Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International

Journal

ISSN: 1080-7039 (Print) 1549-7860 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/bher20

Assessment of risk of GHG emissions from Tehri

hydropower reservoir, India

Amit Kumar & M. P. Sharma

To cite this article: Amit Kumar & M. P. Sharma (2016) Assessment of risk of GHG emissions
from Tehri hydropower reservoir, India, Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International
Journal, 22:1, 71-85, DOI: 10.1080/10807039.2015.1055708

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1055708

Accepted author version posted online: 15

Jun 2015.
Published online: 15 Jun 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 131

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=bher20

Download by: [Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee] Date: 13 April 2017, At: 01:18
HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
2016, VOL. 22, NO. 1, 71 85
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10807039.2015.1055708

Assessment of risk of GHG emissions from Tehri hydropower

reservoir, India
Amit Kumar and M. P. Sharma
Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

The hydropower reservoirs, considered as a green source of energy, are Received 20 February 2015
now found to emit signicant quantities of greenhouse gas (GHG) to Revised manuscript
the atmosphere. This article attempts to predict the vulnerability of accepted 25 May 2015
Tehri reservoir, India to GHG emissions using the GHG risk assessment KEYWORDS
tool (GRAT). The GRAT is veried with experimental GHG uxes. The greenhouse gas (GHG);
annual mean CO2 uxes from diffusion, bubbling, and degassing were vulnerability; emissions; risk;
425.93 122.50, 4.81 1.33, and 7.01 2.77 mg m2d1, whereas GRAT
CH4 uxes were 23.11 7.08, 4.79 1.08, and 7.41 4.50 mg m2d1,
respectively, during 2011 12. The model found that Tehri reservoir
emitted higher CO2 and CH4 (i.e., 790 mg m2d1 and 64 mg m2d1,
respectively) in 2011, which came within vulnerability range causing
more climate change impact. By the year 2015, it would scale down to
medium risks necessitating no further assessment of GHG. Signicant
difference between predicted and experimental GHG emission are
assessed, which may be due to insufcient data, spatial and temporal
variations, decomposition of ooded biomass, limitation of GRAT
model, and inadequate methodology. The study reveals that GHG
emission from Tehri reservoir is less than predicted by the GRAT.

Introduction
The economic development and the urbanization are vulnerable to climate changes like
urban heat-island effect, high outdoor and indoor air pollution, high population density,
and poor sanitation (Diarmid and Carlos 2012). The climate change caused by increasing
greenhouse gases (GHGs) has lead to rise in global average temperature from 3.7 to 4.8 C by
the year 2100 (IPCC 2014). The increasing GHGs levels and associated climate change will
have both positive and negative impact. On the positive side, due to increase in temperature
and increased concentrations of CO2, the productivity of crops (in the region where mois-
ture is not a constraint) will boost up (Mendelssohn et al. 1994). Senapati et al. (2013)
observed that the higher level of CO2 will stimulate photosynthesis in certain plants
(30 100%). On the negative side, climate change will bring in temperature, precipitation,
and heavy rainfall, thereby resulting in natural calamities like drought, ooding, storms, sea-
level rise, and other effects like environmental health risks and the overall impact on

CONTACT Amit Kumar amit.agl09@gmail.com Alternate Hydro Energy Centre, Indian Institute of Technology
Roorkee, Roorkee, Uttarakhand 24766, India
Color versions of one or more of the gures in the article can be found online at www.tandfonline.com/bher.
2016 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
72 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

agriculture by way of increased proportion of solar radiation and prevalence of pests. In

