See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/303553025

Evaporation from reservoirs and the hydropower water footprint

Conference Paper · May 2013

CITATIONS READS
12 2,918

3 authors:

Miroslav Marence Tigist Assefa

IHE Delft Institute for Water Education IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
75 PUBLICATIONS   287 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Arthur Mynett
IHE Delft Institute for Water Education
98 PUBLICATIONS   1,368 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Pressure tunnel design View project

Scenarios for sea level rise adaptation on the Niger delta View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Miroslav Marence on 11 September 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Evaporation from reservoirs and the hydropower water
footprint

T. A. Demeke M. Marence A. E. Mynett

Water Resource Development Bureau UNESCO-IHE UNESCO-IHE &

P.O. Box 88 Institute for Water Education Delft University of Technology
Bahir Dar Westvest 7, 2611AX Westvest 7, 2611AX
Ethiopia Delft, Netherlands Delft, Netherlands

Abstract
Use of renewable energy sources is vital for reducing greenhouse gas emission and their effects on climate change.
Hydropower as a renewable energy source is of crucial importance, especially for developing countries.
Hydropower in essence uses just the potential energy of water for energy generation, and is not taking water out of
the natural system, is not changing it’s composition, and has no direct polluting effect on environment.

Hydropower plants often have large storage reservoirs which like all free water surfaces are prone to evaporation.
This natural process can be seen as a loss of hydropower potential. Also, evaporated water taken from the river
could be seen as water lost from the river basin. At the same time a reservoir can be used as a drought or flood
control mechanism. Thus, when designing power plants, all ecological and environmental influences on the
ecosystem have to be taken into consideration in order to assess their sustainability. The water footprint (WFP) of
hydroelectricity is one of the factors to consider when assessing the sustainable objectives.

The water footprint of a product is defined as the total volume of fresh water that is used directly or indirectly to
produce a particular product. Three different types of water footprints are commonly being distinguished: (i) blue,
(ii) green and (iii) grey water footprints. The Hydropower Water Footprint refers only to the blue water footprint
(the consumption of blue water resources).

For the water footprint study presented in this paper, thirteen reservoirs from six different countries have been taken
into consideration: Ethiopia, Ghana, Egypt, Austria, Turkey, and DR Laos. Different methods available to estimate
evaporation of reservoirs (mass balance, energy budget, pan method and combination methods like Penman-
Monteith and Hargreaves) are used to calculate evaporation from the reservoirs depending on the available data. The
water footprint estimation is obtained by two different methods. As a result the water footprints found in this study
vary from 1736 m3/GJ (highest) to the zero. Finally, when considering the design of new power plants, this study
puts forward a recommendation to use the water footprint as an additional environmental factor to achieve
sustainable hydropower design.

1. Introduction
Hydropower as a potential energy source plays an important role, in particular in developing countries. It has high
economic, social and environmental value. Like other energy sources, hydropower has its own advantages and
disadvantages (Sternberg 2008; Sternberg 2010). The advantage for instance is that it provides hydro-electricity for
local use resulting in more energy independency and diversity. Also, it can serve as a source of income for the
country through trading energy with others. Furthermore, hydropower reservoirs can have multipurpose functions
and hydropower development, in addition to hydroelectricity generation, could be used for irrigation, water supply,
flood control, recreation, industry, sediment control, navigation and various other uses. Moreover, hydropower is
fuelled by water, a clean, CO2 neutral and renewable power source. In all, hydropower can be greatly beneficial for
the region and contribute to economic development.
On the other hand hydropower also may have its disadvantages. The main disadvantage is the negative impact on the
local environment and local inhabitants. For instance, the construction of a reservoir might cause displacement of
people from their natural habitat, lead to flooding of agricultural land, decrease in fish population, reduce or prevent
fish migration, decrease the amount of dissolved oxygen in the water and consequently affect the water quality.
Energy production from hydropower in itself does not produce any CO2 and is GHG neutral. The possible negative
impacts of hydropower on GHG emissions and on the water footprint is linked with the construction of reservoirs,
where GHG (CO2 and especially methane gas) emerge as a result of the decay of vegetation being covered by water
during filling of a reservoir. Appropriate design of new projects and correct management and operation of the
existing power schemes can avoid, mitigate or compensate social and environmental disadvantages leading to
sustainable hydropower use. Sustainable development requires the integration of three components: (i) economic
development, (ii) social development and (iii) environmental protection. Eradicating poverty, changing
unsustainable patterns of production and consumption, and protecting and managing the natural resource base
underpinning economic and social development are overarching objectives of and essential requirements for
sustainable development (IHA 2004).

