Energy Policy 30 (2002) 1261–1265

Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable energy resource meeting

global energy challenges in a reasonable way
Gary W. Freya,*, Deborah M. Linkeb
a
Argonne National Laboratory, 200 Union Blvd. Suite 530, Lakewood, CO 80228, USA
b
Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 25007 (MC D-5400), Denver, CO 80225-0007, USA

Abstract

Central and State Governments in many countries have enacted laws and regulations to promote renewable energy and to
encourage sustainable technologies. In doing so, they had to define what they meant by ‘‘renewable’’ and ‘‘sustainable’’, and they
had to decide which particular technologies or organizations would be eligible for subsidies and tax concessions, and which others
would be excluded. Not infrequently, a considerable amount of lobbying would precede the passage of such laws and regulations,
and the resulting definitions of ‘‘renewable’’ and ‘‘sustainable’’ are often different than their original meaning. As a result, there now
exist many laws or regulations, which define ‘‘small hydro’’ as renewable and sustainable, whereas ‘‘large hydro’’ is labeled by some
of the legislators as being either not renewable or not sustainable. To further complicate matters, the definition of ‘‘small hydro’’
varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, from as little as 1 MW capacity to as much as 100 MW capacity. This article traces
society’s increasing preoccupation with renewability and sustainability issues over the past few decades, and addresses the question
of whether large hydropower should be considered renewable and sustainable. r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Hydropower; Renewable; Sustainable

1. Introduction developed, their performance by today’s environmental

The questions of renewable and sustainable energy
have their roots in two distinct issues. Renewability is a
response to concerns about the security of energy
supplies from unanticipated interruptions and the
eventual depletion of some primary energy sources such
as fossil fuels. Sustainability is a response to environ-
mental degradation of the planet and leaving a legacy to
future generations of a reduced quality of life. Both
issues have attracted increasing public attention during
the past three or four decades, and now figure
prominently on the political agendas of all levels of
government, and, indeed, of international relations.
Hydroelectricity, as a technology, started in the last
decade of the 19th century, and pre-dates by many years
the increasing public awareness of environmental issues.
Hydropower projects can indeed have negative environ-
mental consequences on a river ecosystem unless
adequate mitigation measures are taken. Given the
way some of the earlier hydropower projects were
*Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: garyfrey@anl.gov (G.W. Frey), dlinke@-
do.usbr.gov (D.M. Linke).
standards is open to question. Some of them fare rather
well by today’s standards, some others do not.
Hydropower is also characterized by the large variety
of positive and negative effects it can have on the
ecosystem. A large-scale hydro project with a reservoir
will convert some amount of terrestrial ecosystem to an
aquatic ecosystem. It will have some positive and
negative effects on the downstream river and bentic
ecosystems. There are numerous beneficial societal
effects, such as flood control, water supply, low-cost
energy and increased opportunities for recreation and it
will have a generally positive effect on the atmospheric
ecosystem. On the other hand, the list of environmental
parameters that can be affected is substantial. The length
of this list has adversely affected the opinions of some
decision-makers. To weigh the positive effects against the
negative ones can be a lengthy and complex task.
2. The renewable energy option
Renewable energy technologies are ones that consume
primary energy resources that are not subject to