short and summarized form, climate change will have adverse impact on agriculture, hydro-
power, forest management, and biodiversity. The risk assessment of vulnerability based on
state of the art modeling simulations can predict the long-term fate of GHG emissions
from reservoirs/lakes/rivers/wetland and assess potential for, and impact of, emissions in
both the short and long term. Risk is a function of the values of threat, consequence, and vul-
nerability. Risk studies can also assist the development of monitoring programs for injection
sites.
Vulnerability is the assessment of the threats from potential hazards to the population and
allows one to take suitable measures to reduce the consequences. The vulnerability due to GHG
emissions calls the policy-makers to predict the magnitude to country/region and enables
authorities to take the corrective measures timely to minimize the consequences (Cutter 1996,
2003; Cutter et al. 2003; Fussel and Klein 2006). Countries that are exposed to high GHG emis-
sions can support actions/take corrective measures to reduce the effect/consequences while
other countries/regions with low impact do not require any corrective actions. In the recent
times, the assessment of the vulnerability due to GHG emissions is becoming the focus of cur-
rent research. Several models were used to assess the vulnerability like ModVege model to grass-
land ecosystems (Romain et al. 2012), WatBal hydrological water balance model (David and
Yates 1996) to runoffs, Dynamic interactive vulnerability assessment (DIVA) model (Marcel
et al. 1998) to sea-level rise and pasture simulation model to dry matter production and uxes
of C, N, and so on. The GHG emissions from global inland waters are reported as 0.65 Pg of C
(CO2 eq) yr1 as CH4 (Bastviken et al. 2011) and 1.2 2.1 Pg C yr1 as CO2 (Raymond et al.
2013). The GHG emissions from global inland water constitute around 4% of the total as com-
pared to emissions from other sources (Barros et al. 2011). It may be a serious concern as agri-
cultural productivity, crop pattern; hydrological cycle, and so on will be affected due to
emission of GHG. However, global estimates are constrained by paucity of data and poor cover-
age of Asia, in particular.
In recent years, it is reported that GHG emissions from articial reservoirs located in
tropical/sub tropical regions are one of the serious concerns. When organic matter (accumu-
lated at the bottom of the reservoir) gets degraded by aerobic and anaerobic process, there is
an excess release of GHG into the atmosphere. The increase in GHGs emissions is also due
to nutrient loading, enhanced bacterial activity, and decomposition of labile organic carbon
(Kumar and Sharma 2012, 2014b). The magnitude of emissions for both reservoirs and natu-
ral aquatic systems depend on physico-chemical characteristics of the water body and the
incoming carbon from the watershed. A small amount of GHGs is released from the reser-
voir through the bubbling, degassing, but a signicant amount is released through diffusion
from water surface as well as when the water is passed through the turbines and spillways
(Fearnside 2006). Kumar and Sharma (2012, 2014a) developed correlations between GHG
emissions, water quality, and reservoirs characteristics the impact of which were not signi-
cant. High uncertainty in the GHGs are reported due to the lack of data from geographical
regions, spatial and temporal variability of reservoirs (Barros et al. 2011; Joel 2012; Tremblay
et al. 2010; Li and Lu 2012), its surface area, decomposition of ooded biomass (Hiroki
2005), inconsistent methodologies (Tremblay et al. 2010; IPCC 2006), and labile organic car-
bon (Kumar and Sharma 2014b). The GHGs of 141.6 Tg CO2 yr1 and 9.1 Tg CH4 yr1 is
released by Indias inland waters (Li and Bush 2015). But, Panneer et al. (2014) reported
that this is 2.1 times greater than the land carbon sink of India. He has also worked on the
 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 73

coordinated ux measurements of CH4 and CO2 in multiple lakes, ponds, rivers, open wells,
reservoirs, springs, and canals in India and found that the total CH4 ux (bubbling and dif-
fusion) from all the 45 systems ranged from 0.01 to 52.1 mmol m2d1. Moreover, CO2
uxes ranged from 28.2 to 262.4 mmol m2d1. To improve the current estimates of
GHGs on a national scale, efforts are needed to measure the ux data at the dams.
The present paper reports the assessment of the vulnerability of the Tehri hydropower
reservoir located in the Uttarakhand state of India using GHG risk assessment tool (GRAT)
based on experimental and predicted gross CO2 and CH4 emissions data. The model gives
the output in the form of high, medium and low vulnerability to gross GHG emissions. This
will gives an idea to the environmentalist or policy-maker to make a suitable mitigation plan
if the reservoir is highly vulnerable to GHGs.

Material and methods

Study area
Tehri reservoir (Figure 1) is a multipurpose rock and earth-ll embankment on the Bhagira-
thi River near Tehri in Uttarakhand, India, is the fth deepest reservoir in the world. Its
catchment area is about 7511 Km2 with dam height of 260.5 m from deepest foundation and
239.5 m from river bed. The dam construction was completed in the year 2006 with total
generation capacity of 2400 MW. The storage volume of dam is 4.0 Km3 and surface area of
52 Km2. The maximum reservoir area observed during full reservoir level (830 m) was
42 km2 while 18 km2 areas were observed at minimum water level (740 m). The area has
mean maximum temperature of 35.5 C (May July) and the mean minimum temperature
of 4.6 C (Dec Feb) (Bagchi and Singh 2011). The annual rainfalls in Tehri Garhwal district
is variable and ranges from 956 2449 mm, while the average numbers of rainy days (having
daily rainfall 2.5 mm) are 61.5 days (Bagchi and Singh 2011). The submergence zones lie
between 30 200 30 410 N and 78 150 78 400 E alone an altitudinal range from 569 to
830 m msl (Figure 1).

