Next Article in Journal
Development and Characterization of Polymeric Composites Reinforced with Lignocellulosic Wastes for Packaging Applications
Previous Article in Journal
Double-Edged Sword Effect of Flexible Work Arrangements on Employee Innovation Performance: From the Demands–Resources–Individual Effects Perspective
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 15
Issue 13
10.3390/su151310160
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Hydropower Scenarios in the Face of Climate Change in Ecuador

by
Sebastian Naranjo-Silva
1,*,
Diego Punina-Guerrero
2,
Luis Rivera-Gonzalez
3,
Kenny Escobar-Segovia
4,
Jose David Barros-Enriquez
5,
Jorge Armando Almeida-Dominguez
6 and
Javier Alvarez del Castillo
1
1
Department of Sustainability, Polytechnic University of Catalonia, Jordi Girona 1-3, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
2
Faculty of Engineering Sciences, Quevedo State Technical University, Quevedo 120301, Ecuador
3
Iniciativa Climate Promise, PNUD Ecuador, Av. 12 de Octubre N24-739, Quito 170143, Ecuador
4
Facultad de Ingeniería en Ciencias de la Tierra, Escuela Superior Politécnica del Litoral (ESPOL), Red Internacional de Investigación de Actividades Hidrocarburíferas y Energéticas (RIIAHE), Campus Gustavo Galindo Km 30.5 Vía Perimetral, Guayaquil 090902, Ecuador
5
Faculty of Industry Sciences and Production, Quevedo State Technical University, Quevedo 120301, Ecuador
6
Faculty of Human Sciences and Education, Technical University of Ambato, Ambato 180104, Ecuador
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(13), 10160; https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310160
Submission received: 15 April 2023 / Revised: 5 June 2023 / Accepted: 15 June 2023 / Published: 27 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Energy Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Currently, hydropower is the principal renewable energy source; however, climate change is increasing the frequency of extreme events, such as floods, droughts, erosion, and sedimentation of rivers, which produce uncertainty with regard to hydroelectric generation. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the climate change projections for the hydropower systems of Ecuador based on data from 14 projects studying scenarios according to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The study examined the period from 2010 to 2020 with historical data, determined the tendency, defined a database year, and then projected the scenarios to 2050. The quantitative methodology used time-series statistics for Ecuador’s hydropower inflow to calculate the deviation over recent years and develop a model to simulate future power generation. The results showed that hydropower in Ecuador is expected to decrease considerably through to 2050 due to meteorological changes. In this calculation of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, the selected scenarios showed a reduction in SSP5 of 11.5%, SP2 of 16.2%, and SSP4 of 18.2% through to 2050, indicating that the opportunities for hydroelectric production in the face of climate change are variable, but the challenges are broad. In Ecuador, the projections of reductions in hydropower generation represent a sensitive issue, especially knowing that, in 2020, 87% of the energy grid in the country depended on hydroelectric production.

1. Introduction

Globally, growing human demand for water and energy is expected to lead to difficulties in the coming decades [1]. Consequently, the worldwide shift to renewable energy production has increased the demand for organizations to engage in new and more flexible operations [2]. Currently, hydropower is the principal renewable energy source; a sixth of global electricity production came from hydropower in 2020, making it the most significant low-carbon energy source, even compared to all other renewable sources combined [3,4]. According to the International Energy Agency, hydropower energy production has grown in recent years, as Figure 1 shows.
Figure 1 shows that hydropower has been a vital component in the recent shift to clean sources, including in the quantities of low-carbon electricity it can produce and its unmatched capabilities for storing and securing this energy; thus, support for other renewables, such as solar and wind, has grown in the last five years [6,7].
Nevertheless, with the deployment of renewables, negative aspects are also discussed; for example, hydropower interacts strongly with the environment due to its altering of natural flows to produce energy. Furthermore, hydropower depends on water, and the critical resource is precipitation, causing a specific risk since the future global climate is uncertain [8]. Consequently, it is essential to conduct an in-depth examination of these issues [9].
Ecuador is an excellent example of hydroelectric development because, in 2020, 87% of its energy grid was based on this source [10]. Despite being a country with abundant water, factors such as overuse, uneven distribution, and poor delivery of water-use authorizations could trigger potential conflicts among citizens. As a reference, 88% of the Ecuadorian population lives in the Pacific basin, but the water availability is limited in this area, with only 31% of the water found there [11,12].
Ecuador’s geographical situation, climate, and natural resources provide favorable conditions for building new hydropower projects. However, it has yet to grow economically, especially from a sustainable perspective in such a way as to ensure harmonious development [13]. Based on Carvajal’s (2019) analysis of Ecuador’s energy grid, it is clear that hydropower is affected by climate change and, thus, a partial equilibrium model is needed for the energy system. It was found that the proportion of Ecuador’s total electricity produced by hydropower could vary significantly by 2050 (between 53% and 81%) and this could be attributed to a dry climate scenario, as well as social resistance that could limit the implementation of large-scale hydroelectric projects in the country [14].
However, between 2007 and 2017, nearly six billion USD was invested in eight hydropower projects in Ecuador to harness river currents and waterfalls, raising its capacity to around 2832 MW [15,16]. The Electric Corporation of Ecuador (CELEC in Spanish) established that, in 2020, there were 71 hydropower plants in operation with 5074 MW of installed capacity compared to 2242 MW in 2010 [17]. Therefore, there was an increase of 127% in installed hydropower capacity in 10 years.
According to the Ministry of the Environment, Water, and Ecological Transition of Ecuador, the country has taken essential steps to reduce its contribution to greenhouse gas emissions in electricity, especially with the increase in hydroelectric plants instead of obtaining energy from polluting fossil sources [18]. Nevertheless, this country’s millionaire endeavor may have some complications due to external factors. Ecuadorian and international scientists warn that hydropower plants are vulnerable to climate change, and the government has not made the necessary efforts to study this phenomenon [19,20].
Hydropower generation is known to be one of the available low-carbon energy options; however, there are emerging problems due to its disorganized exploitation. Therefore, the issues arising from intense hydropower generation must be highlighted with the understanding that the fluvial regimes are modified, and the local perceptions of the nearby communities where these projects are based are negative [21,22].
On the other hand, hydropower projects need to improve efficiency due to the increasingly present meteorological variations. As a result of human-induced climate change, extreme events are more likely to occur, resulting in adverse impacts and damage to nature and people. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a very high risk that climate change will affect approximately 3.3 to 3.6 billion people [23,24].
In the case of hydropower, seasonal changes in snow-dominated basins are expected to lead to an increase in winter and a decrease in production during the summer months. But, the melting of glaciers also influences the hydrological regimes, sediment transport, movement of biological species, and dissipation of contaminants from rivers to the ocean, which has profound implications for ecosystem services, especially those related to water provision for agriculture, hydropower, and consumption [25,26].
Historically, the plant efficiency rate has been reduced by 4 to 5% during drought years compared to long-term average values since the 1980s, indicating a negative impact on current hydropower production due to droughts [23,27].
The International Renewable Energy Agency (IRENA) established that, between 2010 and 2020, the global weighted average power factor for hydroelectric changed from 51% in 2015 to 46% in 2020 in commissioned projects, which shows that hydropower is losing efficiency at around 1% per year due to the climate change effects around the world [28,29]. Therefore, to standardize the term power factor throughout the document, it is defined as a measure of an electrical system efficiency because it represents the performance and energy used to transform energy into effort [30].
Climate change poses an increasing challenge to hydropower; an analysis of the International Energy Agency in 2020 predicted that, until the end of the century, hydropower efficiency in Latin America is projected to decrease in all possible climate scenarios [31]. The impact of extreme climate events on hydropower production has been documented in numerous studies in the energy sector. However, few studies measure trends in this energy production source due to long-term climate change, which is a knowledge gap.
Against this background, the novelty of this study is that it presents an actual examination of a hydropower project’s efficiency in a developing country with little investigation of this renewable source. Thus, this study aimed to analyze the climate change projections for the hydropower systems of Ecuador based on data from 14 projects studying scenarios according to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

