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

net/publication/369092780

Integrated GIS-AHP-based approach for off-river pumped hydro energy

storage site selection

Article in Applied Energy · March 2023

DOI: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120914

CITATIONS READS
9 115

4 authors:

Shahid Ali Rodney Anthony Stewart

Griffith University Griffith University
13 PUBLICATIONS 462 CITATIONS 437 PUBLICATIONS 10,483 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Oz Sahin Abel Silva Vieira

The University of Queensland; UNSW Sydney and Griffith University Griffith University
194 PUBLICATIONS 3,282 CITATIONS 27 PUBLICATIONS 567 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rodney Anthony Stewart on 09 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Energy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apenergy

Integrated GIS-AHP-based approach for off-river pumped hydro energy

storage site selection
Shahid Ali a, b, Rodney A. Stewart a, b, *, Oz Sahin a, b, c, d, Abel Silva Vieira a, d
a
School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia
b
Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia
c
Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Herston, QLD, Australia
d
Urban Analytics and Complex Systems (UACS) Consulting, QLD, Australia
e
Capability Systems Centre, School of Engineering and Information Technology, UNSW, Canberra 2600, Australia

H I G H L I G H T S

• GIS-AHP pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) site selection method developed.
• Method identified 14 potentially feasible sites in North Queensland, Australia.
• Elevation head, slope, and water accessibility the most weighted criteria.
• LCOE ranged between 0.04 AU$/kWh and 0.27 AU$/kWh for the base case scenario.
• LCOE examined for various PHES utilization scenarios.

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) solutions enable greater diffusion of renewable energy into the electricity
Geographical information system grid. However, accelerated development of PHES is complex due to the numerous spatially relevant technical,
PHES environmental, social, and economic criteria that must be assessed to determine a pumped hydro sites feasibility.
Multicriteria decision making
With the goal to rapidly narrow down feasible sites from a large land area, this study developed a Geographic
Renewable energy
Australia
Information System (GIS) and Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) based technique to autonomously identify PHES
sites based on a range of environmental and technical criteria. Following GIS-AHP analysis, Levelized Cost of
Energy (LCOE) scenario analysis was conducted with a limited number of feasible sites, as well as their carbon
abatement potential. The developed approach was demonstrated for the case of Northern Queensland (NrQLD),
Australia. The developed GIS-AHP PHES site selection approach identified 14 potentially feasible sites. For the
base case scenario, these sites could generate 366.94 TWh over their lifetime while abating 300 ktCO2eq. The
LCOE of these 14 PHES sites ranged between 0.04 AU$/kWh and 0.27 AU$/kWh for the base case scenario. The
developed approach has implications for energy planning managers seeking to efficiently narrow down feasible
PHES sites, which are essential storage enablers for transitioning to a zero-emissions economy.

1. Introduction
The global energy situation is rapidly changing as countries are
accelerating the deployment of commercial-scale renewable energy (RE)
to fulfill their collective commitment to climate action in the face of
global warming and escalating energy demand [1,2]. The electricity
sector contributes nearly 25% of the anthropogenic emissions to the air.
According to the International Energy Agency, anthropogenic CO2
emissions will surge to 130% of current levels by 2050 unless strict
climate change policy is urgently adopted. Therefore, an electricity
network with a high content of RE sources has become indispensable to
decarbonizing the power sector [3]. Studies acknowledged that power
systems with 100% RE sources fulfilling technical, environmental, so­
cial, and economic prerequisites are a feasible proposition for the future
energy system [4,5].
The contemporary challenge for this wide-scale adoption of