About GHG risk assessment tool (GRAT)

GRAT (Beta version) was developed by UNESCO/IHA in 2012 to estimate the vulnerability of
freshwater reservoirs to GHG emissions (UNESCO/IHA 2012). UNESCO/IHA developed this
tool, which does not evaluate the net GHG emissions but can assess the vulnerability of a reservoir
based on gross GHG emissions in short period, when site-specic data are not available. It can
only predict gross diffusive uxes of CH4 and CO2 and can indicate the need of assessing net
GHG emissions. Consequently, the predicted total uxes do not include some pathways, such as
CH4 bubbling and downstream degassing. Predicted gross emissions are including emissions
from unrelated anthropogenic sources and emissions in the area before reservoir impoundment.
GRAT can also be used for the life cycle assessment of GHG and their vulnerability as low,
medium, and high over a period of 100 years. It thus corresponds to average emission rate over
the 100 year integration period. The GRAT model is limited to only gross GHG diffusion uxes.
A simple decision-tree model is used to analyze GHG emissions from freshwater reservoirs. The
approach to risk assessment of the vulnerability of a freshwater reservoir is presented as a three-
step process in Figure 2, shows that if reservoirs are found to have low or medium vulnerability to
74 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

Figure 1. GHG sampling points at Tehri reservoir.

gross GHG emissions, there is no need to further assess the GHG uxes. But if, the reservoir is
highly vulnerable to gross emissions, assessment of net emission becomes indispensible, thereby
necessitating estimation of pre- and post-impoundment of GHG emissions in the reservoirs. On
the basis of net GHG emissions, behavior of reservoir as carbon sink/carbon source and its magni-
tude of the GHG risk can be known.
 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 75

Figure 2. Risk assessment of the vulnerability of a freshwater reservoir.

Prediction of GHG uxes from GRAT

Prediction of CO2 and CH4 uxes (each one or both) are based on the input data calculated
from mean annual temperature, rainfall, runoff, and age of the reservoir. Annual precipita-
tion and temperature data are computed from daily data of study year 2011. Mean annual
runoffs were calculated using monthly runoff data of study year 2011. The input parameters
are useful for GRAT model as given in Table 1.
GRAT model can predict gross GHG emission for the given reservoir age and integrates
over a dened period (100 years). Further assessment of net GHG emissions depends on the
out of the model results and is required to primarily ascertain the adverse impact on human
76 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

Table 1. Input parameters for GRAT model (UNESCO/IHA 2012).

S. No. Parameters Unit Input Data Remarks Source of data Reference

1. Age of reservoir (years) 6 Input for estimation THDC Nawani (2006)

of CO2 and CH4 ux
 
2. Mean annual air temp ( C) 18.9 NASA , Agro climatology NASA (1983)
3. Mean annual runoff (mm) 650 Input for estimation UNH/GRDC Fekete et al.
of CO2 ux (2002)
4. Mean annual (mm) 1157 Input for estimation NASA, Agro climatology NASA (1983)
precipitation of CH4 ux

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Global Runoff Data Center (GRDC), Tehri Hydro Development
Corporation (THDC).

population, reduction in agriculture production, melting of ice (if reservoirs are located in
high altitude region), ooding in nearby area, rise in sea level, and so on. The results of pre-
dicted gross, CO2 and CH4 uxes generated by this model are shown graphically in Figures 3
and 4.

Concept of vulnerability assessment

Figure 5 shows the linkages of GHG to climate change vulnerability, concept of adaptation
and mitigation, ecosystem stability, exposure, and impacts on climate change. The concept is
based on the assumptions that GHGs are the primary factors inuencing the climate and so
GHG emissions into the atmosphere become the key drivers of the climate change.
Figure 5 shows that mitigation can reduce the sources or enhance the sinks of GHG (Fus-
sel and Klein 2006), whereas the adaptation reduces the negative and inevitable effects of cli-
mate change. This can be done, if adequate resources are available.

Vulnerability of reservoir due to GHG

Higher is the capacity of a reservoir to emit GHG, the higher would be its vulnerability,
accordingly assessment of net GHG emissions may be required. As per UNESCO/IHA
(2012) report, the low/medium vulnerability of a reservoir is an indication of low carbon
and nutrients availability in the catchment and does not require the assessment of net GHG
emissions. According to the magnitude of vulnerability based on gross GHG uxes, GHG

Figure 3. Predicted CO2 uxes from Tehri hydropower reservoir.