2. Materials and Methods

A quantitative methodology was used for the present analysis of statistics and calculations of Ecuador’s hydropower projects. An inflow time series for 14 hydropower stations in Ecuador using historical generation power factor data was used to compare to the projection study. Next, we calculated the deviation over ten years as a tendency, selecting a robust data baseline (year to start), introduced the data into a platform (energy requirements, population, GDP, energy grid, hydropower capacity), calibrated the model with monthly hydropower production and meteorological data (temperature), and finally developed a model to simulate future hydropower production; the steps used are shown in Figure 2.
Moreover, the following primary data collection sources were used to collect the data on Ecuador for the analysis that support this study:
  • The International Renewable Energy Agency;
  • Ministry of Environment, Water and Ecological Transition of Ecuador;
  • Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador;
  • Agency for the Regulation and Control of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources of Ecuador;
  • The Electric Corporation of Ecuador.
In the case of Ecuador, the data tabulated on the power factor from the most representative hydropower plants specifically 14 that have a capacity of 4396 MW, represent 87% of the total 5074 MW of installed generation reported in 2020 [17]. In addition, the information covers from 2010 to 2020, divided into two periods: 2010 to 2015 and 2016 to 2020.
The power factor was used as a measurable efficiency indicator in the electrical systems because this indicator reflects the amount of energy required to transform energy into effort [30]. In addition, the future scenarios were generated based on the IPCC concepts; we used five evolutions of climate change lines where global and regional differences are marked and depend on the countries’ and world leaders’ actions. Nowadays, these lines are called Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSP) [26].
These Shared Socioeconomic Pathways demonstrated possible scenarios that were captured in the IPCC Sixth Assessment Report on climate change in 2021 and describe alternative development pathways in the upcoming decades; for example, it proposed considering the economic evolution, future levels of inequality, and demographic and technological changes, as shown in Figure 3 [32].
Since this study assessed the future challenges for hydropower deployment under different scenarios to compare their impacts, a power system optimization model called Markal–TIMES was used. The platform structure depended on data inputs, such as demographic distribution, electricity technologies, energy grid, and outcomes such as economic impacts, capital needs, and energy projections. Markal was used to conduct data analyses with environmental perspectives using a historical energy database. The results of this examination were used to explore pathways based on contrasting scenarios of electricity production and consumption [33,34].
The baseline year selected was 2017, when the average price of electricity in Ecuador billed to customers was 9.79 USD¢/kWh, and the national energy demand was 21,831 GWh. From the demand, a billing of USD 1,901,334 was collected [35,36]. This year was selected due to its energy trend with a distribution of various primary sources; it was also a year before the COVID-19 pandemic, when consumption values became atypical for multiple sectors, which made projections difficult due to the variations.