0301-4215/02/$ - see front matter r 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 3 0 1 - 4 2 1 5 ( 0 2 ) 0 0 0 8 6 - 1
1262 G.W. Frey, D.J. Linke / Energy Policy 30 (2002) 1261–1265
depletion. Examples of renewable technologies include
solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy, and
biomass. Given this definition and the fact that water
supplies are replenished in the annual hydrologic cycle,
hydropower is considered part of the mix of renewable
technologies.
Non-consumptive renewable technologies include
solar power and wind power. Geothermal and biomass
energy do consume a resource, but the resource is
abundant in the first case and capable of replenishing
itself rapidly in the second case; therefore, these sources
are included in the family of renewable energy technol-
ogies.
From the policy perspective, the main attractions of
renewable energy are their security of supply, and the
fact that they are environmentally relatively benign
compared to fossil fuels. Most forms of renewable
energy, such as hydro, wind, solar and biomass, are
available within the borders of one country and or not
subject to disruption by international political events.
Interest in renewable energy options were given a
substantial boost in the 1970s when two disruptions in
oil production from the Middle East highlighted how
vulnerable energy supply was to political disruptions.
Research into the development and deployment of
renewable energy flourished, but increased political
stability in the Middle East in the 1980s and the
consequent reduction in oil prices made it difficult for
renewable energies to compete in the market. Hydro-
power was the main exception, it has been a competitive
technology for more than a century. Solar power could
be used in isolated locations, and the cost of wind power
was gradually reduced so that it is competitive in some
markets at the present time.
The other advantage of renewable technologies is that
except for biomass they do not involve a process of
combustion. Burning coal, natural gas, or oil for
electricity results in atmospheric pollutants of carbon
dioxide, nitrous oxides, sulfurous oxides, as well as
significant waste byproducts, such as ash. With increas-
ing concerns over global climate change and health
ramifications of these pollutants, use of renewable
energy sources has distinct advantages over non-renew-
able technologies.
The advantages of renewable energies to society,
which are currently not internalized into electricity or
fuel market prices, have prompted many governments to
subsidize capital investments in renewable energies, or
to enact other measures to increase their share in energy
production. In doing so, they encountered two major
issues with respect to hydropower, that of ‘‘windfall
profits’’ and that of the environmental friendliness of
hydropower. In many countries, where a substantial
amount of hydroelectric production already exists, a
subsidy to existing hydropower producers would merely
create a windfall profit, and would not necessarily
achieve the objective of increasing the amount of
renewable energy. Even if subsidies were restricted only
to new hydro plants, the issue of the environmental
friendliness of hydropower became increasingly impor-
tant. As discussed in other articles in this special issue, it
is not possible to make a generalized statement about
the environmental friendliness of hydropower, as each
project is site specific, some of them are environmentally
highly advantageous, others less so. A single large
hydropower project of 800 MW capacity could easily be
less damaging to the environment than 100 small hydro
projects of 8 MW capacity. However, such a statement
cannot be verified unless one specifies exactly which
large hydro project of 800 MW capacity one is discuss-
ing, and which 100 small projects of 8 MW capacity.
Whatever the objective facts about environmental
friendliness may be, it has become apparent to policy
makers that large hydro projects can attract opposition
and become controversial, whereas smaller ones usually
do not. An expedient way out of the controversy was to
define small hydropower as being renewable, and
eligible for government support, and excluding large
hydropower from subsidies or other incentive measures.
Hence the myth has arisen and gained strength that
small hydropower is environmentally friendly and
renewable, and large hydro much less so.
The perception that large hydro is less environmen-
tally friendly than other forms of renewable energy, and
the ensuing problems with public acceptance and
licensing of large hydro projects, are contributing to
missed opportunities and poor allocation of resources in
increasing the share of renewable energies. In some
industrialized countries, almost all of the economically
attractive hydropower sites have been developed, and
the remaining sites are not competitive compared to coal
or natural gas generation. However, some of these high
cost hydro sites may be far more cost effective than
some other forms of renewable energy, and a subsidy to
develop these remaining sites would result in greater
environmental and economic benefits than some of the
subsidies currently being granted.
3. Defining sustainable energy development
Sustainable development is a relatively recent concept
that has grown out of concerns about a declining quality
of the environment coupled with increasing resource
needs as populations expand and living standards rise.
Energy production and consumption have significantly
contributed to that decline, and many in the environ-
mental community believe that the quality of life will
continue to erode, unless alternatives are developed.
Although a decline of environmental quality, as a
result of development, has been part of humankind
social fabric for hundreds of years, recent significant
