Search

•We describe the trade-offs between hydropeaking, cost, and transmission in a case study.•There are many attractive compromise-solutions that can mitigate hydropeaking for cheap.•For further analysis, we selected 10 solutions and plotted their river flashiness spatially and temporally.•To avoid sacrifice zones, the prescribed system-wide hydropeaking-index must be small.

Hydrologic alteration due to hydropeaking reservoir operations is a main concern worldwide. Subdaily environmental flow constraints (ECs) on operations can be promising alternatives for mitigating negative impacts. However, those constraints reduce the flexibility of hydropower plants, potentially with higher costs for the power system. To study the economic and environmental efficiency of ECs, this work proposes a novel framework comprising four steps: (i) assessment of the current subdaily hydrologic alteration; (ii) formulation and implementation of a short‐term, grid‐wide hydrothermal coordination model; (iii) design of ECs in the form of maximum ramping rates (MRRs) and minimum flows (MIFs) for selected hydropower reservoirs; and (iv) identification of Pareto‐efficient solutions in terms of grid‐wide costs and the Richard‐Baker flashiness index for subdaily hydrologic alteration (SDHA). The framework was applied to Chile's main power grid, assessing 25 EC cases, involving five MIFs and five MRRs. Each case was run for a dry, normal, and wet water year type. Three Pareto‐efficient ECs are found, with remarkably small cost increase below 2% and a SDHA improvement between 28% and 90%. While the case involving the highest MIF worsens the flashiness of another basin, the other two have no negative effect on other basins and can be recommended for implementation. Framework for Pareto‐efficient environmental flow constraints on hydropeakingCompromise between grid‐wide cost and subdaily hydrologic alterationPareto‐efficient constraints are found with cost increase below 2%

Wind and solar energy play a pivotal role in deep decarbonization pathways for the future. However, energy scenario studies differ substantially in the contribution of these technologies, as the technology selection in models strongly depends on the choice of techno-economic parameters. In this article, we systematically compare the cost assumptions for solar and wind technologies in global, regional and national energy scenario studies with costs observed in reality and with recent remuneration from market auctions. Specially, we compared the capital expenditure (CAPEX) and the levelized cost of electricity (LCOE) towards the year of 2050 when available with historical market prices and auction prices. Our results indicate that the trend of rapid cost declines has been structurally underestimated in virtually all future energy scenario analyses and suggest that even the most recent studies refer to obsolete or very conservative values. This leads to underestimating the future role and level of deployment of renewable technologies. We recommend an open database for costs of renewable technologies to enhance the accuracy and transparency of future energy scenarios.