3. Results

3.1. Trends and Data

First, we calculated the energy efficiency of the projects. According to the Agency for the Regulation and Control of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources (entity attached to the Ministry of Energy of Ecuador), the power factor data from 14 hydropower plants showed the trend detailed below for 2010–2020 [37], a similar period to the one analyzed by the International Renewable Energy Agency (Table A1).
From Table 1, it can be observed that there were periods when there are no data; this is because the projects were not yet in operation; as mentioned, the last 13 years was the period when hydropower in Ecuador overgrew. The statistics are divided into 5-year periods to calculate the average. Comparing the periods of 2010–2015 and 2016–2020, a −4.90% reduction in power factor was observed. This value represents a decrease of 9.4% between the two periods; over these 10 years, hydropower projects lost 0.5% efficiency annually. Figure 4 shows the Ecuadorian hydropower map projects studied in Table 1, which are located around the country [38].
On the other hand, in the context of the Ecuadorian energy grid simulation, the Markal–TIMES V3.0 model minimized the costs associated with installing the technologies necessary to meet the electricity demand. Consequently, certain processes were involved in developing the SSPs and modeling the scenarios. Then, using the baseline year and input data, the SSPs were projected onto the platform, guiding quantitative interpretations and scenario assumptions related to resource availability, technological advancements, and drivers of energy demand.

3.1.1. Input Data

In 2017, the generation capacity of Ecuador registered 8036 MW of nominal power and 7435 MW of effective power. The nominal power of 4716 MW (58.67%) corresponded to plants using renewable energy sources and 3321 MW (41.33%) to plants using non-renewable energy sources. Of the 4716 MW of renewable energy, 96% corresponded to hydropower. Furthermore, in terms of the electricity total distribution in the country, 104 plants were renewable and 193 were thermal, totaling 297 electrical projects distributed in 23 provinces. The highest concentration of power was found in Azuay, Napo, and Guayas provinces, with predominantly renewable generation plants in the first two. In addition, the average power factor or efficiency of the 14 projects for 2017 was 52.76 [39,40].
Moreover, 102 MW of new energy were added in this baseline year, of which 98% was in hydropower. Additionally, Ecuador regulated clients by energy consumption group: 88% represent the residential sector, 9% are from the commercial sector, and the rest belong to the industrial and public lighting sector (3%). Further information from the National Institute of Statistics and Censuses of Ecuador in 2017 included a population of 16.7 million inhabitants, gross energy production of 20,089 GWh from hydroelectricity (72%), 73 GWh from wind (0.3%), 37 GWh from photovoltaic (0.13%), 28 GWh from biogas (0.10%), 431 GWh from biomass (1.5%), and from thermal sources: 4439 GWh from internal combustion engines (16%), 1644 GWh from Turbo-gas (6%), and 1292 GWh from Turbo-steam (4%) [40,41].

3.1.2. Output Data

According to The Electric Corporation of Ecuador, the remaining hydropower capacity expansion potential in Ecuador is under short-term projects (4–5 years to 2028 approximately), which is planned to produce 645 MW from 14 projects (hydropower and other renewable energies). Of the 14 projects under construction, 11 correspond to hydropower projects producing 407.5 MW, representing 63% of the planned output, two thermoelectric projects with a capacity of 187 MW, and one wind power project with a power of 50 MW. In addition, Ecuador has great potential, mostly for large hydropower projects in the medium term (6–10 years to 2033 approximately) such as the Rio Santiago (2600 MW) and Cardenillo (596 MW) projects [35].
Moreover, using the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways of the IPCC to model hydropower demand evolution in Ecuador, a single projection assumed annual growth rates of the population and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of 1.37% and 2.7%, respectively [42,43]. Meanwhile, the Markal-TIMES model articulated the international trajectory to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Therefore, the study considered that, globally, it needs to keep its emissions below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050.

3.2. The Ecuadorian Projection

To start the model evaluation in Markal, it compared the observed temperature for the calibration periods; the different colored bars refer to the time period from 1981 to 2017 at six hydrologic stations in Ecuador (Lumbaqui, Baños, Paute, Sangay, Puerto Ila, and Babahoyo) [44]. These meteorological stations are related to the main distribution of hydropower production in the Azuay, Napo, Tungurahua, and Cañar provinces in Ecuador, as represented in Figure 5.
The model used the meteorological stations related to these main hydropower provinces. The results demonstrated that the simulated series matched the observed series well, and all the stations presented increased temperatures in 2017. This phenomenon arose from the high intensity of human activities in these locations where the hydropower projects were built; the conditions changed over time, showing the impacts of climate change. In addition to the database year, the monthly hydropower generation is represented in Figure 6 to calibrate the energy distribution [44].
Ecuador has a strategic capacity for hydroelectric projects thanks to its tropical climate and water tributaries that do not vary greatly throughout the year; however, as the figure shows, there were months with a reduction in potential. Although it is a tropical climate in the summer seasons (June to September), there were areas without much precipitation, affecting hydroelectric generation [45].
Following the data projection of energy efficiency through to 2050, the main socioeconomic drivers, i.e., population, economic activity, and energy grid, were translated into quantitative scenarios to derive a model of the hydropower power factor of the energy and emissions associated with SSPs, as shown in Figure 7.
Based on our criteria for the five Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, we selected the efficiency projection of SSP2, SSP4, and SSP5, believing that these scenarios have a central related tendency up to 2050. The reasons for the applied criteria analyzing the regional and global renewables tendencies are listed in Table 2.
As shown in Table 2, the IPCC concepts, SSP2, SSP4, and SSP5 were selected because their characteristics are based on the capital cost, which serves as a key factor in siting and construction of facilities. On the other hand, they use scenarios where population growth was high in developing countries [49,50].
In contrast, the pathways SSP1 and SPP3 on the Sixth Assessment Report were not evaluated due to the complication of joining with other models, assumptions, and driving forces, for example, the Representative Concentration Pathways and Global Warming Levels [23]. In addition, SSP1 was challenging globally because a sustainable way with a green road belief was not projected. Moreover, in the SSP3 scenario, it did predicted an ominous next year due to adaptation challenges and total inequality. Therefore, scenarios SSP1 and SSP3 were not selected because these were the extreme trends, as illustrated in Figure 7.
As a result of the analysis, the methodology identified three scenarios for future hydropower efficiency that capture a range of challenges that must be addressed. The projections represented an evolution of relative fluctuations due to changes in technology and another with medium-sized changes anchored to medium-scale sustainable development, for which the factors that determined the progress of climate change were related to each scenario, and there was an uncertainty associated with the evolution of the socioeconomic and meteorological system of Ecuador. Moreover, the results determined the variation and difference of the scenarios modeled in the Markal—TIMES software V3.0; the results are shown in Table 3.