* Corresponding author at: School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD 4222, Australia.
E-mail address: r.stewart@griffith.edu.au (R.A. Stewart).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2023.120914
Received 9 October 2022; Received in revised form 3 January 2023; Accepted 23 February 2023
0306-2619/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc/4.0/).
S. Ali et al.
renewable power sources is intermittency. For example, wind and solar
fluctuate on daily and seasonal timescales [6]. Energy storage systems
(ESS) are considered the most promising solution for RE intermittency as
they support energy time-shifting from fluctuating power sources such
as wind or solar [6]. The widely known ESS in electricity production
portfolios includes PHES [7], compressed air energy storage (CAES) [8],
hydrogen storage systems [9], lead batteries [10], flywheels [11], and
supercapacitor energy storage [12].
Pumped hydro energy storage and CAES are prevalent in off-grid and
remote electrification applications. PHES is considered the most prom­
ising and economically viable energy storage system for handling large
electricity networks [13]. Moreover, it is a clean and reliable energy
storage system that works like a conventional hydropower plant, but
unlike traditional hydropower plants, they do not require constant water
input [14]. Traditionally PHES is comprised of two reservoirs at
different heights, where the water is pumped from the lower reservoir to
the upper reservoir when surplus power is available in the power system
[15]. And later, during peak time, this water is released to the lower
reservoir, and on its way, the kinetic energy of water rotates the turbine
blades to generate electricity (see Fig. 1). Other applications of PHES
include capacity firming, load leveling, peak shaving, power quality
improvement, and spinning reserve [16].
Australia has abundant wind and solar energy potentials, but until
now, the Australian electricity networks are dominated by fossil fuels. A
recent study reveals that renewables contribute only 6% of Australia’s
total energy consumption, while 86.3% comes from fossil fuels [17],
40% of the fossil fuel energy derives from coal power plants; many of
which will be decommissioned in the next decade [18]. In this prevailing
scenario, Australia needs a rapid transition to renewables, preferably
wind and solar, to counterbalance rising electricity demand and growing
urbanization. Therefore, the role of mature energy storage technologies
such as PHES becomes vital to support variable renewable energy
deployment. In addition, reputable Australian government organiza­
tions such as ARENA [19] are actively funding renewable energy inno­
vation projects.
However, the problem with the development of PHES is the lack of
favourable topography and geography [13]. More precisely, the topog­
raphy found in most European countries is appropriate for developing
PHES. Austria, Italy, and Switzerland pioneered constructing PHES fa­
cilities [20]. It is one of the reasons that a considerable body of literature
detailing research on PHES site selection is dominated by European case
studies and features few studies in the Australian context, for example
[21,29]. The studies conducted in the Australian context have recog­
nized the considerable availability (22,000 sites) of PHES sites across
Australia [5]. The study by Blakers et al. [5] identified >1770 sites in
Queensland alone. However, they provided only a high-level summary
of the available sites based on topographic head, and no investigation
was conducted on land use suitability apart from the exclusion of na­
tional parks and urban areas. Furthermore, the study only focused on
sites with an elevation head of >300 m and evaluated locations for
upper reservoirs only. These studies [21,22] also failed to provide any
specifics about the economics of the identified PHES sites and the
accompanying environmental benefits of carbon reduction.
Fig. 1. Typical layout of a PHES.
2
Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914
The participation of private sectors in the development of sustainable
energy projects such as PHES has increased recently. Each private
investor has their own approach of assessing project risk factors, how­
ever, financial risk assessment is the foremost consideration by all of
them [23]. Therefore, in-depth planning is highly desirable, underpin­
ning discourse on topographic, geographic, environmental, as well as
economic aspects of the project. In due course, environmental and social
problems have become prevalent in energy projects, consequently
increasing the complexity of decision-making [24]. And even if an
excellent PHES site is available, it is unviable to develop unless there is
accessible mature transmission infrastructure and nearby renewable
energy sources (e.g., wind or solar farms) – because PHES is not a power
source itself [15]. PHES sites must be financially viable considering
energy market demand, pricing, and their associated lifecycle costs and
revenues. The LCOE reflects the lifecycle cost of energy projects [25].
Further details, including mathematical equations for calculating LCOE,
are supplied later in this research (section 2.6).
As far as the methodology is concerned, in this research a GIS-AHP
approach was employed. Geographic Information System is a com­
puter based tool that allows quick, efficient, and flexible processing,
analysis, and visualization of geospatial data of various formats [26].
Whereas, AHP is one of the most popular MCDM methods [27], which is
known for simplifying complex decision-making tasks in a systematic
fashion through a pair-wise comparison matrix [28]. Further details on
AHP method is included in methodology section. The integrated appli­
cation of GIS-MCDM has been dledged in numerous studies that cover
site selections for renewable energy technologies. Ouchani et al. [29]
conducted a GIS-AHP based investigation to explore PHES in Morocco,
by searching surroundings of the existing dams or sea for the artificial
reservoir to develop PHES scheme, and they succeeded in detecting
1606 potential PHES sites. The sites were then categorized in various
suitability classes based on the cumulative criteria weights. However,
the study did not provide any discourse on the price of the electricity
that would be generated from the identified PHES sites. Ahmed et al.
[30] utilized a GIS-MCDM model to investigate suitable sites for PHES
development in Egypt. The study provided information related to the
total available area for the PHES development. However, this study did
not properly consider the proposed storage capacity of each site, and
how much electricity would be generated. Fitzgerald et al. [31] con­
ducted a GIS based investigation to estimate PHES potentials in Turkey
by transforming conventional hydropower schemes and non-hydro res­
ervoirs to PHES system. The study considered various physical and non-
physical criteria such as terrain and discarded land uses of environ­
mental and cultural importance. However, the study did not consider
site cost estimates. Nadizadeh et al. [32] proposed GIS-MCDM to locate
wind power plants in Iran. The criteria weights were determined using
best-worst method consolidated by experts’ opinion. The study also
analysed the optimal price of electricity generated. Similarly, Coruhlu
et al. [33] employed GIS-AHP analysis for solar power sites selection in
Turkey, Kamdar et al. [34] conducted GIS-AHP analysis for municipal
solid wastes sites selection in Thailand, and Sánchez-Lozano et al. [35]
carried GIS-MCDM based investigation to identify optimal site wind
locations in Spain.
S. Ali et al.
However, the literature review does not reveal any study on the
subject of GIS-AHP techniques for the selection of suitable PHES tech­
nology investment zones at any geographical level in the state of
Queensland, Australia. the Queensland State government has recently
announced its intentions to invest significantly in locating and devel­
oping best PHES sites to complement its current and future solar and