One of the ambitions of sustainable hydropower is also accumulation, conservation and careful and economical
usage of fresh water resources. The main aim of this study is to determine the influence of hydropower on fresh
water preservation. One of the possible indicators for water usage is the water footprint concept, as elaborated here.
The countries included in the study are: Ethiopia, Ghana, Egypt, Austria, Turkey and DR Laos. An important
component of this study is to review the steps involved in developing the water footprint values for hydropower
plants. Conclusions and recommendations are given about the methods used to determine the water footprint of
hydropower plants.

2. Water footprint definition and the concept of the Hydropower footprint

In general, the water footprint of a product is defined as the total volume of fresh water that is used directly or
indirectly to produce the product (Hoekstra, Chapagain et al. 2011). Its estimation is through considering the water
consumption and pollution in all the steps of the production chain. The accounting procedure is similar for all kinds
of products, be it products derived from the agricultural, industrial or service sector.

Three different types of water footprints can be distinguished: blue, green and grey water footprint. The blue water
footprint refers to the consumption of blue water resources (surface and groundwater) along the supply chain of the
product. The green water footprint represents the amount of green water resources (rainwater) used for the product.
Grey water footprint is the volume of freshwater required to assimilate the load of pollutants.

The water footprint for hydropower has been defined as the amount of fresh water used in order to produce
electricity. Hydropower generation refers only to the blue water footprint caused by water evaporation. This water
footprint can be calculated as the ratio between the evaporation of the reservoirs and the hydroelectric energy
generated (Hoekstra and Mekonnen 2011). Generally, the water footprint of hydropower is expressed in terms of
used (evaporated) water volume per joule produced energy. Seepage from reservoirs can also be seen as lost energy
production, but is not included in the calculation of the water footprint of hydropower because water seeped out
from reservoir stays within the river basin and can be used somewhere else in the same basin.

Gleick (1993) was one of the first to relate evaporation to energy production for hydropower plants in the Western
part of the United States (mostly California). His study was done for the reservoir in California tending to the
relatively high annual evaporation from open water surface of approximately 1000 mm. The annual evaporative
losses in his study from California hydroelectric generation ranges from 0.01 m3/GJ/yr minimum to 58.8 m3/GJ/yr
maximum.

Also other studies have been assessing the water footprint of hydropower. In comparison with other energy sources,
hydropower has a relatively high water footprint. For instance, following the approach from Hoekstra, hydropower
could be seen as a significant water consumer. He pointed out a huge difference in water footprint values of
electricity generation found for different hydropower plants due to differences in climate, energy production,
reservoir surface area etc. On average, the water footprint of the hydropower plants, based on the study by Hoekstra
(2011) is specified as 68 m3/GJ, ranging from nearly 0.1 to 500 m3/GJ.
While Hoekstra attributed the full evaporation from the reservoir to the footprint (WFP-1), Herath (2011) in his
study subtracted the natural evaporation from the area before reservoir construction and defined the hydropower
footprint as a function of additional evaporation caused by reservoir construction (WFP-2). His study shows that the
water footprint of hydropower plant then becomes much lower. His footprint values range from 1.55 m3/GJ to
6.05 m3/GJ), depending on the climate of the investigated region.