 G.W. Frey, D.J. Linke / Energy Policy 30 (2002) 1261–1265
concerns emerged approximately 35 years ago. It was
becoming apparent that there were certain social and
environmental costs associated with expansion, that
may not have been seen clearly in the earlier years.
These costs manifested themselves in a number of
ways. In the late 1950s, Rachel Carson identified
concerns over declining songbird populations, in her
now famous work—Silent Spring. The culprits, identi-
fied as contributing to these losses, were primarily
excessive use of powerful pesticides, along with land use
practices and industrial expansion. Subsequent observa-
tions and measurements showed that other parts of the
environment were also being unreasonably stressed.
Beginning in the early 1960s, a movement to change the
way humankind thinks about the environment began.
Early initiatives focused more on individual attributes of
the environment, including water quality, air quality,
management of hazardous substances, cultural re-
sources, and many others. Some of the outcomes from
the initiatives included a complex array of regulations
intended to manage and improve development, a
movement toward recycling of consumable resources,
and an emphasis on renewable energy as a substitute for
energy production that consumed resources.
While the initiatives taken regionally had many
positive effects, it soon became evident that there were
global environmental issues that needed to be addressed
as well. Concerns over industrial emissions, especially
those from the generation of electric energy, included
acid rain and global climate change as likely outcomes.
A major concern was transport of pollutants to the
point where impacts might be experienced hundreds of
miles away from the emission source. In the 1980s,
concerns over the use of certain chlorinated hydro-
carbons emerged as evidence indicating their release to
the environment was leading to the destruction of the
ozone layer, an upper atmospheric phenomenon that
protects life on earth from the adverse effects of solar
radiation.
In 1987, an influential report entitled ‘‘Our Common
Future’’ (The ‘‘Brundtland Report’’) was published by
the UN, and it defined sustainable development as
follows: ‘‘Development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future
generations to meet their own needs’’. The report
recognized that poverty is one of the main causes of
environmental degradation and that equitable economic
development is a key to addressing environmental
problems. The report also emphasized the issue of the
legacy that the present generation is leaving for future
generations.
Also in 1987, a number of nations met in Montreal,
Canada. They came together to discuss the potential
threats to the ozone layer. The result was the Montreal
Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer.
By January 1, 1989, twenty-nine countries, representing
1263
89% of the world’s consumption of potentially harmful
substances, had signed the protocol. Currently 155
countries are now Parties to the Convention and the
Protocol, with the vast majority of them being the
world’s developing countries.
While there have been numerous examples of the
world’s nations coming together to discuss and resolve
issues, the Montreal Protocol can be considered one of
the earliest efforts to address potentially threatening
environmental issues, leading to sustainable policies in
modern day environmental management.
Perhaps the second most significant event that helped
launch the Sustainable Development movement was the
United Nations Conference on Environment and
Development held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in 1992.
Agenda 21, the final report of the conference, empha-
sized sustainable development as the most logical
approach for the globe to take, in order to avoid
catastrophic consequences. The United Nations has
continued the initiatives identified in Agenda 21. In the
Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda
21, adopted by the UN General Assembly, significant
emphasis is placed on implementing sustainable energy
development, particularly in developing nations. In its
report, ‘‘Energy and sustainable development: options
and strategies for action on key issues’’, the United
Nations Economic and Social Council presents several
issues and strategies for achieving sustainable energy
development. Part of the strategy is to increase reliance
on renewable energy resources, to the extent possible, in
meeting future energy needs. Several suggested policy
initiatives are proposed.
More recently, the Climate Conference at Kyoto,
Japan in 1997, resulted in the Kyoto Protocol. The
agreement deals with worldwide emissions and estab-
lishes targets for developing nations, starting in 2008.
The agreement is controversial because, among indus-
trialized countries, some countries are required to reduce
their emissions while others are allowed small increases.
Also there are potential economic consequences for
those countries needing to reduce emissions. What is
significant is that consensus was achieved that emissions
pose a significant environmental impact requiring
nations to address the problem on a global scale.
These major global events have reinforced a belief
that humankind needs to move in the direction of
sustainable development. Economic growth must con-
tinue not only for reasons of equity, but also for
environmental reasons, because the poor who live at the
subsistence level may have no alternatives to degrading
their environment. They may be forced to cut down
forests for firewood, to overgraze the grasslands, to
pollute the water, etc. However, economic growth
should be steered into paths which enable future
generations to continue to meet their needs, including,
of course, their needs for energy.