 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 77

Figure 4. Predicted CH4 uxes from Tehri hydropower reservoir.

vulnerability of a reservoir can be predicted. These ranges of uxes are applicable to hydro-
power reservoirs and lakes only. The GHG risk assessment of hydropower reservoirs is
assessed using GHG risk assessment tool (Beta version).

Measurement of GHG uxes

During the four eld campaigns, the diffusive uxes of CH4 and CO2 across the water air
interface were measured using oating chambers at all stations at pre-monsoon (June 2011),
post-monsoon (Sep 2011), winter (Jan 2012) and summer season (April 2012). The diffusion
ux, ebullitions (bubbling emissions), and degassing were measured at eight sampling

Figure 5. Key concept of vulnerability to climate change. Arrows represent the feedbacks of mitigation
and adaptation strategies onto climate change impacts.
78 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

locations (Figure 1) with different depths in entire surface area (52 Km2) of the reservoir to
calculate the ux rates. The bubbling uxes were measured using submerged funnel tech-
nique (Tremblay et al. 2005). Six sampling locations were selected on the basis of water
depth in the Tehri Reservoir and two sampling station immediately 50 100 m below the
outlet from the powerhouse. This implies that the degassing ux (in the small area of water
below the outlet) is applied to the same area as the bubbling and diffusion uxes (which are
implicitly for the reservoir surface as a whole).

Floating chamber measurements

The oating chambers are rectangular boxes (0.20 m wide and long with 0.50 m high; vol-
ume D 21.6 L). The oating chambers were covered with a reective surface to limit the
warming of inside air during measurements. Within 45 minutes, four air samples were col-
lected with a syringe from the chambers (duplicates) at 15 min interval. Air samples for CH4
were collected in 10 ml glass vials that contained 6M NaCl solution capped with high density
butyl stoppers and aluminium seals, whereas air samples for CO2 were collected in vials
ushed with N2. All samples were analyzed within 48 hours by Gas Chromatography (GC).
GHG uxes were calculated from the slope of the linear regression of gas concentration in
the chamber versus time (Abril et al. 2005; Guerin et al. 2006; Yang et al. 2008). The uxes
correlation coefcient (R2) of the linear regression comes higher than 0.80 (R2: 0.95).

Ebullition/bubbling of GHG
CH4 produced through anaerobic degradation in sediments leads to the bubbling emissions.
Temperature and hydrostatic pressure affects the bubbling rate in the reservoirs. Bubbles
come as bursts and not as a steady ow, but contribute to the total amount of methane
released (Eugster et al. 2011; Delsontro et al. 2011) in reservoirs. Gas transport can also be
mediated by macrophytes, aquatic plants, and so on (Kumar et al. 2011). CH4 bubbles in the
reservoir were measured using funnels as per the procedure adopted by Tremblay et al.
(2005).
Several sets of 5 10 funnels were positioned at the water surface, and attached at a dis-
tance of 1 m from each other. The sets of funnels were placed above particular water depths,
ranging from 20 to 50 m. The funnels remained on site for 24 or 48 hours. After this period,
the captured gas sample was collected from the funnel and stored in 10-ml glass vials that
contained 6M NaCl solution capped with high density butyl stoppers and aluminum seals.
The collected gas samples were taken to the laboratory for analysis using GC.

Gas chromatography
Analysis of GHG concentrations were performed by GC (SRI 8610C, Torrance, CA, USA)
equipped using a ame ionization detector (FID) with a methanizer for CH4 and CO2. A
1 ml of air from ux sample vials was injected. Simultaneous integration of peaks was made
using the peak simple 3.54 software. Gas standards (400, 1000, and 1010 ppmv for CO2; 2,
10, 100, 1000 ppmv for CH4) were injected after every 10 samples of analysis to calibrate the
GC. The detection and quantication limits are 0.2 and 0.6 ppm respectively for CO2 and
0.1 and 0.3 ppm for CH4. The laboratory analysis shows an accuracy of 5% & 4% for CO2
and CH4, respectively, whereas repeatability found to be 4% & 3%.
 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 79

Downstream emissions
Water in a hydroelectric plant is often drawn from some depth in the reservoir, where the
pressure is higher and the temperature is lower than normal pressure and temperature.
Water leaving the turbine becomes super-saturated with gases. One part of the CH4 is
released directly when the water is passed through the turbines while another part is released
from supersaturated water through diffusion or bubbling some distance from the dam
(Guerin et al. 2006; Kemenes et al. 2007). Downstream emissions (degassing and diffusive
uxes) are observed below reservoir outlets and their inuence may range from a few tens of
meters up to 50 km downstream in the river (Abril et al. 2005). Degassing downstream of a
dam and spillway can be estimated by the difference between the gas concentration upstream
and downstream of the hydroelectric plant multiplied by the outlet discharge. The results of
the CO2 and CH4 uxes released by diffusion, bubbling, and degassing pathways at different
sampling points are graphically presented in Figures (6 10), which shows that the diffusive
uxes constitute 90 95% of the total emissions from the reservoir followed by bubbling and
degassing.