4. Discussion

Hydropower is a capital-intensive technology that requires long lead periods for its installation. These lead times include planning, site construction, and commissioning. The projects are large and complex, involving significant civil engineering changes, lengthy site surveys, inflow data collection, environmental assessments, and obtaining any permits required to move forward with the project [51,52]. Therefore, they are often not the best investment decision, as shown by the global efficiency reductions in Table A1.
Moreover, according to Table 1, Killingtveit mentioned that hydropower plants have up to a 70% efficiency on average [53]. Alternatively, Denisov mentioned that the advantages of hydroelectric stations are the high coefficient of the power factor, which amounts to 62–82%, compared to about 33% for nuclear and thermal power stations [54].
Although hydropower is a mature technology widely used among renewables, IRENA determined that its global share has slowly declined. The percentage of hydropower among renewables fell from 72% of the share in 2010 (881 GW) to 41% of the share in 2020 (1153 GW), excluding pumped hydroelectricity, despite the increase in installed systems [55,56].
Thus, comparing hydropower plants’ performance in Ecuador with data from IRENA, it is clear that the projects have felt the same effects as the global market which vary the net potential, decreasing the efficiency due to the various changes in the climate on a global scale, as shown in Table 3. Therefore, it is important to discuss the decreasing trend in large-scale hydropower projects (≥200 MW) and small-scale project over ten years determined by IRENA; thus, we calculated the differences between periods (2010/2015–2016/2020) and found an average percentage variation of −7.5%, as shown Table A1 [55].
To corroborate these results, we studied the sensitivity to climate change of the Ecuadorian hydroelectric sector, including in five basins (Coca, Toachi Pilaton, Paute, Jubones, and Zamora) since these basins contain the majority of the hydropower projects showing a wide range of uncertainty and irregular production. The results showed a wide annual inflow variation, and the annual hydroelectric power production in Ecuador was found to be reduced by between 55% and 39% of the mean historical output for 2071–2100 [57]. Another study of Ecuadorian projects mentioned that the total amount of electricity supplied by hydropower is expected to vary significantly, between 53% and 81%, by 2050, similar to the results shown in Table 3 for efficiency reduction [16].
Furthermore, data from the Nationally Determined Contributions of Ecuador regulates that there are expected impacts related to the lack of rainfall that is accentuated in the central areas of the coast, central and southern area of Sierra, and the Amazon zones which is the center of the hydropower projects and previously received abundant rainfall [18,58]. In light of these circumstances, the climate change effects on hydrological variability and energy capacity need to be a priority research area in Ecuador.
According to Parra (2020), hydropower designs in Ecuador need to sufficiently consider their vulnerability to climate change. Hydroelectricity has a fundamental role in Ecuadorian energy policy to achieve the goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, a great challenge for the country’s balance between economic development and responsible energy generation. However, long-term climate change can disturb the function of these plants [59].
The calculated results of Ecuador (Table 3) were compared with other studies. For example, in Colombia, a multimodal investigation was conducted on climate change and hydropower; this neighboring country with similar climate characteristics detected that water disposal in some regions would be affected, and hydroelectric production will vary according to models for the next three decades. The models found that weather-related losses in hydropower from 2015 to 2029 will reduce the generation capacity by between 5.5% and 17.1% [60,61]. Another example of climate change analysis was performed by the World Bank in Vietnam, which studied the feasibility of hydropower projects, including climate change sensitivity tests, and analyzed the impacts on energy generation. In this specific case, hydropower generation would fall in the next 25 years by a significant amount (up to 36% of the projected amount) due to climate variability, which decreases hydropower efficiency, similar to our results for Ecuador up to 2050 in the projected scenarios [62,63].
According to Hamududu, based on 12 global circulation models, significant decreases in runoff are expected in some countries, thereby affecting hydropower generation. The models showed that, by 2050, in the south and north of Africa, hydropower production will decline by −0.48% and −0.83%, respectively. Hydropower generation in western Asia will decrease by −1.43%, and Europe will have around a −2% reduction [8].
In summary, as shown by our results, over the past ten years, the hydropower system in Ecuador showed traces of climate change, with projects exhibiting reduced efficiency. Climate change can alter hydropower production capacity with high variability [64]. For any field transitions, the electricity sector requires a focus on climate change adaptation with a focus on hydropower as a representative. This established technology contributes to climate change mitigation, but there are substantial environmental, cultural, climatic, and social costs [65,66].
On the other hand, there are limitations to this study; for example, it projects future scenarios that are difficult to predict and that constantly change. Therefore, with the several variables present in the baseline year, future results were sought; however, the scope of this analysis provides recommendations for future studies to be carried out at the national level in Ecuador. It can also serve as a basis for other countries where their energy sources include hydroelectricity.
By using more hydropower, greenhouse gas emissions will be lower. Nevertheless, the problem is that the country should not only worry about lowering these emissions but also improve energy efficiency since the trends from Ecuador and other countries show that climate change is a complex issue. Future research can analyze the power factor and trends of the other renewables technologies to develop a sustainable and efficient expansion policy in different global regions, according to the historical data of all renewables.