wind generation capacity [36,37]. However, the information on suitable
sites is still scarce and researchable. Moreover, upon reviewing the
literature, the authors also realized that current PHES site selection
approaches are predominately narrowly focused on technical features,
with no comprehensive assessments including other multi-criteria con­
siderations (i.e., economics, environmental, social).
Given the reasons above, the primary goal of this research is to
conduct a GIS-AHP based investigation to discover the suitable areas for
the construction of off-river PHES sites. Where, a set of globally used
technical and environmental criteria and constraints have been taken
into consideration in the light of the previous studies [4,38] and are
adapted for regional application. Accordingly, this method has been
applied on a broad geographical scale in the Northern Queensland,
which has a complex land use composition that varies from elevated
terrain, natural forests, rich agricultural belts to densely populated
urban areas. Whereas the model has been designed to detect only three
types of PHES configurations from a large number of believed to be
suitable sites; i.e. Linking pairs of existing reservoirs, or linking one
existing reservoir with a new reservoir on a greenfield location or
linking two greenfield locations, with an admissible head difference to
form a PHES system [39]. The suitable locations have been further
analysed to estimate how much energy could be stored or generated and
at what energy cost, and the associated carbon mitigation potential.
Scenario analysis has also been conducted to decipher how each site
performs for different utilization levels. Precise study objectives are
detailed in the following paragraphs.
The first and most important objective is to propose an efficient and
comprehensive GIS-based technique to capture attractive PHES sites
from a large geographical region. However, to achieve this objective, the
AHP was used to determine the criteria weights through pairwise
comparison, where the siting criteria and constraints were primarily
derived from the systematic review [39] conducted during the study’s
first phase of this research investigation. The method scanned a large
dataset of the watercourses to include all potential reservoirs with
relevant head and distance ratios and searched surrounding terrains for
greenfield locations to connect with the existing reservoirs as either
upper or lower sections to operate an off-river PHES. The method sys­
tematically applied various restrictions in its first stage to eliminate
locations representing impractical terrain characteristics (e.g., high
slope, low head, etc.) or located in no-go environmental or other off-
limits land development zones. Screening unviable locations during
the first phase significantly reduced the execution time for dataset
analytical processing in ArcGIS for this large geographical region. Later,
the siting criteria were evaluated to prioritize the suitable PHES sites
based on closer proximity to infrastructures, watercourses, renewable
energy farms, etc.
The second objective of this study was to evaluate the energy storage
capacity of the PHES sites. The storage capacity estimation will under­
score how much energy would be stored and generated at individual
sites and the collective energy storage capacity across the PHES sites in
the study region. A basic power calculation formula was implemented
[31]. The volume of the reservoir is the key parameter in this regard and
can only be judged once the approximate depth of the reservoir is
known. This information can be found for naturally existing reservoirs
through access to secondary data maintained by relevant departments or
through a direct survey. However, for reservoir development on a
greenfield location, the depth calculation and, therefore, the volume
computation is complicated. Studies [31] [4] have supplied a justifiable
assumption of a 20 m depth for large-scale PHES facilities for cases in
Iran and Turkey. This research has taken these assumptions into
3
Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914
consideration; further details are supplied in the method section (Sec­
tion 2.5).
The third objective of this research was to calculate the indicative
LCOE of the PHES sites. The LCOE calculations underscore the financial
attractiveness of the PHES sites. However, most cost components are
site-specific and variable, depending on the geographical locations [40].
It should be noted that unlike other studies [40,41], where LCOEs are
computed using only total project costs while missing detailed costs for
components (e.g. penstock, power plant). However, in this research the
data relating to PHES capital and operational expenditure were obtained
from local reports [42], that provide more realistic costings. Current
land price and the inflation rates have also been taken into account to
create realistic cost estimates. Following this, the fourth research
objective sought to quantify the carbon emission abatement for each
PHES site.
The fifth and final study objective was to conduct an LCOE scenario
analysis for the 14 shortlisted sites selected from the integrated GIS-AHP
procedure. Given that PHES systems are often used as storage to meet
the demand during the daily peak periods, various PHES utilization
scenarios were examined to establish the sensitivity of LCOE unit rates to
PHES plant utilization levels.
2. Methodology
The site selection for the development of PHES is a complex process,
and various criteria have to be considered for each potential site loca­
tion. However, the scope of this study is limited to exploring PHES sites
in NrQLD, based on techno-environmental suitability only. In this re­
gard, a comprehensive GIS-based methodology was developed using
AHP and weight-sum analysis and was executed in ArcGIS 10.3 [43].
Ideally, two water bodies at a head difference are essential to
establish a PHES system. There are seven PHES topologies [44], namely
1) exploiting an existing pair of reservoirs to develop a PHES system, 2)
constructing a new reservoir near an existing reservoir to develop a
PHES system, 3) a greenfield PHES system, 4) a seawater-based PHES
system, 5) a river-based PHES system, 6) a conventional hydropower-
based PHES system, and 7) an open-pit mine-based PHES system.
Of these seven topologies, only the first three (typologies 1, 2, and 3)
were considered in this study, referred to as T1, T2, and T3 (see Table 1).
The authors assumed that these three topologies are more relevant and
promising in the study region, which reduces the overall computation
time in GIS. During the process, the reservoirs in the category of
intensive land use were discarded. Moreover, the greenfield locations
away from perennial water sources were excluded, as water is essential
to the PHES system [39]. The topographies with an elevation head of
100 m and above were shortlisted, and the remaining areas were dis­
carded since this is an acceptable elevation head range for the devel­
opment of a large-scale PHES system. The search radius for a pairing
reservoir was increased up to 20 km to include a significant number of
potential sites [4]. The typologies that were eliminated in the process
were either costlier to exploit or may have caused socio-environmental
conflicts, especially the sea or river-based PHES systems. The mentioned
assumption is limited to the scope of this study; therefore, it should not
discourage future research on those topologies.
The methodology of this study is divided into seven sections. Section
2.1 is the description of the study area, and Section 2.2 outlines the
Table 1
A description of the typologies under investigation.
Typology Description (Transformation to pumped hydro facility)
T1 Linking an existing pair of natural reservoirs with an admissible head
difference.
T2 Linking one existing reservoir with a new reservoir on a greenfield
location with an admissible head difference.
T3 Linking two greenfield locations with an admissible head difference.
S. Ali et al. Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914