Results and discussion

The GRAT result indicated that higher vulnerability to gross GHG emissions indicates the
need of assessing net GHG emissions to the reservoir. The model yielded 67% condence
level (root mean square error: 0.36); that is, gross CO2 uxes was between 343 1816 mg
m2d1 whereas the gross CH4 uxes between 18 226 mg m2d1 during 2011 (Figures 3
and 4). During the study period (2011), the predicted gross CO2 uxes are found as 790 mg
m2d1, which reduced to 375 mg m2d1 over a period of average 100 years. But in the
case of gross CH4 uxes, the predicted emission was found as 64 mg m2d1, which further
reduced to 44 mg m2d1 over the same period (Figures 3 and 4).
Figures 3 and 4 show that Tehri reservoir presently emits lot of CO2 and CH4 (790 and
64 mg m2d1) thereby make it necessary to measure the net emissions. Although the reservoir
impoundment period (six years) is less than 100 years, which means that after 100 years there
will be no need to assess Net GHG (Table 2). The gures also show that, at the time of reservoir
impoundment (year 2006), higher CH4 and CO2 uxes were found as 77 and 1187 mg m2d1,
respectively. It is also predicted that the CH4 and CO2 uxes were 44 and 339 mg m2d1,
respectively, in year 2006 and it will keep on decreasing rapidly till the year 2030 and thereafter,
will reduce slowly over a period of 100 year (year 2105). But, it can increase or maintain current

Figure 6. CO2 diffusion uxes of Tehri hydroelectric reservoir at all sampling locations during 2011 12.
80 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

Figure 7. CO2 bubbling uxes of Tehri hydroelectric reservoir at all sampling locations during 2011 12.

emission ux due to the other environmental factor such as carbon load, temperature, ooding,
and further climate change effect. Barros et al. (2011) veried the results of GRAT model that
Carbon emissions are negatively correlated to reservoir age and latitude, with the highest emis-
sion rates from the tropical region as compare to temperate and keep on decreasing over the
period of 100 year.
The CH4 and CO2 monitoring was conducted at 10 different sampling stations during vari-
ous seasons (pre-monsoon, post-monsoon, winter, and summer) in 2011 12. The study pro-
vided an observation on diffusion, bubbling, and degassing uxes to calculate gross CO2 and
CH4 uxes. The annual mean CO2 uxes (mean standard deviation) from diffusion, bubbling
and degassing pathways were found as 425.93 122.50, 4.81 1.33, and 7.01 2.77 mg
m2d1 during 2011 12, respectively, whereas CH4 uxes are found as 23.11 7.08, 4.79
1.08, and 7.41 4.50 mg m2d1, respectively (Figures 6 10). It also shows that during pre-
monsoon, the diffusion uxes of CO2 were more (658.75 mg m2d1) than the winter
(114.37 mg m2d1) due to the temperature difference, whereas diffusion uxes of CH4 were
found maximum (50.49 mg m2d1) in post-monsoon compared to winter (9.99 mg m2d1)
due to thermal stratication. The maximum diffusion uxes of CO2 in pre-monsoon are also
due to the evenly distributed and decreased monsoonal precipitation from mid-October onward
and appropriate temperature that provided an optimum environment for soil respiration as
reported by Li et al. (2012). This allowed the rain water to inltrate and ush out soil carbon to
the river and ultimately reach to the reservoir, and therefore resulted in the crest level of diffu-
sion ux (CO2) in pre-monsoon. Henceforth, little rainfall and lowest temperature in December
through January limited the export of soil carbon to rivers, leading to very low diffusion ux of
CO2 in winter.

Figure 8. CH4 diffusion uxes of Tehri hydroelectric reservoir at all sampling locations during 2011 12.
 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 81

Figure 9. CH4 bubbling uxes of Tehri hydroelectric reservoir at all sampling locations during 2011 12.