3. Evaporation from reservoirs

Evaporation from reservoirs and energy production values are the two dominant parameters determining the
hydropower water footprint. Reservoir evaporation can be estimated using different methods ranging from direct
measurements to performing a mass balance, energy budget or a combined method such as the Penman-Monteith
method. The energy production of hydropower depends mainly on the hydraulic head and the discharge. The higher
the head, the lower the discharge needed and the lower the storage capacity required to achieve the same amount of
energy. The lower the head, the higher the need for discharge and storage.

The general formula for the water footprint of electricity produced by hydropower (Hoekstra, 2011) is defined as the
ratio between the amount of water evaporated from the reservoir (WE in m3/yr) and the energy produced in the same
period (EG in GJ/yr). The water footprint indicator is obtained by specifying the key values for evaporation and
energy production as typical annual values, without considering annual variation of both parameters. Therefore the
footprint values specified by Hoekstra can be taken as approximate values.

Water evaporated from reservoirs is not lost; it stays in the natural cycle and comes back again in the form of
rainfall. The rainfall could happen in a different basin and then the evaporated water is really lost from the observed
basin, but can also stay in the same basin. This rainfall causes an increase in humidity locally around the reservoir
and therefore often has a positive effect on the environment, especially in arid and semi-arid areas, which should
also be taken into account when determining water footprint values.

Characteristic evaporation values, expressed in units of depth (Sommers, 2004), together with the reservoir area
provides a basis for estimating the total evaporation. Depending on the available data, different methods can be
used, e.g. the mass balance method, energy budget method, pan direct measurement method and combination
methods such as the Penman-Monteith method and the Hargreaves evaporation approximation. Each of these
methods contains some uncertainties and therefore a combination and comparison of the different methods usually
gives more reliable results. In this study a combination of different methods is used to estimate reservoir evaporation
depending on available data.

In the mass balance method, the evaporation from the open surface body is calculated as the difference between the
storage volume, inflows and outflows of the reservoir. This approach requires detailed and accurate measurements
of surface and subsurface flows which cannot always be obtainable (McJannet, Webster et al. 2008). Because of this
the mass balance method was not considered suitable in this study. The energy budget method computes evaporation
as the difference between measured energy inputs and outputs (McJannet, Webster et al. 2008). This method
requires field measurement with special instruments for each water body and is therefore not directly applicable and
suitable for this study.

Reservoir evaporation is commonly directly measured based on pan-evaporation records. The results have to be
corrected for the evaporation factor from the free water surface. A correction factor should commonly be applied to
reflect a lower evaporation rate from deep water bodies compared to the shallow pan evaporation. In the pan method
evaporation is directly measured from the pan which is filled with water. The evaporation is measured by decrease
of water depth during a period. Pans provide a measurement of the integrated effect of different factors that
influence evaporation from open water surface such as temperature, wind, radiation and humidity (Allen, Pereira et
al. 2006). There are different types of pans. The most commonly used pan is a class A pan. The pan is often located
within the meteorological station near the reservoir comprising the most needed meteorological parameters on one
place.
 Fig. 1: Class A evaporation pan 

The combination method (Penman-Monteith method) was first introduced by Penman in 1948. The method
combines the energy budget and mass balance technique into a single equation. The Penman and the Penman-
Monteith equation methods are the most commonly used combination schemes (McJannet, Webster et al. 2008). The
combination method requires inputs of air temperature, net radiation, vapour pressure and wind speed. For this study
the Penman-Monteith and FAO 56 equation is combined in order to find the evaporation of reservoirs, as suggested
by Craig (2008). The general form of the Penman-Monteith equation is given by

1       
E  Rn  G     f (u )(es  ea )
          

where E is the open water evaporation (mm day-1), λ is the latent heat of vaporization (MJkg-1), Rn is a net radiation
(MJm-2 day-1), G is the soil or water heat flux (MJm-2 day-1), ∆ is the slope of the svp-t curve (kPaC-1), γ is the
psychrometric constant (kPaC-1), f (u) is a function of wind speed, es is the saturated vapour pressure (kPa) and ea is
the actual vapour pressure (kPa). 