5. Conclusions

To construct the hydropower scenarios in the face of climate change in Ecuador, we used the historical efficiency of 14 projects, defined 2017 as the baseline year, and projected the IPCC criteria into the possible hydropower trends related to the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways using the Markal TIMES platform.
The hydropower efficiency in Ecuador was predicted to decrease considerably through to 2050 due to meteorological changes. In the calculation of the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways, the three selected scenarios showed a reduction: 11.5% in SSP5, 16.2% in SSP2, and 18.2% in SPP4. Therefore, the opportunities for hydropower production in the face of climate change are variable in Ecuador, but the challenges are broad.
In Ecuador, from 2010 to 2020, this study showed a decreasing efficiency of 0.5% annually in the 14 projects analyzed, with significant variations in their potentials. Hydropower generation shows a variable sensitivity to climate change; this is important since, in 2020, 87% of the energy grid in the country depended on hydroelectric production.
In Ecuador, rapid and aggressive hydropower construction has changed the energy grid in the last fifteen years. Still, this renewable production is vulnerable to climate change according to the 14 projects analyzed. Thus, before considering dam construction, it is necessary to explore the future hydropower efficiency with more accurate decisions, promoting the development of other non-conventional renewable sources that avoid the effects of climate change in the coming years.
The present study is just one example from a developing country with a representative number of hydropower projects; an analysis of the countries with the largest installed hydropower capacity is necessary to determine the best approach, using data from efficiency, energy production, and climate parameters to make future investment decisions.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and writing—original draft, S.N.-S. Methodology and visualization, D.P.-G. Formal analysis and software, L.R.-G. Investigation, K.E.-S. Validation, J.D.B.-E. Writing—review and editing, J.A.A.-D. Supervision, J.A.d.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study did not require ethical approval from any academic, private, or public entity as it was performed by an independent group of researchers studying energy projections. Furthermore, it is not applicable because it does not involve humans or animals.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We would like to specially recognize all the scientific authors cited in this document for their time to generate the different articles, theses, and developments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Appendix A

Table A1 presents the relationship between the hydropower global power factor trends from 2010 to 2020, according to data from IRENA.
Table
Table A1. Worldwide power factor of hydropower by region in % (2010–2020).
Table A1. Worldwide power factor of hydropower by region in % (2010–2020).
No.RegionLarge Hydropower Plants (%)Small Hydropower Plants (%)
2010–20152016–20202010–20152016–2020
1Africa47555655
2Brazil61456356
3Central America485359-
4China45474638
5Eurasia43425861
6Europe41334844
7India47425057
8Rest of Asia46508054
9Rest of South America626065-
Average48.8947.4458.3352.14
Variation (%)−3.0%−11.9%
Average−7.45%
Source: [55].