1264 G.W. Frey, D.J. Linke / Energy Policy 30 (2002) 1261–1265
Scholars have pointed out that the current system of
energy production and use is finite. The continued use of
non-renewable resources, generally fossil fuels, cannot
be sustained forever. The argument is made that society
is ‘‘borrowing’’ against its future by using up those
natural resources that cannot be replenished in a
reasonable time frame. Ultimately, those resources will
run out; it is only a matter of timing.
But implementing sustainability brings a new issue to
the discussion regarding renewable energy. What
sustainability addresses is the need for society to
consider energy consumption in a way that does not
exceed the environment’s capacity to absorb the effects,
without permanent damage. One argument states that
countries should not adopt policies that unnecessarily
consume resources in ways that ensure rapid depletion.
Rather, if expanding areas of the globe are to have
sustainable living standards, then large consumers of
energy must find ways to be more energy efficient. In
other words, there is a need to maintain or increase their
quality of life, while reducing their per capita use, and
secondly to develop energy technologies which are less
subject to depletion and which have fewer impacts on
the environment. This will enable future generations to
have adequate resources for sustaining their life-styles.
4. Hydropower as a renewable and sustainable resource
If the criteria for renewability is founded on a
requirement that a technology be relatively non-con-
sumptive in the generation of energy, then clearly
hydropower must be considered a renewable energy
source. The ‘‘fuel’’ for hydropower is water which, in
itself, is renewable, and is not consumed in the electricity
generating process. Most governmental energy policy
makers identify hydropower as a renewable resource.
The United States, Canada, most European Nations,
and the United Nations include hydropower in their
discussions of renewable energy sources.
Some interested individuals hold that hydropower is
not a renewable resource because of its potentially
serious effect on natural resources, often fish. They
argue that only small head hydropower, hydropower
facilities installed either on canals or pipelines, or
installed in natural water courses in ways that only
minimally disrupt the natural flow of a river, actually
qualify the resource as a renewable supply. However,
that argument, regardless of its merits, is an issue related
to sustainability, not renewability.
When addressing sustainability, the question becomes
a little more complex. The goal(s) of sustainability are to
assure that development preserves the resource for
future use and does not exceed the environment’s
absorptive capacity of negative impacts. These goals
reflect a belief that humans have an obligation to enable
future generations, both in their own countries and
elsewhere in the world, to maintain a satisfactory quality
of life.
What separates hydropower from other sources of
electric energy, including other sources of renewable
energy, is that it leaves substantial positive legacies to
future generations, as well as some negative ones. Many
of the structures of a hydropower plant, such as canals,
tunnels, dams, reservoirs, access roads, etc. last for
many generations and are an enormous positive legacy
left for the future. Some forms of hydropower do
consume large quantities of land, for the reservoirs that
store water for the various purposes of flood control,
irrigation and electricity generation. Some reservoirs can
extend for 100 miles (160 km ) or more. However,
whether that conversion of land from a terrestrial
ecosystem to an aquatic ecosystem is a positive or
negative legacy depends on the particular hydro project,
what the land was used for before the project and what
the artificial lake is used for after the project.
Some organizations opposed to hydropower call for a
moratorium on the construction of new dams, or the
decommissioning of some dams which interfere with
salmon migration, or even the decommissioning of
many more dams for a variety of environmental reasons.
This would be a step backwards for the sustainability of
the power sector. Eliminating these facilities will not
reduce power demand. Most of the world electric energy
comes from thermal resources and it is reasonable to
assume that the replacement energy will come from
those sources. Table 1 shows the amount of coal or oil
or natural gas that would be required to generate the
same amount of electricity as all forms of hydropower,
including run-of-the-river hydropower. Hydropower
plants with large dams and reservoirs account for a
large share of global hydropower production.
The numbers shown reflect likely efficiencies in
generating stations that could supply replacement
power. On a global scale, eliminating hydropower and
replacing it with a thermal resource would lead to the
additional use of either 1112 million tons of coal, 4449
million barrels of oil, or 26,696 billion ft3 of natural gas,
over and above what is currently being used. Each of
these fuel sources are universally considered non-
renewable and are known to cause significant environ-
mental impacts.
At the heart of the debate, regarding the sustainable
character of hydropower, is whether sustainability is
seen as an absolute concept, where a process is either
sustainable or not, or whether it allows for a more
flexible definition, where a process can have some
positive and negative sustainability characteristics, and
what counts is the balance between the two. The
question is not whether the environment is impacted,
as much as to what is the degree of positive and negative
impacts. While hydropower projects have been proven
 G.W. Frey, D.J. Linke / Energy Policy 30 (2002) 1261–1265 1265