Hargreaves (Allen, Pereira et al. 2006) developed a simplified equation which is suitable when missing (limited)
data of solar radiation, relative humidity and wind speed are available; the evaporation is calculated based on the
temperature development during the day and extraterrestrial radiation according to

ET  0.0023Tmean  17.8Tmax  Tmin  Ra

0.5

where ET is the evaporation (mm/day), Tmean is the mean air temperature (°C), Tmax is the maximum air temperature
(°C), Tmin is the minimal air temperature (°C) and Ra is the extraterrestrial radiation for daily periods.

The extraterrestrial radiation Ra (MJ m-2day-1) for daily periods on given latitude and longitude can be found using
the following equation:

24(60)
Ra  GSC d r S sin( ) sin( )  cos( ) cos( ) sin(S )

where Gsc is solar constant (Gsc= 0.0820 MJm-2min-1), dr is the inverse relative distance earth-sun, ωs is sunset hour.

To find the water footprint of hydropower, firstly the evaporation of the reservoir should be estimated and then the
total volume of evaporated water (EW) must be calculated. The total volume of evaporated water is the summation
of the daily evaporation (E) multiplied by the area of the reservoir (Ra). The reservoir level is mostly not constant
during the year and the reservoir area depends on the water level in the reservoir. For accurate estimation, the daily
evaporation (E) has to be multiplied with the actual reservoir area (Ra) which depends on the water level (h).
365
EW   E * Ra (h)
1

4. Annual energy production

The actual power output of a hydropower plant is determined by the volume of discharged water, the hydraulic head
(vertical distance over which the water falls) and an overall efficiency factor. Power is measured in watts (kW, MW,
GW) which when integrated over time gives the amount of energy generated, measured in watt-hours (kWh, MWh)
or also in joules (MJ and GJ).

The total annual energy production is not a fixed parameter, it depends on available water (dry, mean, wet year),
hydraulic head, type of hydropower plant, etc. The average annual energy production for a specific power plant is
relatively easily accessible, but data connected to specific periods or annual production over several years should be
obtained from the supplier reports and is generally less available.

Table 1- Hydropower water footprint for selected power plants calculated based on different approaches.

Energy Reservoir Water

Reservoir Evaporation Evaporation
production area footprint Remark
description (mm/year) method
(GJ) (ha) (m³/GJ)
554 Hargreaves 0.75 WFP-1
Kaprun
2,428,200 329 802 Penman 1.09 WFP-1
(Austria)
500 Measured 0.68 WFP-1
Kaprun 554 Hargreaves 0.07 WFP-2
2,428,200 329
(Austria) 802 Penman 0.41 WFP-2
Danube Run-of-river without
44,500,320 1,020 500 Measured 0.0
(Austria) reservoir
Tekeze
3,531,600 14,700 1920 Measured 79.9 WFP-1
(Ethiopia)
Finchaa-A-N *
2,322,000 29,330 1650 Measured 208.4 WFP-1 & MPHP
(Ethiopia)
Geba
6,048,000 11,000 1675 Measured WFP-1
(Ethiopia)
1786 Hargreaves 36.9 WFP-1
Gilgel Gibe I
3,049,200 6,300 2122 Penman 43.8 WFP-1
(Ethiopia)
1837 Measured 38.0 WFP-1
Arkun
2,970,000 553 683 Measured 1.3 WFP-1
(Turkey)
Soylemez
756,000 4534 548 Measured 32.9 WFP-1
(Turkey)
Ataturk
32,040,000 81,700 1000 Measured 25.5 WFP-1 & MPHP
(Turkey)
Keban
21,600,000 67,500 710 Measured 22.2 WFP-1
(Turkey)
Aksombo
17,280,000 850,000 1500 Measured 737.8 WFP-1 & MPHP
(Ghana)
Aswan
9,072,000 525,000 3000 Measured 1736.1 WFP-1 & MPHP
(Egypt)
1009 Hargreaves 12.14 WFP-1
Nam Ngum
8,056,800 12,200 1551 Penman 17.89 WFP-1
II (DR Lao)
1600 Measured 24.23 WFP-1
*MPHP- Multipurpose Hydropower
5. Results and discussion
Thirteen hydropower plants located in different climatic regions have been considered in the study (Kaprun,
Danube, Tekeze, Finchaa-Amerti-Neshe, Geba, Gilgel Gibe I, Akosombo, Aswan, Arkun, Soylemez, Ataturk,
Keban and Nam Ngum II). Several of these hydropower plants are designed as multipurpose plants, such as Finchaa-
Amerti-Neshe, Akosombo, Aswan, Soylemez and Ataturk.