criteria evaluation. Section 2.3. addresses the data acquisition and

manipulation in GIS, and Section 2.4 covers the methodological
framework by explaining the spatial analysis of this research in three
further steps. Section 2.5 explains the energy storage capacity calcula­
tions, Section 2.6 covers the LCOE calculation, and Section 2.7 addresses
the carbon abatement calculations.

2.1. Study area

Northern Queensland, Australia, is comprised of NQLD (North

Queensland) (80,525 sq. km), Northwest Queensland (NWQLD)
(307,097 sq. km), and FNQLD (Far north Queensland) (272,288 sq. km)
and constitutes nearly 36% of Queensland’s land area (see Appendix
Fig. B.M.1). The land use map of the study area suggests that it has both
plains and mountainous landscapes; mountainous viewed as favourable
for the development of PHES. The land is mainly used for dryland
agriculture, irrigated plantations, or water, which are deemed feasible
for energy-project construction. Moreover, a study conducted by [5]
suggests that there are approximately 1770 sites available across
Queensland for the development of PHES systems, and the majority are
located on the North side of Queensland due to minimal land use
conflicts.

2.2. Criteria selection and evaluation

The main objective of this research is to conduct a spatial analysis to

detect existing reservoirs and potential sites for the installation of new
reservoirs to operate PHES systems. While the scope of the GIS investi­
gation is limited to techno-environmental suitability only, nevertheless,
an economic viability assessment of the detected sites will be performed
at a later date. For this purpose, the constraints and influencing factors
were first derived from the systematic literature review conducted
during the first phase of the study [39]. Thereafter, additional decision
factors that were missing in the reviewed literature were incorporated. Fig. 2. Study area land use classification.
The constraint criteria should be primarily considered in the location
analysis, as they aid in the assessment of whether the study location is
would be a requirement to replenish the evaporation and leakage losses
realistically feasible for the proposed investigation. The foremost
from the reservoir. Therefore, sites beyond a radius of 5 km from wa­
constraint in the location analysis is land use. In Australia, the Australian
tercourses, mainly rivers, streams, and lakes, were excluded, and its
Land Use and Management (ALUM) classification system provides a
applicability is on T3.
nationally consistent method to collect and present land-use information
Similarly, the proximity of infrastructure such as roads and power­
for a wide range of users across Australia [45]. The ALUM has six pri­
lines are essential for transporting materials during construction and
mary classes of land use, namely 1) conservation and natural environ­
maintenance and to transmit the generated power to the population.
ments, 2) production from relatively natural environments, 3)
Therefore, a 10 km proximity limit to both roads and powerlines were
production from dryland agriculture and plantations, 4) production
applied for all typologies. For instance, Appendix Fig. B.M.2 illustrates
from irrigated agriculture and plantations, 5) intensive uses, and 6)
the existing roads and high voltage powerline networks in the NQLD
water. Fig. 2 illustrates land use and land cover distribution in the
section of the study area. Similarly, a 10 km proximity to wind and solar
selected region. Land under use-classes 1 and 5 were discarded, as land
resources was also applied. In Australia, the annual evaporation rate is
for conservation and natural environments is primarily used for con­
up to 2500 mm due to the solar heating of water [46]; to compensate for
servation purposes, and intensive-use land is subject to substantial
this, the annual rainfall factor was also considered. Regions that receive
modification, generally in association with a residential settlement and
<550 mm rainfall per annum were eliminated. The evaluation criteria
commercial or industrial uses. Moreover, rivers, lakes, or reservoirs for
and constraints used in this research are presented in Table 2.
conservation or intensive-use purposes have also been removed from the
water class.
The difference in elevation between the reservoirs is an essential Table 2
consideration. This study aims to detect sites with a relative height PHES suitability criteria constraint and suitability range.
difference of 100 m and above to construct large-scale PHES systems. Criterion Constraint Suitability Ref.
Therefore, regions with heads below 100 m were discarded. Similarly, a Digital Elevation Model (DEM) <100 m ≥100 m [39]
search radius (between reservoir pairs) of 20 km was applied for T1 and Distance between the reservoirs > 20 km ≤20 km [4]
T2 and 2.5 km for T3. The reason for applying a 20 km search radius Slope > 10% ≤10% [39]
criterion for T1 and T2 was to capture as many natural reservoirs as Land cover and land use ALUM Class 1 & ALUM Class 2, 3, 4 [45]
5 &6
possible to transform to PHES facilities [4], as they would be cost-
Watercourse proximity > 5.0 km ≤5.0 km [38]
effective. Nevertheless, a targeted 2.5 km search radius investigation Roads and powerline proximity > 10 km ≤10 km [47]
was applied for T3 due to its scope of including only greenfield locations. Annual rainfall average < 550 mm ≥550 mm [39]
A slope constraint of 10% was used to discard locations with a steep Wind and solar energy proximity > 10 km ≤10 km [48]
slope, which could increase overall construction costs. If the PHES was radius
Reservoir area < 1.0 km2 ≥1. 0km2 [49]
not on a perennial water source, a water body in the neighbourhood

4
S. Ali et al.
2.3. Data acquisition and manipulation
High-resolution spatial data were obtained from multiple online
portals, particularly from the Queensland Spatial Catalogue (QSC). This
service is an initiative from the Queensland Government to improve
public access to various spatial and associated data. One can discover,
display, select and download, or order data on an area of interest in
selected formats, including map coverage data, image data, and text file
data [50].
Three PHES topologies were studied in this research, and each to­
pology requires a different set of inputs regarding DEM, watercourses,
and rainfall. Therefore, digital terrain data is crucial to calculate the
slope and the differential height between two reservoirs. For this pur­
pose, a 3-s DEM over the State of Queensland was obtained from the QSC
[50]. The data represents ground surface topography, excluding vege­
tation features, and was clipped to the study area for final use. In
addition, recent land use of Queensland at a nominal scale of 1:50,000
was also obtained from the QSC.
The data is classified according to the Australian Land Use and
Management Classification (ALUMC) [45]. Water data for the State of
Queensland, also sourced from the QSC, included a natural water
channels along which water may flow from time to time. Nevertheless,
additional watercourse data (both perennial and non-perennial sources)
Fig. 3. Developed GIS-AHP-based PHES site selection procedure.
5
Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914
were extracted from the Land Cover and Land Use (LCLU) map and
incorporated to prepare the overall watercourse map of the study region.
Historical point rainfall data for approximately 20 stations in NrQLD
was collected from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology [51]. The data
was refined in an Excel spreadsheet and converted into spatial data using
an IDW interpolation method, which is widely used for rainfall pro­
jections (see Appendix Fig. B.M.3). In this way, a rainfall map at annual
time scales at a ground resolution of 100 m was mapped for the study
region. Wind data was obtained from the Global Wind Atlas [52]. A
photovoltaic map was obtained from SolarGIS [53].
2.4. Developed GIS-AHP-based PHES site selection procedure
2.4.1. Step 1: pre-screening
The GIS analysis was conducted using ArcMap 10.3.0, as illustrated
in Fig. 3. First, watercourse data was extracted from the QSC and the
QLD LCLU maps. Waterbodies in ALUM classes 1 (conservation) and 5
(intensive use), such as rivers and streams, were eliminated due to land
use restrictions and potential environmental barriers. The waterbodies
that qualified for inclusion were assessed based on the surface area.
Initially, reservoirs or lakes with a surface area of <1.0 km2 were
excluded. It was estimated that at least 20,000–30,000 m2 out of the 1.0
km2 would be required for the construction of dams and other civil
S. Ali et al. Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914

works [31]. To determine the topographical suitability, a height re­

striction was applied on the DEM map. The DEM map was converted into
a contour map with an interval of 100 m to obtain the head criteria, and
heads below 100 m were eliminated. This head criterion was maintained
for all three topologies studied in this research.