Table 1
Thermal equivalents to hydropower generation

Global region Hydropower electrical Equivalent coal (million Equivalent oil (million equivalent natural gas
generation (billion tons) barrels) (billion cu.ft)
kilowatthours)

North America 672 291 1167 7000

Central and South 521 226 904 5423
America
Western Europe 520 225 901 5406
Eastern Europe and 261 113 453 2718
former USSR
Middle east 16 7 27 164
Africa 63 27 109 656
Far East and Oceana 514 223 890 5342

World total 2567 1112 4449 26696

3
Assumptions: 1 kW h=10,400 BTU; 1 ton/coal=24,000,000 BTU; 1 ft /natural gas=1,000 BTU; 1 barrel/oil=6,000,000 BTU.

to cause substantial impact to various sectors of the
environment, it is also known to have created sub-
stantial benefits to other sectors. Hydropower projects
are often multi-purpose in nature, meeting multiple
needs of society in areas such as flood control, assurance
of a firm water supply, recreational benefits, as well as
energy production. If the costs of acquiring those
benefits include some changes in the natural environ-
ment, then the decision to move forward, or not, is a
societal one based on a population’s value system.
An example of the trade-off associated with hydro-
power can be seen in the development of Hoover Dam,
on the Colorado River. At the turn of the 20th century,
heavy flooding on the Colorado River caused significant
damage to water diversion facilities near Yuma,
Arizona. The area had been a promising agricultural
area for several years but the flooding destroyed much
of the conveyance system that distributed water in both
southwest Arizona and south central California. One
outcome of the flood was the expansion of the Salton
Sea, in the Imperial Valley, California. A number of
solutions were experimented with, but in the end the
authorization of the Boulder Canyon Project, by the US
Government, became the acceptable solution. That
project included Hoover Dam and Imperial Dam on
the main stem of the river, as well as new conveyance
facilities. Built in the 1930s, the positive aspects of the
Boulder Canyon Project are legendary. Lake Mead has
served as a water repository, generating electricity,
providing agricultural, municipal and industrial water
needs, for economic development in three states, for
more than 64 years. A recreational resource has been
developed at Lake Mead, that is used by millions of
people annually, and the dam, itself, is a tourist
attraction for millions of visitors each year.
Clearly, this facility has had both positive and
negative effects on the environment. It is a prime
example of the type of legacy left to future generations
by a hydro project. By and large, the generation that
built the project, and paid for it, has now passed away,
and has left the legacy of the many positive benefits and
the few adverse effects for succeeding generations,
including the present one. It met the needs of the
generation that constructed the facility, and continues to
meet the needs of future generations, and hence it fully
meets the criteria of the UN definition of sustainability.
The question for policy makers and decision-makers
of this generation is whether the impacts created by
this hydropower facility are a reasonable tradeoff
for the benefits generated according to the current
value system and importance attached to both the
positive and negative effects. Each future generation will
have to make this judgment, according to the values it
espouses.