Session2.4 pp5 sašo šantl_mca approach

  • 665 views
Uploaded on

 

More in: Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
665
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Implementation of MCA approach for optimal Minimum Instream Flow determination with mitigation measures planning mag. Sašo Šantl, Saša Erlih, Tina Mazi, dr. Nataša Žvanut Smolar Institute for Water of the Republic of SloveniaAosta –5/30/2012 2012 24th May
  • 2. page 2Backgrounds • Hydropower is most important RES in Alpine regions • RES Directive <-> Water Framework Directive, Habitat Directive • Needs for clear and efficient tools to: • Support decision making based on multicriteria approach • Evaluate impact on environment • Evaluate HP potential, • Evaluate mitigation measuresAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 3. page 3Pilot case area Possible water intake location. Possible water release location. Section of analysis Existing SHPP intakes. At the analysed saction there are 4 impasable weirsAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 4. page 4MCA – decision tree Objective of this MCA is to determine Residual flow (acceptable for all stakeholders). Alternatives are defined with different values of residual flow. Higher number of indicators means more expert research and work. To make MCA more efficient simplification of MCA tree can be proceeded.Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 5. page 5MCA – decision treeExample of criteria/indicators reduction according to the main conflict of interests,indicator causal trends and their similarity. Determination of trends of indicators (rising falling and neutral) Indicator score Residual flowAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 6. page 6MCA – decision tree Habitat modelling (hydraulic model, substrate, fuzzy sets and rules) -> suitabilty (CASIMIR software)Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 7. page 7MCA – decision tree Expert determination (Institute for water of RS)Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 8. page 8MCA – decision tree Software for HP potential evaluation and determination - VapIdroAsteAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 9. HP potential calculation – page 9VapIdroAste - resultsAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 10. HP potential calculation – page 10VapIdroAste - results Technical potential of upper Kokra river according to the length of derivation 10000 1000 m 2000 m 5000 m Nature value Ecological important area A < 10 km^2 or Qlow < 80l/s Reference section 1000 Insalable power [kW] 100 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Downstream Progresive [km] UpstreamAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 11. HP potential calculation – page 11VapIdroAste - results Feasible potential: ~ 5200 kW ~ 30.000 MWh/year Environment: - additional costs for mitigation measures - exclusion of prohibit areas by law (reference sections by River Basin Manag. Plan)Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 12. page 12MCA model Model establishment and analysis – SESAMO softwareAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 13. page 13MCA model Criteria and indicator weighting Nature 3/8 Phytobenthos 30 Ecology value preservation Fish 30 2/3 3/4 9/16 Temperature 20 Good water 3/8 Lateral connectivity 10 status Longitudinal connectivity 10 Increase of 1/6 RES objective RES 1/4 1/4 7/16 Efficient energy 1/6 use Weights Weights Ann. Electr. Production 100 WECOLOGY = 9/16 ÷ 3/4 = 0.5625 + 0.1875 * (Lnatura/Lwater body) WRES = 1/4 ÷ 7/16 = 0.4375 - 0.1875 * (Lnatura/Lwater body)Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 14. page 14Results Results for case without additional measures (fish pass planned only on intake weir) No score for indicator „longitudinal continuum“Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 15. page 15Results Results for case with additional measures (fish pass planned for 4 barriers in derivation section) Score for indicator „longitudinal continuum“ not calculated only in case without SHP schemeAosta – 24th May 2012
  • 16. page 16Results With implementation of additional measure (assuring longitudinal continuum along all derivation river section) same result is assured with app. 140 l/s less of Qres then optimum value of Qres in the case without additional measure.Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 17. page 17Conclusions • Reduction of number of indicators is efficient • less indicators means less research work and expert subjectivity • addition work: focus on the main conflict (water), indicator trend analysis, searching for delegate indicators • In the MCA the weighting is the most political phase • Further MCA decision tree prunning (inclusion of anthropogenic influences into final representative indicators)Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 18. page 18Conclusions Example of inclusion of anthropogenic influences into representative indicator „Fish fauna“ 1 1 1 2 win-win? 2 2 2 1Aosta – 24th May 2012
  • 19. Implementation of MCA approach for optimal Minimum Instream Flow determination with mitigation measures planning Thank you for your attention. mag. Sašo Šantl, Saša Erlih, Tina Mazi, dr. Nataša Žvanut Smolar Institute for Water of the Republic of SloveniaAosta –5/30/2012 2012 24th May