2.4.2. Step 2: applying constraints

In the following step, the distance between a potential pair of res­
ervoirs was calculated. “Generate Near Table” analysis was applied to
each one to establish the distances between the closest pair of reservoirs.
“Generate Near Table” is part of the proximity analysis toolbox in Arc­
GIS, which calculates distance and other proximity information between
features in one or more feature class layers. To calculate the distance
between the reservoirs in each typology, a search radius of 20 km was
applied for T1 and T2 and 2.5 km for T3, as per the set procedures. A
gentle slope between 5 and 10% was judged to be feasible for the con­
struction of greenfield PHES systems. Thus, sites with slopes of higher
than 10% were eliminated, which remained applicable to T2 and T3
only when reservoirs would be constructed on greenfield land. Appendix
Fig. B.M.4. presents the slope map obtained after applying the 10%
gradient restriction. Proximity to a perennial water source was consid­
ered to compensate for evaporation and leakage losses from reservoirs
built on greenfield land. Therefore, greenfield reservoir sites beyond the
radius of 5 km to rivers, streams, or lakes were excluded. LCLU re­
strictions were applied to eliminate potential sites in ALUM classes 1 and
5. Moreover, sites located beyond infrastructural proximity, that is 10
km beyond the range of roads and powerlines, were excluded. The
elimination of unsuitable LCLU and others was done with the select-by-
attribute query in ArcGIS.

2.4.3. Step 3: criteria evaluation

After the restrictions had been applied, the potential sites were
assessed based on the criteria to determine the order of preference. The
flowchart of the employed AHP decision making process is presented in
Fig. 4. The AHP decision making starts with the determination of the
goal, which is the PHES sites selection. And then a decision matrix was
created based on the nine evaluation criteria listed in Table 2. The de­
cision criteria could either be arranged in hierarchy on the basis of the
themes they represent or they could also be compared individually to
achieve the overall objective of comparison based weight analysis. In Fig. 4. AHP process flowchart (Adapted source: [55]).
this research, all of the criteria were individually compared against each
other. The decision matrix scores could either be obtained from a group research there were 36 pairwise comparisons where the consistency
of experts as first hand data, or from the past studies. In this research, the ratio was well below the acceptable range of 10% [43]. Where the
data from previous studies [4,30] that were conducted in diverse criteria weight obtained as a result of the above procedure was used to
geographical settings and have generated scores for PHES locations conduct a weighted sum operation in ArcGIS, which is a reliable method
through the AHP, using expert elicitation [54]. Nevertheless, the pair­ to combine multiple raster inputs to create an integrated analysis. The
wise decision matrix was further revised as per the study location’s re­ results are presented in Section 3.
quirements, and normalized weights were then computed using AHP
(see Appendix, Table A.2.).
The involvement of experts’ judgments or the collection of data from 2.5. Levelized cost, emissions, and scenario analysis
various sources could lead to inconsistencies in the judgement, so it is
important to check the consistency [48]. Saaty [56] the founder of AHP 2.5.1. Step 4: LCOE and carbon emissions assessment
has presented a method to address this issue as shown in eq. (1); In this step, the levelized cost of the energy of the sites, as narrowed
down during the GIS-AHP analysis is conducted. For this purpose, the
CI
CR (Consitentcy Ratio) = (1) annual electricity generation and lifecycle costs of the sites were
RI
computed, and then the carbon abatement at each site was calculated.
CI is a deviation of consistency (see Eq. (2)); and RI is the random Further details are provided below.
index that varies according to the matrix sizes. In this research the
matrix size is 9 × 9, so the RI will be 1.45 [48]. 2.5.1.1. Energy storage and generation capacities. The energy storage
ℷmax − n and electricity generation capacities were calculated. The following Eq.
CI = (2) (3) calculates the theoretical energy storage capacity of a PHES site.
n− 1
‘ℷmax’ is the maximum eigenvalue and n is the pairwise comparison Es = ρ × g × h × V × μ (3)
matrix size (n x n), for our case it was 9 × 9. Where in any case the CR 3
Where ρ stands for density, and water has a density of 997 kg/m at
value has to be under 0.10 (or 10%), above 10% indicates a major
25◦ Celsius; g is the acceleration due to gravity, and the standard value of
inconsistency in the judgement, that needs correction. Overall, in this
g on the surface of the earth at sea level is 9.81 m/s2; h is the elevation