The evaporation has been calculated depending on the accessible data, reaching from directly measured evaporation
from the reservoirs to the Penman-Monteith and Hargreaves method, as well as from different available sources.
Evaporation estimations using different methods and their comparison was possible for reservoirs in Kaprun
(Austria), Gilgel Gibe I (Ethiopia) and Nam Ngum II (DR Lao). In cases where different methods were used, a
relatively good correlation between the methods could be achieved.

The footprint calculation was based on the definition by Hoekstra, viz. using the total evaporation from the reservoir
(WFP-1). When considering that evaporation in the area already existed before the reservoir was built, a more
realistic value of reservoir influence can be obtained if this natural evaporation is deducted from the total
evaporation (Herath, Deurer et al., 2011) and only the net (additional) evaporation is used for the water footprint
estimation (WFP-2). The water footprint definition by method WFP-2 gives a more objective indication of the water
loss due to the reservoir, but the disadvantage of the method is that the natural evaporation of the area also has to be
evaluated.

In Table 1 the results of the study are presented. For easier comparison, all calculations are performed under the
same considerations following the original Hoekstra theory (WFP-1) with the total volume of water calculated under
the assumption of a full reservoir (maximal evaporation). Only for the Kaprun system in Austria the second method
(WFP-2) was also used, reducing the footprint value considerably. The study for Kaprun showed an additional effect
that is normally beyond the investigation. The reservoirs in the Kaprun system are filled mostly in spring time
during snow melt. Before the reservoir construction, a large part of the downstream area (more than 100 km of river
length) was often (nearly annually) flooded to a huge extent, resulting in loss of property, sometimes also in loss of
human life, but certainly always in loss of agricultural area.

Drying of the flooded areas was only possible by evaporation of water from these huge areas. In such a (special)
case, the reservoir construction actually reduces evaporation and the total water footprint value calculated by method
(WFP-2) will become negative. Nevertheless, we suggest that the definition of the hydropower footprint be based on
the net evaporation (WFP-2) as a more objective footprint estimation.

As an example, in case of a run-of-river plant without any reservoir, the evaporation of the river is not considered as
evaporated loss of the hydropower plant. Hence the natural evaporation from the river that existed before the
implementation of a hydropower plant continues to be unchanged after its implementation.

The type of hydropower plant (storage plant, run-of-river plant, etc), reservoir area (daily, weekly, monthly or
yearly) and especially the size of reservoir (small, medium or large) in addition to the climate conditions in the
reservoir location, all influence the total evaporation value.

Run-of-river types of hydropower plants (like the Danube chain in Austria) have no water footprint in general, since
there is no evaporation due to any reservoir that is constructed for this type of power plant. Diversion type of
hydropower plants can be constructed with or without reservoir. Similarly, for diversion power plants without
reservoir nearly no water footprint can be attributed. Diversion power plants with reservoir usually have higher
hydraulic head and therefore higher energy production than power plants situated in the vicinity of the dam base and
will therefore have lower footprint values. Reservoir storage type hydropower plants should be evaluated with water
footprint criteria.