References

  1. Johnson, N.; Burek, P.; Byers, E.; Falchetta, G.; Flörke, M.; Fujimori, S.; Havlik, P.; Hejazi, M.; Hunt, J.; Krey, V.; et al. Integrated solutions for the water-energy-land nexus: Are global models rising to the challenge? Water 2019, 11, 2223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Eloranta, A.P.; Finstad, A.G.; Helland, I.P.; Ugedal, O.; Power, M. Hydropower impacts on reservoir fish populations are modified by environmental variation. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 618, 313–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Cabrera, S.; Eurie Forio, M.A.; Lock, K.; Vandenbroucke, M.; Oña, T.; Gualoto, M.; Goethals, P.L.M.; van der Heyden, C. Variations in benthic macroinvertebrate communities and biological quality in the aguarico and coca river basins in the ecuadorian amazon. Water 2021, 13, 1692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Naranjo-Silva, S.; del Castillo, J.A. The American Continent hydropower development and the Sustainability: A Review. Int. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. 2022, 6, 66–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. International Energy Agency. Hydropower Special Market Report. In Analysis and Forecast to 2030; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  6. Lohrmann, A.; Child, M.; Breyer, C. Assessment of the water footprint for the European power sector during the transition towards a 100% renewable energy system. Energy 2021, 233, 121098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Llamosas, C.; Sovacool, B.K. The future of hydropower? A systematic review of the drivers, benefits and governance dynamics of transboundary dams. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 137, 110–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hamududu, B.; Killingtveit, A. Assessing climate change impacts on global hydropower. Energies 2012, 5, 305–322. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Briones Hidrovo, A.; Uche, J.; Martínez-Gracia, A. Determining the net environmental performance of hydropower: A new methodological approach by combining life cycle and ecosystem services assessment. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 712, 44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Naranjo-Silva, S.; Punina, J.; Del Castillo, J.Á. Comparative cost per kilowatt of the latest hydropower projects in Ecuador. InGenio J. 2022, 5, 22–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Escribano, G. Ecuador’s energy policy mix: Development versus conservation and nationalism with Chinese loans. Energy Policy 2013, 57, 152–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ponce-Jara, M.A.; Castro, M.; Pelaez-Samaniego, M.R.; Espinoza-Abad, J.L.; Ruiz, E. Electricity sector in Ecuador: An overview of the 2007–2017 decade. Energy Policy 2018, 113, 513–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Reyes, P.; Procel, S.; Sevilla, J.; Cabero, A.; Orozco, A.; Córdova, J.; Lima, F.; Vasconez, F. Exceptionally uncommon overburden collapse behind a natural lava dam: Abandonment of the San-Rafael Waterfall in northeastern Ecuador. J. South Am. Earth Sci. 2021, 110, 103353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Carvajal, P.E.; Li, F.G.N. Challenges for hydropower-based national determined contributions: A case study for Ecuador. Clim. Policy 2019, 19, 974–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador. National Energy Efficiency Plan. 2018. Available online: https://www.celec.gob.ec/hidroagoyan/images/PLANEE_INGLES/NationalEnergyEfficiencyPlan20162035_2017-09-01_16-00-26.html (accessed on 1 September 2022).
  16. Carvajal, P.E.; Li, F.G.N.; Soria, R.; Cronin, J.; Anandarajah, G.; Mulugetta, Y. Large hydropower, decarbonisation and climate change uncertainty: Modelling power sector pathways for Ecuador. Energy Strategy Rev. 2019, 23, 86–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. CELEC. CELEC EP Genera y Transmite más del 90 por Ciento de la Energía Eléctrica Limpia que Consume el País y Exporta a los Países Vecinos. 2020. Available online: https://www.celec.gob.ec/gensur/noticias/celec-ep-produce-el-90-de-la-energia-que-consume-el-pais/ (accessed on 22 May 2021).
  18. Ministry of Environment Water and Ecological Transition of Ecuador. First Contribution Determined at the National Level to the Paris Agreement under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change; Ministry of Environment Water and Ecological Transition of Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2019.
  19. Vaca-Jiménez, S.; Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Nonhebel, S. The water footprint of electricity in Ecuador: Technology and fuel variation indicate pathways towards water-efficient electricity mixes. Water Resour. Ind. 2019, 22, 100112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hasan, M.M.; Wyseure, G. Impact of climate change on hydropower generation in Rio Jubones Basin, Ecuador. Water Sci. Eng. 2018, 11, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Mayeda, A.M.; Boyd, A.D. Factors influencing public perceptions of hydropower projects: A systematic literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020, 121, 109713. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sahu, N.; Sayama, T.; Saini, A.; Panda, A.; Takara, K. Understanding the hydropower and potential climate change impact on the himalayan river regimes—A study of local perceptions and responses from himachal pradesh, india. Water 2020, 12, 2739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. IPCC AR6 Working Group II Report; Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Geneva, Switzerland, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  24. Uamusse, M.M.; Tussupova, K.; Persson, K.M. Climate change effects on hydropower in Mozambique. Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 4842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Edenhofer, O.; Madruga, R.P.; Sokona, Y.; Seyboth, K.; Matschoss, P.; Kadner, S.; Zwickel, T.; Eickemeier, P.; Hansen, G.; Schlömer, S.; et al. Renewable Energy Sources and Climate Change Mitigation: Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  26. IPCC-IPBES. Scientific Outcome—Biodiversity and Climate Change; IPCC-IPBES: Geneva, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  27. IPCC; Alley, R.B.; Berntsen, T.; Bindoff, N.L.; Chen, Z.; Chidthaisong, A.; Friedlingstein, P.; Gregory, J.M.; Hegerl, G.C.; Heimann, M.; et al. Resumen para Políticas Responsables de los Expertos sobre Cambio Climático; IPCC: New York, NY, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
