce a drastic change, on the contrary, it has severe impacts on human
lives and natural ecosystems, often irreversible [6].
Tuula
Teravainen mentions technical, ecological, territorial, and cultural
transformations at different levels and spaces of society where hydropower projects
often involve conflicts, new knowledge regimes, other local practices, global
mitigation frameworks, and water resources management [7].
Hydropower
development requires built dams and large-scale infrastructure, as well as the
opening of roads, water channels, pipelines, and other facilities that are not
a novelty but that do find particularities, benefits, and disadvantages that
characterize the process as that hydroelectric projects need extensive
infrastructure that is often not based on territorial expansion plans or social
and environmental compensation [8].
In addition, in developing
countries that seek to increase their energy grid with massive hydropower
expansion plans, abrupt changes are generated without analyzing the necessary
support to produce sustainable electricity from the costs per project and per
kWh that may be too high [9].
On the one hand, the
infrastructure for hydropower production necessary in several countries is
found in rural areas inhabited by peasant, indigenous or small farmer
populations that are generally economically vulnerable, where the degree of
social, environmental, and economic marginalization is marked, hydroelectric
facilities imply a high degree of affectation from the movement of populations
to the lifestyle change [10], [11]. Moreover, these hydroelectric projects are rarely promoted by people in
those areas due to the changes they imply [12].
For this purpose, hydropower is the only
renewable technology with a solid and binding interaction with the environment,
particularly the need for a comprehensive cost-benefit assessment to build
resilience and diversification in electricity grids [13], [14].
On the other hand, the value of the last five
hydroelectric projects inaugurated in Ecuador in 2015-2019 shows wide
divergences in the USD/kW percentage values of Ecuador were calculated
compared to the global average [15]. For example, Coca Codo Sinclair has a
79% increase, 34% for Sopladora, 21% for Minas San Francisco, 12% for
Delsintagua and 119% for the Manduriacu plant.
This
document aims to compare the productive cost of each kilowatt of the last five
hydropower projects in Ecuador (Coca Codo Sinclair, Sopladora, Minas San
Francisco, Delsintagua, and Manduriacu) performing a critical analysis and
evaluation of hydroelectricity to develop academic and professional contexts
within a globalized society with little environmental awareness.
2. Methodology
The article's methodology is
quantitative investigative, seeking to evaluate the cost of the kW of the last hydropower
projects in Ecuador versus the benefit of the investments generated in recent
years. About representative sources of
scientific information are verified, evaluating specific publishers such as
Elsevier and Taylor & Francis to select the best articles that serve as a
reference using relevant criteria.
A search protocol was generated in a structured way
with Boolean operators using described routes analyzed as indicated in Figure
2 to synthesize and consolidate
the results. 169 articles were found on the search, but inclusion
terms give 59 documents were filtered for the period from 2015 to 2021 of hydropower
cost reference in Ecuador; later, 38 duplicate sources or documents without quantitative
data were excluded, leaving 21 sources referenced in this paper.
Figure 2. Used methodology
We
selected the Elsevier and Taylor & Francis databases
because they have more articles and journals related to renewable energies
investigations. The 21 sources have the inclusion criteria and were
examined further to assess the factors associated with the support for
hydropower cost developments. The primary factors that influenced the paper
were hydropower projects that included terms as benefits of hydropower, cost, socio-economic
impacts associated, and last value of hydropower projects in Ecuador.
This paper methodology will
provide insight into future research that may guide the development of more effective
communication strategies and hydropower policy development.
In
addition to knowing local data from direct sources, the entities in charge of
formulating energy control policies were consulted, such as the Ministry of
Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources of Ecuador and its attached entity,
the Electricity Corporation of Ecuador (CELEC in Spanish).
3. results
3.1. Hydropower
International
Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) established that in 2016 more than 1 billion
people covered their demand with hydropower. It is the third-largest source of
electricity generation and first of renewables [16].
The International Hydropower Association establishes that in 2020, 4,370
TWh of hydroelectricity were generated, having a growth of 1.1% more than in
2019. In addition, an additional 1.6% of 2019 was added [3]. On the other hand, to demonstrate the
breadth of this source, IRENA produces renewable energy statistics, showing
2020 hydropower distribution in capacity in GW and percentage deployed by
region in Figure 3 [17].
Figure 3. Distribution of hydropower capacity by 2020. [17].
As Figure 3, East Asia is the region with more implemented
hydropower with 501 GW, besides Europe and North and Central America with 254
and 205 GW, respectively. Thus, in 2018 the global hydropower capacity was
1,292 GW; in 2019, 1308 GW increased at a compound annual rate of around 3.5%
in the last five years (2015 - 2019), as indicated by Figure 4 [18].
Figure 4. Global
hydropower growth by region (2016-2020) [3]
In addition, with data from 2015, currently, around 160 GW of hydropower
capacity are being built, and more than 1,000 MW are planned, with
approximately 1,200 large dams under construction in 49 countries around the
world, mainly in Asia. It 347 are important dams with a height of more than 60
meters. In Figure 5, the dam projects are under construction or
globally planned [19], [20].
Figure
5. Hydropower
dams are under construction and planned until 2030
[20].
Hydropower
is widely deployed in developed countries, which take advantage of more than
50% of its viable technical potential, and emerging economies have invested
between 20% and 30% of its potential. Africa is an extreme case, where only 7%
of the hydroelectric potential is executed [21].
On the other hand, to define
the relationship of hydropower and impacts from different areas of knowledge,
perspectives are compared and emerge with the technical research support; for
example, the World Bank developed the Hydropower Sustainability Assessment
Protocol (HSAP).
The HSAP is a tool to guide
and supports hydropower development seeking to mitigate effects in the partner
countries of the World Bank [22]. The last update of the protocol is from 2018,
where awareness is created through commitment at the sector level with a
document that assesses sustainability using an approach and consideration of
the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and from the perspective of the complete
hydroelectric system. i.e., analyze reservoir, dam, power plant, transmission,
project location, and surroundings [23].
3.2. Cost of hydropower
projects in Ecuador
Between 2007 and 2017, the country invested close to USD 6 billion in
eight hydropower projects to double its capacity (Manduriacu, Sopladora,
Delsitanisagua, Mazar Dudas, Minas San Francisco, Quijos, Toachi Pilatón, and
Coca Codo Sinclair), [24]. According to the International Hydropower
Association, Ecuador ranked third after China and Brazil for countries that
added new capacity in 2016 [25]. In addition, data from the Electricity
Corporation of Ecuador
mentions in 2020, Ecuador generated around 77% of all energy through
hydroelectricity [26].
In Ecuador, these
large hydropower infrastructures are due to tropical conditions with strong
water currents. Then the Figure 6 of projects
according to the main basins of the country to reference the hydropower
potential and locations.
Figure 6. Ecuador's main basins and their hydroelectric
potential in GW [27], [28].
According to the
Electricity Corporation of Ecuador, the value of the last five hydropower
projects in Ecuador inaugurated between 2015 and 2019 is determined in Table 1 when the energy grid increased the percentage of
renewable energy [15], [27].
The average
information of the last five (5) hydroelectric projects of the Electricity
Corporation of Ecuador establishes that, for four generating units with an
average power of 499 MW, the cost is extremely expensive of more than one
billion dollars, which does not consider the high environmental, social and cultural impacts intangibly developed. Then, a
cost-benefit relationship is generated.
Table 1. Cost and
investment of hydropower projects in Ecuador [15], [27].
Item |
Hydropower projects |
Power [MW] |
Power [kW] |
Units number [U] |
Investment [USD] |
Cost per kilowatt [USD/kW] |
Cost per generating unit [USD/U] |
||
1 |
Coca Codo Sinclair |
1,500 |
1,500,000 |
8 |
2,850,966,262 |
1,901 |
356,370,783 |
||
2 |
Sopladora |
487 |
487,000 |
3 |
962,846,620 |
1,977 |
320,948,873 |
||
3 |
Minas San Francisco |
270 |
270,000 |
3 |
662,480,054 |
2,454 |
220,826,685 |
||
4 |
Delsintagua |
180 |
180,000 |
3 |
334,843,245 |
1,860 |
111,614,415 |
||
5 |
Manduriacu |
60 |
60,000 |
2 |
227,389,966 |
3,790 |
113,694,983 |
||
Average |
499 |
499,400 |
4 |
1,007,705,229 |
2,396 |
224,691,148 |
|||
In other words, each kilowatt of average hydropower
installed in Ecuador costs around 2,000 US dollars, an extreme value, if the
aggressive changes in the ecosystems mentioned above are taken into account.
According to International
Renewable Energy Agency in the 2020
renewable energy cost analysis, the cost-benefit of hydroelectricity depends on
several factors such as the size of each project, type of plant. Still, in 2020, the global average installation cost of hydropower
projects increased to 1,870 USD/kW, 9% more than in 2019. In addition, the
international average installation cost in 2020 was the highest value recorded
since 2010 [29], as the Figure
7.
The increase in
the cost of hydropower is explained by the higher proportion of installed
capacity deployment in other countries or regions with higher average
installation costs. In Turkey, for example, 2.5 GW was added in 2020, while
there was also a higher share of deployment in Eurasia and Asia in 2020
compared to 2019 [29]. Followed in Figure
7, the median prices illustration from 2010 to 2020 for
hydropower, presents at the global level.
In Figure
7, the total
installation costs for most hydro projects commissioned between 2010 and 2020
range from a minimum of around 600 USD/kW to a maximum of about 4,500 USD/kW.
However, we can find projects outside of this range. For example, adding
hydroelectric capacity to an existing dam built for other purposes can cost
significantly less at 450 USD/kW. In contrast, remote sites with poor
infrastructure far from existing transmission networks can cost considerably
more [17]. Furthermore, in Table 2, the specific
detail by the capacity of each hydropower project is calculated by IRENA
[29].
Figure 7.
Hydropower installation costs per kW at the global level [29]
Table
2.
Average investment and by percentile about hydropower capacity [29]
No. |
Capacity [MW] |
5th percentile [2020 USD / kW] |
Weighted average [2020 USD / kW] |
1 |
0-50 |
807 |
1,518 |
2 |
51-100 |
836 |
1,728 |
3 |
101-150 |
890 |
1,685 |
4 |
151-200 |
805 |
1,656 |
5 |
201-250 |
886 |
1,730 |
6 |
251-300 |
789 |
2,022 |
7 |
301-350 |
896 |
1,927 |
8 |
351-400 |
652 |
1,632 |
9 |
401-450 |
1,155 |
1,925 |
10 |
451-500 |
918 |
1,472 |
11 |
501-550 |
1,074 |
1,467 |
12 |
551-600 |
1,296 |
1,817 |
13 |
601-650 |
1,034 |
1,401 |
14 |
651-700 |
743 |
1,928 |
15 |
701-750 |
933 |
1,392 |
16 |
751-800 |
1,034 |
1,519 |
17 |
801-850 |
1,137 |
1,769 |
18 |
851-900 |
8,261 |
1,368 |
19 |
901 onwards |
635 |
1,063 |
Such as set out in the Ecuador costs and global
average, hydropower is a capital-intensive technology, often requiring long
lead times, especially for large-capacity projects. The delivery time includes
permitting, site development, construction, and commissioning. Hydropower
projects are large and complex, with high civil engineering development and
extensive site surveys, inflow data collection (if not available),
environmental assessments, and permits all take time [29], [30].
4. DISCUSSION
According to the projected scenarios, hydropower will be susceptible, between 2010 and
2020, the global weighted average total cost of installing new projects
increased from 1,249 USD/kW to 1,870 USD/kW, the year-over-year increase is
driven by implementation in different regions and changes in specific [29]. Table 3 exposes the
comparison by the capacity to supply of each project in Ecuador versus the
global average from Table 2 data in bold.
Table 3. Hydropower costs comparison in Ecuador. [15], [27].
Item |
Hydropower project |
Capacity
[MW] |
Investment [USD] |
Cost per kilowatt at Ecuador [USD/kW] |
Cost per size according to IRENA [USD/kW] |
Increase (Ecuador/Average) IRENA |
1 |
Coca Codo Sinclair |
1,500 |
2,850,966,262 |
1,901 |
1,063 |
79% |
2 |
Sopladora |
487 |
962,846,620 |
1,977 |
1,472 |
34% |
3 |
Minas San Francisco |
270 |
662,480,054 |
2,454 |
2,022 |
21% |
4 |
Delsintagua |
180 |
334,843,245 |
1,860 |
1,656 |
12% |
5 |
Manduriacu |
60 |
227,389,966 |
3,790 |
1,728 |
119% |
As Table 3 compares in Ecuador, there are costs with a
reasonably representative increase compared to the average that IRENA determines
globally for 2020. Moreover, we take the middling of cost per kilowatt in Table 1; the calculations were made based on the developed
project's size, averaging the cost and capacity of the five projects in the
country, having the second comparison at Table 4.
Table 4. Average cost and power comparison of five
hydroelectric plants in Ecuador. [15], [27].
Average capacity [MW] |
Average investment [USD] |
Cost per kilowatt at Ecuador [USD/kW] |
Cost per size according to IRENA [USD/kW] |
Increase (Ecuador/Average) |
499 |
1,007,705,229 |
2,018 |
1,472 |
37% |
Ecuador's cost variations versus the global average
have considerable divergences. Moreover, in comparison, the hydropower
with other renewable sources such as solar photovoltaic and wind cost,
following data from the IRENA in Table 5 shows the
relation of the investment on period 2010 – 2020 [29].
Table 5. The average cost of renewable sources. [29]
Source |
2010 [USD/kW] |
2020 [USD/kW] |
Percent change |
Hydropower |
1,269 |
1,870 |
47% |
Solar PV |
4,731 |
883 |
-81% |
Onshore wind |
1,971 |
1,355 |
-31% |
Table 5 reflects that the cost of hydroelectricity has risen
substantially, and onshore wind and photovoltaic alone have significantly
reduced. The role of hydropower will gradually change, from a firm generation
that covers a demand to a flexible generation complementary to non-conventional
renewable production such as wind, geothermal, tidal, and solar [31].
In addition, the real benefit caused by hydropower projects
generates a comprehensive discussion for the uncertain future, such as besides authors.
·
Michelle Van Vliet projects decreases in global average hydropower
usable capacity from 0.4% to 6.1% in the Representative Concentration Scenarios
(RCP), RCP 2.6 to RCP 8.5 for 2080 relative to 1971- 2000 due to water
reductions in the United States, Europe, East Asia, South America, South Africa
and Australia where substantial temperature increases are scheduled combined
with drops in the average annual water flow [32].
·
Matteo Mattmann generates a meta-analysis of hydropower externalities
with the help of a database consisting of 81 observations derived from 29
studies that assess the impacts of hydropower. The study creates evidence of
public aberration towards hydropower projects due to landscape changes,
vegetation damage, and wildlife death. In addition, there is resistance to
hydropower in areas where the external negative potential is significant; for
example, in conservation areas, hydroelectric plants should be planned where
they have the least possible impact on the environment and populations [33].
As studies show, hydropower
and its complex impacts are commonly treated as independent, but consequences
are not purely social, ecological, technical, or economic but related [34].
Policymakers,
engineers, and builders must adopt methodologies or protocols to prioritize
hydroelectric plants sustainably in different parts of the world, avoiding high
construction costs [35].
The future of
hydropower presents a challenging path for projects underway around the world
through external variations [36]. Hence, hydropower will continue to be
controversial renewable energy in the coming years, needing to evaluate risks,
advantages, and viability, including the size and impacts of this source that
actually in Ecuador has a significant cost of investment [37].
5. Conclusions
According to investment
data from the last five hydropower projects in Ecuador inaugurated in the
period 2015 - 2019, the calculated costs are higher than the global average for
Coca Codo Sinclair there is a 79% increase, 34% for Sopladora, 21% for Minas
San Francisco, 12% for Delsintagua and 119% for Manduriacu.
The global average cost for
hydropower projects calculated by International Renewable Energy Agency in 2020
was 1870 USD/kW, in the average capacity case of 499 MW, Ecuador has a
calculated cost of 2018 USD/kW, IRENA defined in 1472 USD/kW, it indicates a
high value in 37% by comparison.
Investment decisions in new hydropower projects should
be improved based on data from existing plants, seeking to mitigate the impacts
on the environment and society, critical with knowledge of the effects and
country goals.
The hydropower investment
costs analyzed in Ecuador establish high amounts and criteria that do not
determine the water overuse effects, basins deterioration, and natural
conditions on the planet.
Before thinking about a
mega hydropower construction with dams, it is necessary to analyze this future
large-scale development with more accurate decisions about the actual
efficiency of the projects and promote in the coming years the advancement of
other unconventional energy sources such as wind, geothermal, and solar
photovoltaic to mitigate social and environmental impacts.
[1] C.
Llamosas and B. K. Sovacool, “The future of hydropower? A systematic review of
the drivers, benefits and governance dynamics of transboundary dams,” Renew.
Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 137, no. 0321, pp. 110–124, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.rser.2020.110495.
[2] ICOLD,
“General Synthesis of World register of dams,” 2021. [Online]. Available:
https://www.icold-cigb.org/article/GB/world_register/general_synthesis/general-synthesis.
[Accessed: 19-May-2021].
[3] International
Hydropower Association, “Hydropower Status Report 2021: Sector trends and
insights,” 2021.
[4] J.
L. Chiang, H. C. Yang, Y. R. Chen, and M. H. Lee, “Potential impact of climate
change on hydropower generation in southern Taiwan,” Energy Procedia,
vol. 40, pp. 34–37, 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.egypro.2013.08.005.
[5] S. Naranjo Silva, D. J. Punina Guerrero,
and J. J. Morales Martinez, “Energía solar en paradas de bus una aplicación
moderna y vanguardista,” Rev. InGenio, vol. 4, no. 1, pp. 58–68, 2021,
doi: 10.18779/ingenio.v4i1.368.
[6] K. Daniel and M. Gaviria, “Impactos
sociales y el tamaño óptimo de los megaproyectos hidroeléctricos,” Universidad
Nacional de Colombia, 2018.
[7] T.
Teräväinen, “Negotiating water and technology-Competing expectations and
confronting knowledges in the case of the Coca Codo Sinclair in Ecuador,” Water
(Switzerland), vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 1–18, 2019, doi: 10.3390/w11030411.
[8] Y.
Yang, T. Sammut-Bonnici, and J. McGee, “LAD Case Study of Funding Coca Codo
Sinclair: Correa’s Bet on Sustainable Power in Ecuador,” Wiley Encyclopedia
of Management, no. November, pp. 68–69, 2002.
[9] D.
A. Alvarez-Chiriboga, “Prediction model of the energy production of the Coca
Codo Sinclair Hydroelectric Plant, based on computational learning techniques,”
Army Forces University of Ecuador, 2020.
[10] R.
Spalding-Fecher et al., “The vulnerability of hydropower production in
the Zambezi River Basin to the impacts of climate change and irrigation
development,” Mitig. Adapt. Strateg. Glob. Chang., vol. 21, no. 5, pp.
721–742, 2016, doi: 10.1007/s11027-014-9619-7.
[11] S.
W. D. Turner, Y. N. Jia, and S. Galelli, “Examining global electricity supply
vulnerability to climate change using a high-fidelity hydropower dam model,” Sci.
Total Environ., vol. 590–591, pp. 663–675, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.03.022.
[12] S.
Naranjo-Silva and J. Álvarez del Castillo, “Hydropower: Projections in a
changing climate and impacts by this ‘clean’ source,” CienciAmérica,
vol. 10, no. 2, p. 32, Jul. 2021, doi: 10.33210/ca.v10i2.363.
[13] A.
Briones Hidrovo, J. Uche, and A. Martínez-Gracia, “Determining the net
environmental performance of hydropower: A new methodological approach by
combining life cycle and ecosystem services assessment,” Sci. Total Environ.,
vol. 712, p. 44, 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136369.
[14] B.
Tarroja, A. AghaKouchak, and S. Samuelsen, “Quantifying climate change impacts
on hydropower generation and implications on electric grid greenhouse gas
emissions and operation,” Energy, vol. 111, pp. 295–305, 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2016.05.131.
[15] Ministry
of Electricity and Renewable Energy of Ecuador, “The Gained Decade of the
Electricity Sector in Ecuador,” Quito, 2017.
[16] International
Renewable Energy Agency, “Renewable Energy Capacity Highlights 2019,” Irena,
vol. 00, no. March 2020, pp. 1–3, 2020.
[17] IRENA,
“Renewable Energy Statistics 2020. Renewable hydropower (including mixed
plants),” 2020.
[18] International
Hydropower Association, “Hydropower Status Report 2019: Sector trends and
insights,” 2019.
[19] C.
Zarfl, A. E. Lumsdon, J. Berlekamp, L. Tydecks, and K. Tockner, “A global boom
in hydropower dam construction,” Aquat. Sci., vol. 77, no. 1, pp.
161–170, 2015, doi: 10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0.
[20] The
International Journal on Hydropower, “World atlas and industry guide 2015,”
Wallington, 2015.
[21] L.
Berga, “The Role of Hydropower in Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation: A
Review,” Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, pp. 313–318, 2016, doi:
10.1016/J.ENG.2016.03.004.
[22] K.
Liden, R.; Lyon, “The Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol for Use by
World Bank Clients - Lessons Learned and Recommendations,” Washington DC, 2014.
[23] International
Hydropower Association, Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol,
vol. 56, no. 3. Sutton, London, 2018.
[24] MERNNR,
“National Energy Efficiency Plan,” 2018, 2018. [Online]. Available:
https://www.celec.gob.ec/hidroagoyan/images/PLANEE_INGLES/NationalEnergyEfficiencyPlan20162035_2017-09-01_16-00-26.html.
[25] IHA,
“Hydropower Status Report 2020,” International Hydropower Association,
pp. 1–83, 2020.
[26] CELEC, “CELEC EP genera y transmite más del
90 por ciento de la energía eléctrica limpia que consume el país y exporta a
los países vecinos,” 2020. [Online]. Available:
https://www.celec.gob.ec/hidroagoyan/index.php/sala-de-prensa/noticias/722-celec-ep-genera-y-transmite-mas-del-90-por-ciento-de-la-energia-electrica-limpia-que-consume-el-pais-y-exporta-a-los-paises-vecinos#:~:text=En
este sentido%2C de la,a través de cen. [Accessed: 22-May-2021].
[27] Ministry
of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources, “Master Plan of Electricity 2019-2027,”
2019.
[28] P.
E. Carvajal, F. G. N. Li, R. Soria, J. Cronin, G. Anandarajah, and Y.
Mulugetta, “Large hydropower, decarbonisation and climate change uncertainty:
Modelling power sector pathways for Ecuador,” Energy Strateg. Rev., vol.
23, no. January, pp. 86–99, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2018.12.008.
[29] IRENA,
Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020. 2021.
[30] A.
Briones Hidrovo, J. Uche, and A. Martínez-Gracia, “Accounting for GHG net
reservoir emissions of hydropower in Ecuador,” Renew. Energy, vol. 112,
pp. 209–221, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.renene.2017.05.047.
[31] A.
Alarcon, “The hydroelectric plants in Latin America, where are we? and where
are we going?,” 2019.
[32] M.
Van Vliet, L. Van Beek, S. Eisner, M. Flörke, Y. Wada, and M. F. P. Bierkens,
“Multi-model assessment of global hydropower and cooling water discharge
potential under climate change,” Glob. Environ. Chang., vol. 40, pp.
156–170, 2016, doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.07.007.
[33] M.
Mattmann, I. Logar, and R. Brouwer, “Hydropower externalities: A
meta-analysis,” Energy Econ., vol. 57, pp. 66–77, 2016, doi:
10.1016/j.eneco.2016.04.016.
[34] G.
Voegeli, W. Hediger, and F. Romerio, “Sustainability assessment of hydropower:
Using a causal diagram to seize the importance of impact pathways,” Environ.
Impact Assess. Rev., vol. 77, no. October 2018, pp. 69–84, 2019, doi:
10.1016/j.eiar.2019.03.005.
[35] A.
R. Ghumman, H. Haider, I. Yousuf, and M. Shafiquzamman, “Sustainable
Development of Small-Sized Hydropower Plants: Multilevel Decision-Making from
Site Selection to Optimal Design,” Arab. J. Sci. Eng., vol. 45, no. 5,
pp. 4141–4159, 2020, doi: 10.1007/s13369-020-04407-8.
[36] S.
Naranjo-Silva and J. Álvarez del Castillo, “An Approach of the Hydropower:
Advantages and Impacts. A Review,” J. Energy Res. Rev., vol. 8, no. 1,
pp. 10–20, Jun. 2021, doi: 10.9734/jenrr/2021/v8i130201.
[37] B.
Van Der Zwaan et al., “Energy technology roll-out for climate change
mitigation: A multi-model study for Latin America,” Energy Econ., vol.
56, pp. 526–542, 2015, doi: 10.1016/j.eneco.2015.11.019.