The evaporation volume has been calculated with and without consideration of reservoir level variation. For the
reservoirs in the Kaprun system and for the Nam Ngum II reservoir also annual reservoir level variations were
known, and the influence of the level variations on the total annual evaporation could be checked. Considering
annual reservoir level variations in case of Kaprun reduces the evaporation and consequently the water footprint by
29%, in case of Nam Ngum II this reduction was found to be 21%.
The water footprint of a multipurpose reservoir system, where electricity production has a secondary function, a
much higher footprint value is obtained than for hydropower plants built only for the purpose of electricity
generation. This shows that the water footprint calculation must be related to the different usage and functions of the
system such as irrigation, flood or drought control, water supply, fishery, tourism etc. In the case of multi-purpose
systems the evaporation and footprint must be fairly split over all functions, based on their actual usage.

The maximum water footprint value was found on one of the most unfavorable reservoirs, the Aswan reservoir. The
Aswan reservoir is a huge relatively flat reservoir situated in an extremely hot and arid area (desert). The function of
the Aswan reservoir is primarily to control floods and droughts of the whole downstream Nile basin. The production
of electricity is just a bi-product of this multipurpose reservoir. A similar situation holds for the Akosombo reservoir
in Ghana.

Fig. 2- Water footprint of hydroelectricity (MP = Multi-Purpose)

6. Conclusions and recommendations

The main aim of this study was to determine the water footprint values of hydropower plants in different locations
around the world and compare with results from existing studies. When determining the water footprint for
hydropower plants, the water losses are associated with reservoirs and evaporation of water from these reservoirs.
Seepage losses are often not considered as a loss, since the water is supposed to stay within the basin and can be
used downstream of the reservoir.

In this study thirteen hydropower plants were considered and different methods were used for determining the
evaporation from a reservoir. The water footprint values obtained in this study – except for multipurpose
hydropower plants – show a fair agreement with previous studies, with usually somewhat lower WFP values.

The water footprint of hydroelectricity should be assessed according to the characteristics of the particular
hydropower plant. The use of net evaporation instead of total evaporation in the footprint calculation seems to give a
more realistic footprint value of the hydropower plants.

Evaporation happens on all free water surfaces and in case of reservoirs cannot be omitted. Therefore hydropower
plants for energy generation consume water and have water footprints that cannot be neglected. But multi-purpose
reservoirs for flood and drought control and also conserve water. Moreover, in some cases (like Kaprun) holding
back the flood water in the reservoir considerably reduces the flooded area downstream in the basin and hence the
evaporation from a wide spread flat flooded area, considerably reducing the natural water footprint.

In case of new power plants this study suggests to consider the water footprint estimation as an additional factor in
the environmental design process striving for sustainable hydropower design.
References
1. Allen, R. G., L. S. Pereira, et al. (2006). "FAO irrigation and drainage paper no. 56." Crop evapotranspiration (guidelines
for computing crop water requirements).
2. Craig, I. P. (2008). "Loss of storage water through evaporation with particular reference to arid and semi-arid zone
pastoralism in Australia." Water Smart Pastoral Product ion Project Literature Reviews.
3. Gleick, P. H. (1993). "Water in Crisis." A guide to the world's fresh water resources.
4. Herath, I., M. Deurer, et al. (2011). "The water footprint of hydroelectricity." A methodological comparison from a case
study in New Zealand.
5. Hoekstra, A. Y., A. K. Chapagain, et al. (2011). "The Water Footprint Assessment Manual." Setting the Global Standard.
6. Hoekstra, A. Y. and M. M. Mekonnen (2011). "The water footprint of electricity from hydropower." Research report
series no. 51.
7. IHA (2000). "Hydropower and the World's Energy Future." The role of hydropower in bringing clean, renewable, energy to
the world.
8. McJannet, D. L., I. T. Webster, et al. (2008). "Estimating open water evaporation for the Murray-Darling Basin." A report
to the Australian Government from the CSIRO Murray-Darling Basin Sustainable Yields Project.
9. Sommers, G. L. (2004). "Hydropower resources."
10. Sternberg, R. (2008). "Hydropower: Dimensions of social and environmental coexistence." Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 12(6): 1588-1621.
11. Sternberg, R. (2010). "Hydropower's future, the environment, and global electricity systems." Renewable and Sustainable
Energy Reviews 14(2): 713-723.