  28. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Energy Statistics 2020; Renewable hydropower (including mixed plants); International Renewable Energy Agency: Masdar City, United Arab Emirates, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sun, L.; Cai, Y.; Chen, A.; Zamora, D.; Jaramillo, F. Water footprint and consumption of hydropower from basin-constrained water mass balance. Adv. Water Resour. 2021, 153, 103947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Filho, G.L.T.; Silva dos Santos, I.F.; Barros, R.M. Cost estimate of small hydroelectric power plants based on the aspect factor. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 229–238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. International Energy Agency. Renewables, Analysis and Forecast to 2025; International Energy Agency: Paris, France, 2020; Volume 74, pp. 56–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. O’Neill, B.C.; Kriegler, E.; Ebi, K.L.; Kemp-Benedict, E.; Riahi, K.; Rothman, D.S.; van Ruijven, B.J.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Birkmann, J.; Kok, K.; et al. The roads ahead: Narratives for shared socioeconomic pathways describing world futures in the 21st century. Glob. Environ. Change 2017, 42, 169–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Bongio, M.; Avanzi, F.; de Michele, C. Hydroelectric power generation in an Alpine basin: Future water-energy scenarios in a run-of-the-river plant. Adv. Water Resour. 2016, 94, 318–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Calderón, S.; Alvarez, A.C.; Loboguerrero, A.M.; Arango, S.; Calvin, K.; Kober, T.; Daenzer, K.; Fisher-Vanden, K. Achieving CO2 reductions in Colombia: Effects of carbon taxes and abatement targets. Energy Econ. 2014, 56, 575–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador. Master Plan of Electricity 2019–2027; Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2019.
  36. Rivera-González, L.; Bolonio, D.; Mazadiego, L.F.; Naranjo-Silva, S.; Escobar-Segovia, K. Long-term forecast of energy and fuels demand towards a sustainable road transport sector in Ecuador (2016–2035): A LEAP model application. Sustainability 2020, 12, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Agency for the Regulation and Control of Energy and Non-Renewable Natural Resources of Ecuador. Statistical Information System for the Electricity Sector of Ecuador. In Statistics of the Ecuadorian Electricity Sector; 2023. Available online: https://www.controlrecursosyenergia.gob.ec/estadisticas-del-sector-electrico-ecuatoriano-buscar/ (accessed on 31 May 2023).
  38. Open Street Map. Location of Ecuadorian Hydroelectric Plants. 2022. Available online: https://www.openstreetmap.org/note/2721104#map=6/-0.754/-73.334 (accessed on 13 February 2023).
  39. Hartmann, J. Climate Change and Hydropower Training Manual; AICCA Project; Ministry of the Environment and Water of Ecuador—CONDESAN: Singapore, 2020.
  40. Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador. The Gained Decade of the Electricity Sector in Ecuador; Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.
  41. Poveda-Burgos, G.; Castañeda, Z.N.F.; Flores, E.Á.E.; Molina, K.R.; Ruiz, J.G. Desarrollo local de la nueva matriz energética en el Ecuador desde Coca Codo Sinclair. Oidles 2017, 22, 114–144. [Google Scholar]
  42. The World Bank. Population Estimates and Projections. 2021. Available online: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/population-estimates-and-projections (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  43. The World Bank. GDP per Capita (current US$). 2021. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?end=2020&locations=BR-EC-CO&start=2000&view=chart (accessed on 3 January 2023).
  44. Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador. Atlas of the Ecuadorian Electricity Sector; Ministry of Energy and Non-Renewable Resources of Ecuador: Quito, Ecuador, 2017.
  45. Villamar, D.; Soria, R.; Rochedo, P.; Szklo, A.; Imperio, M.; Carvajal, P.; Schaeffer, R. Long-term deep decarbonisation pathways for Ecuador: Insights from an integrated assessment model. Energy Strategy Rev. 2021, 35, 100637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Lucena, A.F.P.; Hejazi, M.; Vasquez-Arroyo, E.; Turner, S.; Köberle, A.C.; Daenzer, K.; Rochedo, P.R.R.; Kober, T.; Cai, Y.; Beach, R.H.; et al. Interactions between climate change mitigation and adaptation: The case of hydropower in Brazil. Energy 2018, 164, 1161–1177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Villamar, D.; Soria, R.; Império, M.; Carvajal, P. Deep Decarbonizatoin Pathways in Latin America and the Caribbean—A case study in Ecuador. In Proceedings of the 7th ELAEE Buenos Aires 2019 Decarbonization, Efficiency and Affordability: New Energy Markets in Latin America, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 9 March 2019; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  48. Riahi, K.; van Vuuren, D.P.; Kriegler, E.; Edmonds, J.; O’Neill, B.C.; Fujimori, S.; Bauer, N.; Calvin, K.; Dellink, R.; Fricko, O.; et al. The Shared Socioeconomic Pathways and their energy, land use, and greenhouse gas emissions implications: An overview. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2017, 42, 153–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Choudhury, N.B.; Dey Choudhury, S.R. Implications for planning of hydroelectric projects in Northeast India: An analysis of the impacts of the Tipaimukh project. GeoJournal 2020, 8, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yao, Y.; Qu, W.; Lu, J.; Cheng, H.; Pang, Z.; Lei, T.; Tan, Y. Responses of hydrological processes under different shared socioeconomic pathway scenarios in the Huaihe river basin, China. Water 2021, 13, 1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Naranjo-Silva, S.; del Castillo, J.Á. Hydropower: Projections in a changing climate and impacts by this “clean” source. CienciAmérica 2021, 10, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hofstra, N.; Kroeze, C.; Flörke, M.; van Vliet, M.T. Editorial overview: Water quality: A new challenge for global scale model development and application. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 2019, 36, A1–A5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Killingtveit, A. Hydropower. In Managing Global Warming: An Interface of Technology and Human Issues; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 265–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Denisov, S.E.; Denisova, M.V. Analysis of Hydropower Potential and the Prospects of Developing Hydropower Engineering in South Ural of the Russian Federation. Procedia Eng. 2017, 206, 881–885. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. International Renewable Energy Agency. Renewable Power Generation Costs in 2020; International Renewable Energy Agency: Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 2021. [Google Scholar]