6
S. Ali et al. Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914

head between the reservoir pairs; V is the volume of the reservoir; and μ CAPEX. The IRENA study has reported [59] that, typically, it is between
is the storage efficiency (90% assumption, considering the evaporation 1% to 4% for all hydropower. Nevertheless, it varies between 2% and 6%
and leakage losses). for small and 2% and 2.5% for large hydropower plants. It should be
The volume of the reservoirs is unknown, particularly for the noted that the levelized cost of the storage devices is influenced by a
greenfield locations; therefore, in this regard, studies conducted by range of aspects, such as typology, size, applied technology, interest
Fitzgerald et al. [31] and Ghorbani et al. [4] for large-scale PHES ap­ rate, inflation, and country [60]. For example, on the one hand, the cost
plications (considered elevation heads as much as 150 m, similar to this of reservoir construction may differ, depending on the considered ty­
study) in Turkey and Iran provide a broad assumption. The referenced pology. On the other hand, if naturally existing reservoirs, mines, rivers,
studies [31] [4] assert that an average depth of 20 m is logical for a or sea water is considered, the cost of excavation can drop significantly
reservoir with an area equal to 50,000 m2 with an additional area of [60]. IRENA’s latest study reports that the global weighted-average
20,000 m2 for the civil and construction work. However, the sites LCOE for new facilities varies between $0.02–0.13$/kWh for small hy­
detected in this study have a surface area >1000,000 m2. Therefore, the dropower (1–10 MW) and between 0.040 and 0.12$/kWh for large
above depth assumption was considered to calculate the volume (surface hydropower (>10 MW) [57].
area (m2) × depth (m)) and, thereafter, the theoretical power generation The key input parameters to calculate LCOE were derived from a
(2) for the three PHES typologies in this study. Simultaneously, the area report from Entura [42] (see Table 4). This report contains a cost model
required for the civil work (20,000 m2) was subtracted from the base developed for pumped hydro storage in Australia. The relevant data
area of the considered pairs for all PHES typologies. were downsized to calculate the expected cost parameters for this study.
The following Eq. (4) calculates a PHES site’s theoretical power The project life cycle is 40 years, which is the lowest considered lifespan
generation. of pumped hydro storage. Six hours of operation to generate electricity
was considered as a base case. The inflation rate was considered at 3.8%,
Pg = ρ × g × h × Q × ƞ (4)
as the Reserve Bank of Australia’s inflation calculator suggests that the
3
Where Q is the flow rate in m /s, and ƞ is the generation efficiency average inflation rate for Australia was on average 3.8% for the 40 years
(79% assumption, considering the efficiencies of the turbine, pump, and between 1980 and 2020. The project lifecycle was considered to be 40
other rotary equipment losses). The flow rate is unknown; therefore, it years (3 years construction period and 37 years of operation). A cur­
was derived from existing PHES facilities and then compared to and rency exchange rate of 1US$ = 1.46 AU$ was used at the time of writing.
computed for the sites found in this research. For example, a study re­
ported [42] that the flow rate of the Cultana PHES in South Australia is 2.5.1.3. Estimating carbon abatement. According to the Intergovern­
225 m3/s with the following head and waterways specifications: head = mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the global average lifecycle
250 m and waterways = 3500 m. The flow rate of various PHES facilities greenhouse gas (GHG) or emissions estimate for hydropower is 24 g
across Australia is presented in Table 3. In this study, the flow rate of the CO2eq/kWh [61]. In comparison with other electricity generation
Cultana and Snowy 2.0. PHES systems were considered for estimation sources, only nuclear and wind power have lower average lifecycle GHG
due to the relevancy to the sites found in this research in terms of head concentrations of approximately 12 g CO2eq/kWh. For oil and gas, the
and the waterways distance. Watt-hour (Wh) is an appropriate SI unit average lifecycle emissions range between 510 and 1170 g CO2eq/kWh,
that represents utility-scale storage and generation capacities. There­ and for coal, it is 675–1689 g CO2eq/kWh. The emissions range between
fore, the final energy storage and electricity generation results are in 410 and 650 g CO2eq/kWh for natural gas combined-cycle plants.
Wh. Further details regarding the calculations of energy storage and Modern-to-advanced hard coal power plants emit 710–950 g CO2eq/
power generation are available in the Supplementary File (sheet 4). kWh.
Further detail on lifecycle emissions for various types of electricity
2.5.1.2. Indicative levelized cost of energy. An accurate estimation of the generation are available in reference [61]. However, in this study, the
costs of energy projects is complicated due to multiple costing factors
and rising inflation. For example, hydropower is a capital-intensive
technology, mainly driven by the cost of the civil works and the pro­ Table 4
curement of electro-mechanical equipment [57]. However, in this Sample cost inputs for pumped hydro LCOE calculations (Ref. [42]).
research, an indicative costing was conducted, using the function of Sr. Description Amount $/377 Standardized
LCOE, to provide insights into the economic feasibility of the detected No MW $/MW
sites for developing PHES. The LCOE for the case of this study would be 1. Capital costs
the ratio of the lifetime cost of the storage, that is, the sum of the capital 1.1 Upper reservoir $53,364,852 $141,551.33
and operational expenditures for the total lifetime electricity generated 1.2 Lower reservoir $53,364,852 $141,551.33
1.3 Intakes $16,137,431 $42,804.86
by the storage. It is often calculated in $/kWh or $/MWh [58], and the 1.4 Waterways $47,636,431/ $84.24/m
equation is as follows (5): 1500 m
1.5 Power Station (E&M) $137,313,041 $364,225.57
CAPEX + OPEX
LCOE = (5) 1.6 Power Station (civil) $34,328,260 $91,056.39
Total Electricty Produced Over Lifetime 1.7 Access tunnels and $24,000,000 $63,660.48
construction adits
Where CAPEX is the capital expenditure and OPEX is the operational 1.8 Access roads to the site/ $2,000,000/4.0 $500,000/km
expenditure of the energy. The OPEX is usually judged as a percentage of km
1.9 Transmission line $16,000,000/20 $800,000.00/km
km
1.10 Miscellaneous $8,082,897 $21,440.05
Table 3
1.11 Other development costs $267,948,046 $710,737.52
A flow rate of the existing pumped hydro storage facilities across Australia [42]. 2. Operation and maintenance costs
Facility Name Head (m) Waterways (m) Flow rate (m3/s) 2.1 Fixed O&M $16,000/MW/yr. $16,000/MW/yr.

Highbury 156 1000 213 Note: All costing values are in Australian Dollars (September 2022 exchange
Kidston 185 450 150 rate = 1.45 AU$ ¼ 1.0USD). The reservoirs costs are composed of the
Goat Hill 200 1100 127 embankment ($45,628,209 for 377 MW) and Liner ($7,736,643 for 377 MW)
Kanmantoo 250 650 98 costs. Whereas the other development costs include preliminary and general
Cultana 260 3500 225
costs, cost of design and approvals, owner, and contingency costs etc. These
Snowy 2.0 681 27,000 325
specific costing values have been reflected in the actual calculations.