The Authors

T. A. Demeke obtained her MSc in Hydraulic Engineering and River Basin Development from UNESCO-IHE Institute for
Water Education, Delft, Netherlands in 2012. Before that she has been working in a non-governmental organization (local NGO)
called ORDA (Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara) as a site engineer in 2006 before joining the Water
Resources Development and Agricultural Bureau in 2009, in Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. She has been involved in the study, design,
supervision, operation and maintenance of a number of medium and small scale irrigation projects and integrated watershed
development projects in Ethiopia. She is currently working on an irrigation need assessment study for the Water Resources
Development Bureau, Ethiopia.

M. Marence holds an MSc in Civil Engineering from the University of Zagreb, Croatia (1987) and a PhD in Civil Engineering
from the Innsbruck Technical University, Austria (1993). He has been working for Poyry Energy GmbH for more than 18 years
and has been involved in the design of many hydropower plants worldwide. In 2009, he joined UNESCO-IHE in the Netherlands
where he holds a position as Associate Professor in Storage and Hydropower. He is author of numerous publications on
hydropower, numerical modeling, design construction of pressure tunnels, rock mechanics and geomechanical engineering
solutions for the construction of hydropower plants.

A.E. Mynett is Professor of Hydraulic Engineering and River Basin Development at UNESCO-IHE and Delft University of
Technology. He holds an MSc degree in Civil Engineering from Delft University of Technology and an ScD degree in
Hydrodynamics and Coastal Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA. He joined Delft Hydraulics (now
part of Deltares) in 1980 and worked on a large number of projects in civil, maritime and environmental engineering. In 1997 he
joined UNESCO-IHE on a part-time basis as Professor of Environmental Hydroinformatics. In 2011 he joined UNESCO-IHE on
a full-time basis and serves as Head of the Department of Water Science and Engineering. He is Council Member of IAHR, the
International Association of Hydro-environment Engineering and Research.
title_page_Layout 1 03/04/2013 14:11 Page 1

International Conference and Exhibition on

Water Storage and
Hydropower Development for Africa
African Union Congress Centre , Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
16 to 18 April 2013
organized by a partnership of:

under the auspices of:

CONFERENCE PAPERS
The papers published on this CD, contributed by world experts on water resources and renewable energy development,
represent a unique compilation of the expertise, focusing on some topics of specific relevant to African countries.
Most are those presented in the sessions of AFRICA 2013. Some additional papers were accepted for publication only,
and are included on the CD. In the case of several keynote addresses, introductory lectures to workshops, or papers
accepted at short notice, abstracts appear rather than full papers.

The International Journal on Hydropower & Dams

Aqua~Media International Ltd
PO Box 285, Little Woodcote,
Wallington, Surrey SM6 6AN, UK
© Aqua~Media International Ltd 2013
The papers are reproduced based on guidelines sent to authors, and detailed editing was not done. The publishers therefore cannot accept responsibility
for inconsistencies of style, non-standard abbreviations, or typographical errors

No material may be reproduced from this volume without the prior permission of the Publishers, and full acknowledgement to the Conference.
The conference papers have been reproduced from material supplied by the authors. The Publishers therefore cannot accept responsibility for
typographical or other errors.

View publication stats