水电在水和能源系统模型中的代表性:对分歧的回顾和和解的呼吁

D. E. Rheinheimer, Brian Tarroja, A. Rallings, A. Willis, J. Viers
{"title":"水电在水和能源系统模型中的代表性:对分歧的回顾和和解的呼吁","authors":"D. E. Rheinheimer, Brian Tarroja, A. Rallings, A. Willis, J. Viers","doi":"10.1088/2634-4505/acb6b0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Reservoir-based hydropower systems represent key interactions between water and energy systems and are being transformed under policy initiatives driven by increasing water and energy demand, the desire to reduce environmental impacts, and interacting effects of climate change. Such policies are often guided by complex system models, whereby divergence in system representations can potentially translate to incompatible planning outcomes, thereby undermining any planning that may rely on them. We review different approaches and assumptions in hydropower representation in water and energy systems. While the models and issues are relevant globally, the review focuses on applications in California given its extensive development of energy and water models for policy planning, but discusses the extent to which these observations apply to other regions. Structurally, both water-driven and energy-driven management models are similar. However, in energy models, hydropower is often represented as a single-priority output. Water management models typically allocate water for competing priorities, which are generally uninformed by dynamic electricity load demand, and often result in a lower priority for hydropower. In water models, constraints are increasingly resolved for non-energy components (e.g. inflow hydrology and non-energy water demand); few analogues exist for energy models. These limitations may result in inadequate representations of each respective sector, and vastly different planning outcomes for the same facilities between the two different sectors. These divergent modeling approaches manifest themselves in California where poorly reconciled outcomes may affect decisions in hydropower licensing, electricity grid flexibility and decarbonization, and planning for environmental water. Fully integrated water-energy models are computationally intensive and specific to certain regions, but better representation of each domain in respective efforts would help reconcile divergences in planning and management efforts related to hydropower across energy and water systems.","PeriodicalId":309041,"journal":{"name":"Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Hydropower representation in water and energy system models: a review of divergences and call for reconciliation\",\"authors\":\"D. E. Rheinheimer, Brian Tarroja, A. Rallings, A. Willis, J. Viers\",\"doi\":\"10.1088/2634-4505/acb6b0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Reservoir-based hydropower systems represent key interactions between water and energy systems and are being transformed under policy initiatives driven by increasing water and energy demand, the desire to reduce environmental impacts, and interacting effects of climate change. Such policies are often guided by complex system models, whereby divergence in system representations can potentially translate to incompatible planning outcomes, thereby undermining any planning that may rely on them. We review different approaches and assumptions in hydropower representation in water and energy systems. While the models and issues are relevant globally, the review focuses on applications in California given its extensive development of energy and water models for policy planning, but discusses the extent to which these observations apply to other regions. Structurally, both water-driven and energy-driven management models are similar. However, in energy models, hydropower is often represented as a single-priority output. Water management models typically allocate water for competing priorities, which are generally uninformed by dynamic electricity load demand, and often result in a lower priority for hydropower. In water models, constraints are increasingly resolved for non-energy components (e.g. inflow hydrology and non-energy water demand); few analogues exist for energy models. These limitations may result in inadequate representations of each respective sector, and vastly different planning outcomes for the same facilities between the two different sectors. These divergent modeling approaches manifest themselves in California where poorly reconciled outcomes may affect decisions in hydropower licensing, electricity grid flexibility and decarbonization, and planning for environmental water. Fully integrated water-energy models are computationally intensive and specific to certain regions, but better representation of each domain in respective efforts would help reconcile divergences in planning and management efforts related to hydropower across energy and water systems.\",\"PeriodicalId\":309041,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability\",\"volume\":\"19 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/acb6b0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Environmental Research: Infrastructure and Sustainability","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1088/2634-4505/acb6b0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

摘要

基于水库的水力发电系统代表了水和能源系统之间的关键相互作用,在不断增加的水和能源需求、减少环境影响的愿望以及气候变化的相互作用的推动下,正在进行政策举措的转变。这些政策通常由复杂的系统模型指导,因此系统表示的分歧可能潜在地转化为不相容的规划结果,从而破坏任何可能依赖于它们的规划。我们回顾了水和能源系统中水电代表的不同方法和假设。虽然这些模型和问题是全球相关的,但鉴于加州在政策规划方面广泛发展了能源和水模型,本综述侧重于加州的应用,但讨论了这些观察结果在多大程度上适用于其他地区。从结构上看,水驱动和能源驱动的管理模式是相似的。然而,在能源模型中,水电通常被表示为单一优先输出。水管理模式通常将水分配给相互竞争的优先事项,这些优先事项通常不受动态电力负荷需求的影响,往往导致水电优先级较低。在水模型中,非能源成分(例如流入水文和非能源水需求)的限制日益得到解决;很少有类似的能量模型存在。这些限制可能导致每个行业的代表性不足,以及两个不同行业对相同设施的规划结果大相径庭。这些不同的建模方法在加州表现得很明显,在那里,不协调的结果可能会影响水电许可、电网灵活性和脱碳以及环境水规划方面的决策。充分综合的水-能源模式是计算密集的,并且是特定于某些区域的,但是在各自的工作中更好地代表每个领域将有助于调和在能源和水系统中与水电有关的规划和管理工作方面的分歧。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Hydropower representation in water and energy system models: a review of divergences and call for reconciliation
Reservoir-based hydropower systems represent key interactions between water and energy systems and are being transformed under policy initiatives driven by increasing water and energy demand, the desire to reduce environmental impacts, and interacting effects of climate change. Such policies are often guided by complex system models, whereby divergence in system representations can potentially translate to incompatible planning outcomes, thereby undermining any planning that may rely on them. We review different approaches and assumptions in hydropower representation in water and energy systems. While the models and issues are relevant globally, the review focuses on applications in California given its extensive development of energy and water models for policy planning, but discusses the extent to which these observations apply to other regions. Structurally, both water-driven and energy-driven management models are similar. However, in energy models, hydropower is often represented as a single-priority output. Water management models typically allocate water for competing priorities, which are generally uninformed by dynamic electricity load demand, and often result in a lower priority for hydropower. In water models, constraints are increasingly resolved for non-energy components (e.g. inflow hydrology and non-energy water demand); few analogues exist for energy models. These limitations may result in inadequate representations of each respective sector, and vastly different planning outcomes for the same facilities between the two different sectors. These divergent modeling approaches manifest themselves in California where poorly reconciled outcomes may affect decisions in hydropower licensing, electricity grid flexibility and decarbonization, and planning for environmental water. Fully integrated water-energy models are computationally intensive and specific to certain regions, but better representation of each domain in respective efforts would help reconcile divergences in planning and management efforts related to hydropower across energy and water systems.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信