7
S. Ali et al.
average lifecycle emissions were estimated by comparing the average
hydropower emissions against that of the oil/gas or coal. The reason for
choosing these three is because these are the most popular sources of
energy to generate electricity in the study region. For example, the
Australian Energy statistics of 2021 [62] show that, in Queensland,
approximately 92% of energy was produced by oil/gas or coal.
To compute the average emissions for each potential PHES site in this
study, a general multiplication of estimated power produced with the
IPCC lifecycle emission estimates for hydropower was conducted. The
process was repeated for the ‘what-if’ scenario, using the emission esti­
mates of oil/gas and coal energy sources. The difference between the
hydropower and the others was then determined to understand the in­
dividual and overall carbon abatement. The resultant carbon abatement
for individual sites was then multiplied by the average price per tonne of
abatement of $17.35, which is the weighted average price for each
Australian carbon credit unit purchased at the latest auction in April
2022 by the Australian Government Clean Energy Regulator [63].
2.5.2. Step 5: scenario analysis
The utilization rate of pumped hydro depends on the need. Typically,
a pumped hydro acts like a giant battery for the electricity system;
therefore, they are used for various purposes, such as regulating peak
times fluctuations or as low-cost seasonal energy storage options [39].
Consequently, in this research, in addition to the base case, some other
operational scenarios were studied, regarding the number of hours the
power plant is operated and the utilization rate throughout the year, to
understand the relative competitiveness of the identified PHES sites and
establish their ultimate economic viability for various modes of opera­
tion. It has been estimated that, in ideal conditions, pumped hydro fa­
cilities would be run for 6 h per day, 335 days per year to generate
electricity during peak hours. It should be noted that 30 days per year
are deducted to allow for major and minor maintenance. Therefore, the
pumped hydro facility utilization rates were projected as follows: 25%
(84 days per year [d/y]), 50% (168 d/y), 75% (252 d/y), and 100% for a
base scenario (6 h of operation [Oph]), and other scenarios, such as 4 or
8 h of the operation. The lifetime of the PHES systems are estimated to
be 40 years [64], and, for the study region, 3 years were subtracted in
view of the time required for the construction of the facility.
3. Results and discussion
The above-mentioned methodology and GIS-AHP-based PHES site
selection procedure was demonstrated with the case study area. Results
and discussion are divided into three sections. Section 3.1 discusses the
results of the GIS-AHP-based PHES site selection analysis procedure
(Steps 1–3), with a detailed discussion of the individual potentials of T1,
T2, and T3 PHES typologies in subsections. Section 3.2 covers Step 4 of
the procedure, namely evaluating the base case generation, LCOE, and
carbon emissions abatement opportunities for the selected sites from the
previous steps. Finally, Section 3.3 describes the results of Step 5 of the
procedure, which includes an extensive scenario analysis of different
utilization scenarios for the fourteen PHES site locations.
3.1. GIS-AHP-based PHES site selection analysis (Steps 1–3)
The methodology was applied in NrQLD, which constitutes nearly
36% (~660,000 sq. km) of Queensland’s land area. A previous study
conducted by the Australian National University has suggested that
approximately 1770 sites are available across Queensland for the
development of PHES systems [5], and that the north side of Queensland
is possibly the most promising area, due to minimal land use conflicts,
the mountain terrain characteristics, and a large number of water re­
sources, such as rivers, lakes, and streams. However, previous studies
have only provided a generalized potential and did not investigate in­
dividual potential. In addition, the previous research also disregarded
the environmental aspects of the potential locations. To overcome these
8
Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914
shortcomings, this study demonstrates a systematic GIS-based approach
to evaluate regions for the development of PHES systems from a techno-
environmental perspective.
When the initial screening was conducted, >6479 watercourses were
found across the study region, including rivers, natural lakes, and man-
made reservoirs. However, these were reduced to 2372 after a restriction
of non-perennial watercourses was applied. Further application of the
surface area and landcover restrictions reduced the number of water
bodies to 178. These waterbodies were then prioritized for the devel­
opment of T1 and T2 PHES systems. Nevertheless, the water bodies that
were eliminated during the determination of the potential for T1 and T2
PHES systems were reconsidered for the assessment of T3 PHES systems.
All the sites that met the head-to-distance criteria were initially judged
suitable for T3 PHES systems, and, in the next step, sites that were not in
close proximity to water courses were excluded.
The normalized weights obtained through the consolidation of pre­
vious studies and iterative discussion are presented in Table 5. The AHP-
based criteria weight determination includes head-to-distance ratio,
presence of watercourses, and slope availability as the top three criteria
with the highest weights, followed by the proximity to infrastructure (i.
e., roads and high-voltage powerlines) for the development of the PHES
system. Solar irradiance and wind speed were scored at a minimum.
Moreover, the rainfall factor is in the second to last position on the
weight scoreboard, probably because this factor attracted little attention
in previous studies. Nevertheless, the rain factor could enhance the
overall suitability of PHES locations that are constructed on greenfield
land. The rainwater could essentially compensate for leakage and
evaporation-related losses, as argued in the systematic review on drivers
and barriers to the deployment of PHES systems in reference [39].
Once all constraints and location criteria had been applied, 14 po­
tential sites for developing PHES systems were identified in NrQLD. The
spatial distribution of the potential PHES locations is displayed in Fig. 5,
following the legend shown on the upper left of the illustration frame.
Red bubbles indicate T1, T2 is denoted by blue bubbles, and green
bubbles indicate T3. The size of each bubble represents the storage ca­
pacity. Rectangular frames enclose the PHES locations in each sub-
region of NrQLD, so the yellow box encloses the PHES locations found
in FNQLD, the blue frame encloses the PHES locations in NQLD, and the
green frame is for those in NWQLD. Most of the potential sites were
located in FNQLD, followed by NQLD and NWQLD. A list of the refer­
ence IDs used for each reservoir pair, which are used throughout this
results section, is available in the Appendix, in Table A.1.
3.1.1. Potential of T1
Despite the availability of many natural and man-made reservoirs in
the study region, only 38 pairs of reservoirs were initially detected by
the GIS model for transformation to T1 PHES facilities. The preliminary
detection was based on elevation head and LCLU compliance. Never­
theless, the application of the distance criterion between the pairs and
other constraints, such as proximity to infrastructure, for example,
reduced the number of eligible pairs to only three, with one in each of
the three sub-regions of NrQLD. The details of these sites are presented
Table 5
Weights of the selected criteria for the AHP analysis.
Criteria Restriction Normalized weight Rank
H/D ratio ~1/15 0.263 1
Waterbody 5.0 km 0.260 2
Slope 10% 0.129 3
Roads 10.0 km 0.116 4
HV Powerline 10.0 km 0.111 5
Landcover Conservation and Intensive LU 0.073 6
Wind speed 5.5 m/s 0.022 7
Rainfall 550 mm 0.010 8
Solar irradiance 1500 kWh/m2 0.009 9
∑
criteriaWeight 1.000
S. Ali et al. Applied Energy 337 (2023) 120914