  56. Llerena-Montoya, S.; Velastegui-Montoya, A.; Zhirzhan-Azanza, B.; Herrera-Matamoros, V.; Adami, M.; de Lima, A.; Moscoso-Silva, F.; Encalada, L. Multitemporal analysis of land use and land cover within an oil block in the Ecuadorian Amazon. ISPRS Int. J. Geo-Inf. 2021, 10, 191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Carvajal, P.E.; Anandarajah, G.; Mulugetta, Y.; Dessens, O. Assessing uncertainty of climate change impacts on long-term hydropower generation using the CMIP5 ensemble—The case of Ecuador. Clim. Chang. 2017, 144, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Vaca-Jiménez, S.; Gerbens-Leenes, P.W.; Nonhebel, S. The monthly dynamics of blue water footprints and electricity generation of four types of hydropower plants in Ecuador. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 713, 136579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Parra, R. Contribution of Non-Renewable Sources for Limiting the Electrical CO2 Emission Factor in Ecuador. WIT Trans. Ecol. Environ. 2020, 244, 65–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Guerra, O.J.; Tejada, D.A.; Reklaitis, G.V. Climate change impacts and adaptation strategies for a hydro-dominated power system via stochastic optimization. Appl. Energy 2019, 233–234, 584–598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Arango-Aramburo, S.; Turner, S.W.D.; Daenzer, K.; Ríos-Ocampo, J.P.; Hejazi, M.I.; Kober, T.; Álvarez-Espinosa, A.C.; Romero-Otalora, G.D.; van der Zwaan, B. Climate impacts on hydropower in Colombia: A multi-model assessment of power sector adaptation pathways. Energy Policy 2019, 128, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. The World Bank. The World Bank Analyzes of Vietnam Sustainable Development Sector; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  63. Aroonrat, K.; Wongwises, S. Current status and potential of hydro energy in Thailand: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2015, 46, 70–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Chiang, J.L.; Yang, H.C.; Chen, Y.R.; Lee, M.H. Potential impact of climate change on hydropower generation in southern Taiwan. Energy Procedia 2013, 40, 34–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Ardizzon, G.; Cavazzini, G.; Pavesi, G. A new generation of small hydro and pumped-hydro power plants: Advances and future challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2014, 31, 746–761. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Cavazzini, G.; Santolin, A.; Pavesi, G.; Ardizzon, G. Accurate estimation model for small and micro hydropower plants costs in hybrid energy systems modelling. Energy 2016, 103, 746–757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 15 10160 g001 550
Figure 1. Global generation of renewables, 2010–2021 [5].
Figure 1. Global generation of renewables, 2010–2021 [5].
Sustainability 15 10160 g001
Sustainability 15 10160 g002 550
Figure 2. The methodology using Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios.
Figure 2. The methodology using Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios.
Sustainability 15 10160 g002
Sustainability 15 10160 g003 550
Figure 3. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios [32]. Reprinted with permission from O’Neill et al. [32]. Copyright 2015 Elsevier.
Figure 3. Shared Socioeconomic Pathways scenarios [32]. Reprinted with permission from O’Neill et al. [32]. Copyright 2015 Elsevier.
Sustainability 15 10160 g003
Sustainability 15 10160 g004 550
Figure 4. Ecuadorian hydropower projects [38].
Figure 4. Ecuadorian hydropower projects [38].
Sustainability 15 10160 g004
Sustainability 15 10160 g005 550
Figure 5. Ecuadorian major six meteorological stations [44].
Figure 5. Ecuadorian major six meteorological stations [44].
Sustainability 15 10160 g005
Sustainability 15 10160 g006 550
Figure 6. Net hydropower delivered per month in Ecuador [44].
Figure 6. Net hydropower delivered per month in Ecuador [44].
Sustainability 15 10160 g006
Sustainability 15 10160 g007 550
Figure 7. Ecuadorian efficiency hydropower scenarios through to 2050.
Figure 7. Ecuadorian efficiency hydropower scenarios through to 2050.
Sustainability 15 10160 g007
Table
Table 1. Ecuador’s power factor of hydropower in % (2010–2020).
Table 1. Ecuador’s power factor of hydropower in % (2010–2020).
Hydropower
Projects		Power Factor (%)2010–2015 Average2016–2020 Average
20102011201220132014201520162017201820192020
Agoyán66.9568.4372.0574.1771.4680.5572.6370.0065.7771.4969.1172.369.80
Baba------42.5036.0028.2541.0046.02-38.75
Coca Codo Sinclair------48.5145.0046.5948.0551.91-48.01
Manduriacu-----42.5957.0464.3556.0064.0566.5742.661.60
Marcel Laniado41.4735.2356.3344.6450.8255.7360.8958.1748.3463.3746.4047.455.43
Minas San Francisco---------41.9042.46-42.18
Paute Mazar-63.5265.5843.4450.9855.7851.1348.4446.3752.2145.1455.948.66
Paute Molino42.0260.7064.2554.4355.7364.3954.8148.0751.1358.2253.9456.953.23
Paute Sopladora------27.6552.1150.0456.3857.41-48.72
Pucará-24.376.8529.4640.3647.3543.0731.1833.2439.2837.9029.736.93
San Francisco56.0549.0569.8175.1071.5080.0361.8052.3941.2355.4166.8966.955.54
Saucay48.3668.1766.4354.8556.1467.8755.4752.5847.7351.4954.2860.352.31
Sayamirin56.6077.2276.5363.4364.3573.8563.9760.3457.4925.5040.0868.749.48
Sibimbe63.2670.2666.2156.4067.2072.8867.0067.2954.9964.4266.0466.063.95
Average53.0456.6751.76
Source: [37].
Table
Table 2. Selected scenarios from the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.
Table 2. Selected scenarios from the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways.
No.PathwayGlobal ContextDefinitions
1SSP2This model assumed that the social, economic, and technological trends will remain the same as those in historical patterns, leading to a large GDP growth, which may take more work to maintain consistently over the next few decades. The degree of inequality was maintained, but some nations are making relatively good progress, whereas others need to meet expectations.The intermediate scenario of challenges is the moderate projection
2SSP4The evolutionary line produces large challenges for adaptation and low challenges for mitigation; it represents a mixed tendency and is a fragmented projection guided by various changes and presents a difficult path to meet the global goals of maintaining the temperature and socioeconomic development as a result of economic slowdown, material-intensive consumption, and slow economic growth.Large global changes but development is fragmented
3SSP5It has large challenges for mitigation, low challenges for adaptation, and energy demand is high in the absence of climate policy, and carbon-based fuels meet most of this demand due to the need for climate policies. This pathway incorporates convenient occasional partnerships, and the government leadership has proposed planning for climate change that needs to be more comprehensive.Mitigation challenges dominate
Sources: [46,47,48].
Table
Table 3. Ecuadorian power factor variations to 2050.
Table 3. Ecuadorian power factor variations to 2050.
Average2010–2020SPP5 Scenario to 2050SPP2 Scenario to 2050SPP4 Scenario to 2050
14 Hydropower projects53.0446.92 (−6.12)44.44 (−8.6)43.39 (−9.65)
Percentage variation
2010–2020 vs. SPP projections		-−11.5%−16.2%−18.2%
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Naranjo-Silva, S.; Punina-Guerrero, D.; Rivera-Gonzalez, L.; Escobar-Segovia, K.; Barros-Enriquez, J.D.; Almeida-Dominguez, J.A.; Alvarez del Castillo, J. Hydropower Scenarios in the Face of Climate Change in Ecuador. Sustainability 2023, 15, 10160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310160

AMA Style

Naranjo-Silva S, Punina-Guerrero D, Rivera-Gonzalez L, Escobar-Segovia K, Barros-Enriquez JD, Almeida-Dominguez JA, Alvarez del Castillo J. Hydropower Scenarios in the Face of Climate Change in Ecuador. Sustainability. 2023; 15(13):10160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310160

Chicago/Turabian Style

Naranjo-Silva, Sebastian, Diego Punina-Guerrero, Luis Rivera-Gonzalez, Kenny Escobar-Segovia, Jose David Barros-Enriquez, Jorge Armando Almeida-Dominguez, and Javier Alvarez del Castillo. 2023. "Hydropower Scenarios in the Face of Climate Change in Ecuador" Sustainability 15, no. 13: 10160. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310160

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop