Emergy Evaluation for Ecological Impacts of Small Hydropower in China
PANG Mingyue,ZHANG Lixiao,WANG Changbo
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5846/stxb201306091484
2015-01-01
Acta Ecologica Sinica
Abstract:In China, most of the small hydropower ( short for SHP) plants are currently seeking for benefits in power generation and economic revenue with little consideration of environmental flows for ecosystems, causing great impacts on river ecosystem services in the downstream of the dams. Negative ecological impacts of small hydropower have drawn increasing attention from the public. This paper used emergy analysis, one of the ecological energetic accounting methods, to evaluate the overall ecological impacts of construction and operation of small hydropower and took Guanyinyan hydropower plant in Chishui City, northwest of Guizhou Province as an example. Having capabilities in accounting multiple forms of energy and materials both from environmental and economic points of view on a common energy basis, the method of emergy analysis was widely used for supporting the evaluation of agricultural, wetlands and urban systems and was proved to be a useful tool for evaluating the overall performance of a mixed ecological and economic systems. The related indices and ratios based on emergy flows such as emergy yield ratio (EYR), environmental loading ratio (ELR) and emergy sustainability index (ESI) can be used for characterizing resource consumptions, environmental impacts and overall system sustainability. Through incorporating losses of the downstream ecosystem services into the operation cost of the power production system, the results showed that the studied system was supported by a total emergy of 6.18×10sej in 2010 to produce 2.26×10J of electricity, of which the downstream ecosystem service losses was the largest among multiple marginal costs, accounting for 44.84% of total ecological economic cost. The losses of ecosystem service mainly included those due to biodiversity losses (especially rare species losses) and climate regulation losses, with 2.77×10 and 4.63×10 sej / a respectively. Without considering the ecosystem service losses, the ELR of the studied system was 1.92 and the ESI was 1.22. However, when considering ecosystem service losses, the ELR of the studied system increased to 4.26, which was much larger than those of