locations based on water and elevation head criteria. However, after

assessing them for other constraints, such as slope conformity to develop
a second reservoir on the greenfield location and the land use re­
strictions, the number of feasible sites was reduced to six. Four of the
detected sites were in FNQLD, and two in NQLD. However, no site
suitable for this typology was detected in NWQLD. Therefore, the pair­
ing types that emerged in this typology were either a connection of a
greenfield location with a reservoir, dam, or lake.
The highest elevation head obtained in this typology was 648 m, and
none of the detected sites had an elevation head of <150 m. The
elevation head is a key parameter in hydropower systems as it governs
the hydraulic head directly, which is the summation of the ‘pressure
head’ and ‘elevation head’ [65]. A high elevation head means high
gravitational energy to rotate the turbines. The details of the T2 PHES
sites are presented in Table 7. A visualization of the typical T2 PHES sites
found in NQLD is illustrated in Appendix Fig. B.R.2. It shows that a 2.5
km2 upper reservoir can be constructed on undeveloped land at a dis­
tance of 10.5 km northwest of Lake Ross, also known as Ross River Dam.
In this case, Lake Ross will serve as a lower reservoir. The assessed head
difference between the two sites is 587 m, and the distances of T2 PHES
sites to the nearest town and the town populations are provided in the
Appendix, in Table A.4.

Fig. 5. Most feasible PHES sites across NrQLD.
in Table 6. Two of the detected pairs, which are located in FNQLD and
NQLD, are comprised of lake production. These two reservoirs in each
pair have a distance of 14.4 km and 16.7 km, respectively. The reservoirs
pair detected in the NWQLD are comprised of naturally existing reser­
voirs. The distance between the reservoirs is 14.9 km.
The weighted sum operation in GIS indicates that the pair detected in
NWQLD is the most attractive. However, the pair in FNQLD, on Walter
Plains Lake (lat 18.35◦ ; lon 145.21◦ ), has the highest hydraulic head at
127 m, although the distance between the ‘lake-production’ pair is 16.7
km. All these sites are located in close proximity to roads and powerlines
and have sufficient wind speed and solar irradiance in the surroundings,
which means that there is a possibility that they can be operated as in­
dependent power systems (microgrids), if necessary. A visualization of
the pair in FNQLD is presented in Appendix Fig. B.R.1, and the distances
of the T1 PHES sites to the nearest town and the town populations are
provided in the Appendix in Table A.4.
3.1.2. Potential of T2
In this topology, the search for a greenfield location within a 20 km
radius of a naturally existing reservoir yielded approximately 52
3.1.3. Potential of T3
The initial screening of the digital terrain yielded 40 pairs for T3. The
pairs were located on greenfield land across the study region. The
elevation heads between the reservoirs is ~150 m, and the distance
between all the detected pairs is equal to or <2.5 km. The GIS model
could have detected more pairs if the distance between the pairs had
been set at 20 km, as it was for T1 and T2. However, it would increase
the overall construction cost of the project, and, unlike T1 and T2 where
at least one of the reservoirs exists naturally, in this typology, both
reservoirs are on greenfield land. The 40 pairs were then assessed for
proximity to watercourses. Sites that were beyond a 5 km proximity
buffer to water sources were eliminated. The remaining 30 sites were
then evaluated for slope conformity, as a high land gradient requires
high construction costs. The applications of other constraints, such as
land use, proximity to infrastructure, renewables accessibility, and
rainfall calculations of the potential sites, reduced the number of feasible
sites to only five. A visualization of the T3 PHES sites found in FNQLD is
presented in Appendix Fig. B.R.3, Table 8 shows the details of the T3
PHES sites found during this research, and the distances of the T3 PHES
sites to the nearest town and the town populations are provided in the
Appendix in Table A.4.
3.2. LCOE and carbon emissions abatement analysis (Step 4)
3.2.1. Storage and generation capacities
The energy storage calculations suggest that the detected PHES sites
can theoretically store 848.95 GWh of energy and have generation ca­
pacities of 4934.09 MW. Individually, T1 PHES systems, formed through
the connection of a pair of natural reservoirs, can provide storage of
31.57 GWh with a generation capacity of 111.38 MW. T2 PHES systems,
formed by linking one natural reservoir with a greenfield location, can
provide storage of 785.19 GWh, which constitutes approximately 80%
of the overall storage capacity in this study, while they can generate

Table 6
Details of the T1 PHES sites found across the study region.
Located Region Ref. ID Pairing type Elevation (m) Area (km2) Distance (m) H/D ratio WS Rank

Z1 Z2 R1 R2 [R1 – R2]

FNQLD T1.1 LP– LP 502 629 2.47 12.67 16,763.50 0.007 2

NQLD T1.2 LP – LP 484 580 1.39 2.36 14,495.08 0.006 3
NWQLD T1.3 RD – RD 393 325 2.90 20.11 14,909.66 0.005 1

Note: Pairing type LP represents lakes, and RD means reservoir or dam– all tables to consider.