Bubbling ux for CO2 is found to be maximum in post-monsoon period (average

10.79 mg m2d1) and minimum in summer (average 0.88 mg m2d1), whereas CH4 ux
shows that summer is on the higher side with an average of 6.54 mg m2d1 and winter is
on the lower side (i.e., 1.85 mg m2d1) (Figures 7 and 9).
Degassing uxes were noted to be minimum in winter (average 4.05 mg m2d1) and
maximum in pre-monsoon (average 9.5 mg m2d1) for CO2 (Figure 10). Similarly, CH4
uxes were also found to be minimum in winter (average 6.05 mg m2d1) and maximum
in pre-monsoon (average 10.65 mg m2d1) as shown in Figure 10. Degassing uxes (CO2
and CH4) are minimum in winter due to low temperature and maximum during pre-mon-
soon as the temperature is at its peak. The emissions (CO2 and CH4) are higher near Koti
colony and minimum at Zero point due to high pressure difference and higher reservoir
depth (Depth at Koti colony D 30 57 m and at Zero point D 25 38 m). The operation of
power stations also affects the CO2 and CH4 emissions from downstream rivers below dams.
The depth of reservoir has found as 205 239 m at nearer to water intake and 35 52 m at
outlet. This range varies from pre-monsoon to post-monsoon. The Tehri reservoir has a big
water column (>190 m) making stratication in terms of reducing temperature and dis-
solved oxygen (DO) through depth. Oxygen stratication is undesirable because of anoxic
conditions in the hypolimnion limit habitat availability that can impact water quality

Figure 10. Degassing ux of Tehri hydroelectric reservoir at two sampling locations during 2011 12.
82 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

Table 2. Comparison of predicted and observed gross GHG ux from Tehri reservoir during 2011 12.
Diffusion CO2 ux (mg m2d1) Diffusion CH4 ux (mg m2d1)

Predicted Experimental Error (%) Predicted Experimental Error (%)

790 425.93 85 64 23.11 177

High vulnerability Medium vulnerability Medium vulnerability Medium vulnerability
Need of assessment No need of assessment No need of assessment No need of assessment

throughout the reservoir and downstream indirectly affecting the GHG emissions. Hypolim-
nion water, rich in dissolved CO2 and CH4, is discharged into the surface of downstream riv-
ers by turbines and spillways as a result more GHGs are emitted in the surface waters. These
GHGs diffuse into the atmosphere faster because of the enhanced gas concentration gradient
(DC) and strong disturbance in the downstream rivers.
GRAT and eld sampling results were compared in Table 2. It shows that the predicted
CO2 ux was found to be 85% more than the experimental while the predicted CH4 ux was
177%. This high uncertainty is due to lack of sufcient emissions data. Moreover, current
estimates suffered from data limitation on reservoirs particularly GHG emission from draw-
down zone and reservoir downstream, are recognized to be signicant carbon emitters
(Lima et al. 2008). An experimental result of CO2 and CH4 uxes indicates medium vulnera-
bility, but the predicted gross GHG uxes are on higher side. Therefore, no assessment is
required over the period of next 100 years. As per the GRAT model, assessment of net GHG
emissions is required on account of high vulnerability in the year 2011, after that it will keep
on diminishing over a period of 100 years. Therefore, on the basis of present study, it has
been found that to maintain the reservoirs at medium/low GHG risk a dredging operation
may be necessary in the river before its conuence to reservoir where the organic matter is
going to aerobic and anaerobic degradation resulting into GHG emissions to the atmo-
sphere. A huge amount of GHG has been emitted after thermal stratication. Methods to
prevent stratication include hypolimnetic discharges, air bubbling/injection to generate
water movement and mechanical pumping between the hypolimnion to either generate
water movement, or to aerate hypolimnietic water by passing through bafe systems (Raune
et al. 1986). Mechanical pumping can also be used to avoid oxygen stratication without dis-
rupting temperature stratication by lifting hypolimnetic water to the surface where gases
such as CH4, hydrogen sulde (H2S), and CO2 are dispersed and then water is returned to
the hypolimnion without substantial increase in temperature (McQueen and Lean 1983).
Aeration of the hypolimnion through injection of oxygen has been reported to be more cost
effective than through lift systems (Mauldin et al. 1988). Aeration of hypolimnion through
bubbling and injection of oxygen can be treated in destratication of Tehri reservoir, which
will reduce the GHG signicantly.

Conclusions
The gross GHG emissions predicted by the GRAT model have indicated that Tehri reservoir
has emitted a signicant amount of GHG (790 mg m2d1 and 64 mg m2d1) in the year
2011 and is reducing over a period of next 100 years. Results of the model in 2011 show that
the Tehri reservoir had a high GHG risk, thereby, making the net GHG assessment manda-
tory, but the risk will be in medium range by year 2015 and so no GHG assessment would
 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 83

be required. The experimental annual mean CO2 uxes from diffusion, bubbling and degass-
ing pathways are found as 425.93 122.50, 4.81 1.33, and 7.01 2.77 mg m2d1,
whereas CH4 uxes are found as 23.11 7.08, 4.79 1.08, and 7.41 4.50 mg m2d1,
respectively, during 2011 12. High uncertainty in experimental and predicted gross GHG
uxes are found due to lack of sufcient data, limitation of GRAT model, rate of degradation
of organic matter in the reservoirs, and lack of appropriate methods for the determination of
GHGs. The model can be used to assess the risk of large numbers of hydropower reservoirs/
lakes in the country and help the decision-makers to take appropriate mitigation measures
when the GHG vulnerability is high. It would also help one to identify the hydropower reser-
voirs that are safer from a GHG emissions point of view due to their much less/negligible
contribution to global emissions. For the future development of risk assessment methodol-
ogy, demonstration projects will undoubted be a signicant source of information that can
be drawn on to help develop condence. To make the use of the GRAT model more mean-
ingful, it is recommended to collect more and more temporal and spatial GHG emissions
variations in reservoirs.

References
Abril G, Guerin F, Richard S, et al. 2005. Carbon dioxide and methane emissions and the car-
bon budget of a 10 year old tropical reservoir (Petit Saut, French Guiana). Glo Biogeo Cycle
19:1 16
Bagchi D and Singh RD. 2011. Ground water brochure district Tehri Garhwal, Uttarakhand. Central
Ground Water Board, India
Barros N, Cole JJ, Tranvik LJ, et al. 2011. Carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs linked to res-
ervoir age and latitude. Nat Geosci 4:593 6
Bastviken D, Tranvik LJ, Downing JA, et al. 2011. Freshwater methane emissions offset the continental
carbon sink. Sci 331:50
Cutter SL. 1996. Vulnerability to environmental hazards. Progress in Human Geogra 20:529 39
Cutter SL. 2003. The vulnerability of science and the science of vulnerability. Annals of the Asso
Ameri Geogra 93:1 12
Cutter SL, Boruff BJ, and Shirley WL. 2003. Social vulnerability to environmental hazards. Social Sci
Quart 84:242 61
David N and Yates WB. 1996. An integrated water balance model for climate impact assessment of
river basin runoff. J Wat Res Devel 12(2):121 140
Delsontro T, Kunz MJ, Kempter T, et al. 2011. Spatial heterogeneity of methane ebullition in a large
tropical reservoir. Environ Sci Technol 45:9866
Diarmid CL and Carlos C. 2012. Vulnerability and adaptation assessment. Protecting health from cli-
mate change, pp 1 59. Available at http://www.who.int/globalchange/publications/Final_
Climate_Change.pdf
Eugster W, Delsontro T, and Sobek S. 2011. Eddy covariance ux measurements conrm extreme CH4
emissions from a Swiss hydropower reservoir and resolve their short-term variability. Biogeosci
8:2815 31
Fearnside PM. 2006. Greenhouse gas emissions from hydroelectric dams. Clim Change 75:103 9
Fekete BM, Voroosmarty CJ, and Grabs W. 2002. High-resolution elds of global runoff combining
observed river discharge and simulated water balances. Glo Bioge Cycle 16(3), doi: 10.1029/
1999GB001254
Fussel HM and Klein RJT. 2006. Climate change vulnerability assessments: An evolution of conceptual
thinking. Climatic Change 75:301 29
Guerin F, Abril G, Richard S, et al. 2006. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from tropical reser-
voirs: Signicance of downstream rivers. Geophys Res Lett 33:L21407
84 A. KUMAR AND M. P. SHARMA

Hiroki H. 2005. Life cycle GHG emission analysis of power generation systems: Japanese case. Energy
30:2042 56
IPCC. 2006. Climate change: The scientic basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third
Assessment Report of the IPCC. New York: Cambridge University Press
IPCC. 2014. Summary for policymakers In: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnera-
bility. Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assess-
ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK
Joel AG. 2012. Challenges and solutions for assessing the impact of freshwater reservoirs on natural
GHG emissions. Ecohydro Hydrobiol 12:115 22
Kemenes A, Forsberg BR, and Melack JM. 2007. Methane release below a tropical hydroelectric dam.
Geophys Res Lett 34:L12809
Kumar A, Schei T, Ahenkora A, et al. 2011. Hydropower. In: Edenhofer, O, Pichs-Madruga R, Sokona
Y, et al. (Eds), IPCC Special Report on Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation.
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA
Kumar A and Sharma MP. 2012. Greenhouse gas emissions from hydropower reservoirs. Hydro
Nepal: J Water, Energy and Enviro 11:37 42
Kumar A and Sharma MP. 2014a. Impact of water quality on GHG emissions from hydropower reser-
voir. J Mater Environ Sci 5(1):95 100
Kumar A and Sharma MP. 2014b. Review of methodology for estimation of labile organic carbon in
reservoirs and lakes for GHG emission. J Mater Environ Sci 5(3):653 60
Li S and Bush TR. 2015. Revision of methane and carbon dioxide emissions from inland waters in
India. Glo Cha Bio 21:6 8
Li SY and Lu XX. 2012. Uncertainties of carbon emission from hydroelectric reservoirs. Nat Haz
62:1343 5
Li SY, Lu XX, He M, et al. 2012. Daily CO2 partial pressure and CO2 out gassing in the upper Yangtze
River basin: A case study of the Longchuan River, China. J Hydro 466 467:141 50
Lima IBT, Ramos FM, Bambace LAW, et al. 2008. Methane emissions from large dams as renewable
energy resources: A developing nation perspective. Mitig Adapt Strat Global Change Biol
13:193 206
Marcel R, Anton G, Marc R, et al. 1998. A pasture simulation model for dry matter production, and
uxes of carbon, nitrogen, water and energy. Ecolo Mode 105:141 83
Mauldin G, Miller R, Gallagher J, et al. 1988. Injecting an oxygen x. Civil Eng 54(6):54 6
McQueen DJ and Lean DRS. 1983. Hypolimnetic aeration and dissolved gas concentrations: Enclosure
experiments. Wat Res 17:1781 90
Mendelssohn R, Nordhaus WD, and Shaw D. 1994. The impact of climate change on agriculture:
A Ricardian analysis. Amer Eco Rev 84(4):753 71
NASA. 1983. POWER, Climatology Resource for Agroclimatology. Available at http://power.larc.nasa.
gov/cgibin/cgiwrap/solar/agro.cgi?emailDagroclim@larc.nasa.gov
Nawani PC. 2006. Tehri Dam Project. Available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tehri_Dam
Panneer SB, Natchimuthu S, Arunachalam L, et al. 2014. Methane and carbon dioxide emissions from
inland waters in IndiaImplications for large scale greenhouse gas balances. Global Change Bio
20(11):3397 3407
Raymond PA, Hartmann J, Lauerwald R, et al. 2013. Global carbon dioxide emissions from inland
waters. Nat 503:355 59
Romain L, Raphael M, Bruno B, et al. 2012. Ecosystem Climate Change Vulnerability Assessment
Framework. International Environmental Modelling and Software Society (IEMSS) 2012 Interna-
tional Congress on Environmental Modelling and Software Managing Resources of a Limited
Planet, Sixth Biennial Meeting, Leipzig, Germany. Available at http://www.iemss.org/society/index.
php/iemss-2012-proceedings
Ruane RJ, Bohac CE, Seawell WM, et al. 1986. Improving the Downstream Environment by Reservoir
Release Modication. In: Hall GE, and Van Den Avyle MJ (Eds), Reservoir Fisheries Management:
Strategies for the 80s, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA, p. 99
 HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT 85

Senapati MR, Behera B, and Mishra SR. 2013. Impact of climate change on Indian agriculture & its
mitigating priorities. Ame J Enviro Prote 1(4): 109 11
Tremblay A, Bastien J, Bonneville MC, et al. 2010. Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions at Eastmain 1 Res-
ervoir, Quebec, Canada; World Energy Congress, Montreal, pp 1 19
Tremblay A, Varfalvy L, Roehm C, et al. 2005. Greenhouse Gas EmissionsFluxes and Processes
Hydroelectric Reservoirs and Natural Environments. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, New York
UNESCO/IHA. 2012. GHG Risk Assessment Tool (Beta Version). Available at http://www.hydro
power.org/ghg/tool
Yang H, Xing Y, Xie P, et al. 2008. Carbon source/sink function of a subtropical, eutrophic lake deter-
mined from an overall mass balance and a gas exchange and carbon burial balance. Envir Pollu
151:559 68