Drivers and barriers to the deployment of pumped hydro

Drivers and barriers to the deployment of pumped hydroenergy storage applications: Systematic literature review

Author

Ali, Shahid, Stewart, Rodney A, Sahin, Oz

Published

2021

Journal Title

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

Version

Version of Record (VoR)

DOI

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100281

Copyright Statement

© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed underthe terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International(CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution andreproduction in any medium, providing that the work is properly cited.

Downloaded from

http://hdl.handle.net/10072/408642

Griffith Research Online

https://research-repository.griffith.edu.au

Cleaner Engineering and Technology 5 (2021) 100281

Available online 23 September 20212666-7908/© 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Drivers and barriers to the deployment of pumped hydro energy storage applications: Systematic literature review

Shahid Ali a,b, Rodney A. Stewart a,b,*, Oz Sahin a,b

a School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia b Cities Research Institute, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia

A R T I C L E I N F O

Keywords: Energy storage Pumped hydropower storage Renewable energy Driver Barrier Systematic literature review

A B S T R A C T

Storage technology is recognized as a critical enabler of a reliable future renewable energy network. There is growing acknowledgement of the potential viability of pumped hydro energy storage solutions, despite multiple barriers for large-scale installations. A plethora of articles have been published covering the drivers for and barriers to the widespread diffusion of pumped hydro energy storage, but the literature has yet to coherently categorise and rate the various reported drivers and barriers. Therefore, a systematic literature review of studies published between 2000 and 2020 was conducted using meta-analysis guidelines to analyse, synthesize and consolidate findings covering both the techno-environmental and socio-economic drivers for, and barriers to, the development of pumped hydro energy storage. The study ranked the significance of reported drivers and barriers as well as the lessons learned for both developed and developing countries. The top-ranked techno-environ-mental driving factor was grid resilience (i.e., grid balancing, energy time-shifting, etc.) and the top-ranked socio-economic driver was revenue generation and rural development (i.e., job and businesses opportunities, infrastructural development, etc.). In terms of barriers, the top ranked techno-environmental barrier was as the lack of good infrastructure (i.e., roads, transmission lines, etc.) near potential sites, and top ranked socio- economic barrier was securing the initial and ongoing capital requirements for a less understand investment category. Overall, this study synthesises and categorises the drivers and barriers to the development of pumped hydro energy storage. Study findings will be useful to both researchers and practitioners seeking to better direct resources and efforts to foster the development of pumped hydro energy in the future.

1. Introduction

In recent times, with the growing interest in renewable energy and the decarbonisation of electrical energy systems, the revival and upscaling of energy storage systems (ESS) has become indispensable. On its own, renewable energy (e.g., wind and solar) is often unpredictable and lacks load-following flexibility, and it cannot be turned on when needed (Barbour et al., 2016). The more widely known ESS in electricity production portfolios include pumped hydro energy storage (PHES) (Guezgouz et al., 2019), compressed air energy storage (CAES) (Budt et al., 2016), hydrogen storage systems (Karellas and Tzouganatos, 2014), lead batteries (May et al., 2018), flywheels (Mousavi G et al., 2017) and supercapacitor energy storage (Kadri et al., 2020). Pumped hydro energy storage and CAES are most common in off-grid and remote electrification applications. Nevertheless, PHES is considered the most promising system for handling large electricity networks, and

worldwide, hundreds of PHES plants were installed in 2018 with ca-pacities of approximately 160.3 GW (an increase of 1.9 GW from 2017) (IHA, 2018a).

Typically, PHES comprises one upper and one lower reservoir (closed-loop system) or one upper reservoir and a river, sea lake or other body of water as a lower reservoir (open-loop system). It assists with energy time-shifting and is characterised by a long lifespan (50–100 years) (Guittet et al., 2016), high trip efficiency (70–87%) (Rehman et al., 2015) and low maintenance costs (Mahmoud et al., 2020). Initially, PHES was introduced in the alpine regions of Europe in the 1890s (Javed et al., 2020), and a cumulative interest in its development was seen after World War II, due to the increasing demands for elec-tricity by the post-war population during the period of economic re-covery. However, most PHES systems were built between the 1960s and 1980s (Deane et al., 2010), and by 2005, over 200 PHES schemes had been installed and were operating globally (Chen et al., 2009). Later, the

* Corresponding author. School of Engineering and Built Environment, Griffith University, Southport, QLD, 4222, Australia. E-mail address: [email protected] (R.A. Stewart).

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Cleaner Engineering and Technology

journal homepage: www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100281 Received 20 January 2021; Received in revised form 20 August 2021; Accepted 20 September 2021

mailto:[email protected]

www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/26667908

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/cleaner-engineering-and-technology




http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.clet.2021.100281&domain=pdf

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/


2

development of these systems was slowed, following concerns by envi-ronmental consortiums, which repelled the major investments. How-ever, ESS, including PHES, have recently been resurrected for numerous reasons, such as increasing demand for electricity due to rapid urbani-sation; the growing inclusion of renewables in energy portfolios (Kat-sanevakis et al., 2017), especially wind and solar; power quality and stability challenges; and ever more stringent environmental re-quirements (Chen et al., 2009). Researchers have found that opportu-nities and challenges run in parallel with developmental projects such as PHES, and they become more complex when they are not being dis-cussed, prioritized or answered on time (Ali et al., 2020).

Researchers are continually contributing to enriching the informa-tion on PHES and reviewing the historical and geographical perspec-tives, technological advancements, opportunities, and barriers. For example, Deane et al. (2010) examined the techno-economic drivers for existing and proposed PHES and inferred that developers of liberalised markets are interested in repowering, enhancing or building ‘pump--back’ PHES. However, the study’s scope was limited to the European Union, Japan, and the United States. Yang and Jackson (2011) studied the historical development of PHES, encompassing the controversies, disputes, challenges and prospects in the United States. Zeng et al. (2013) shared knowledge on the capacity, distribution and develop-mental barriers of existing and proposed PHES facilities in China. Ardizzon et al. (2014) analysed the prospects of PHES for sustainable development, studying planning- and management-related challenges. In 2015, Rehman et al. (2015) reviewed globally existing PHES, recent technological developments in PHES and the hybrid version of PHES with wind and solar energy resources. This study found that PHES is technologically suited to islanded grid applications. Subsequently, existing operational trends in PHES and the associated challenges were studied by Perez-Díaz et al. (2015). This study also discussed the ca-pacity of PHES to provide supportive services in deregulated and cen-tralised electricity markets. Barbour et al. (2016) explored the historical perspectives on PHES in various electricity markets and the accessible rewards for PHES investors, policymakers and developers. They also briefly discussed public sector investments. Guittet et al. (2016) reviewed PHES evolution, its usage and the driving forces behind its construction, in chosen countries.

However, having analysed the published review papers, it was realised that there is still room for improvement in the reporting of contemporary drivers for and barriers to the development of PHES, covering technical, environmental, social, and economic aspects, which might be useful to the scientific community and related stakeholders or industries. Most of the previously published papers on PHES have covered specific themes or territories and are narrative or traditional literature reviews. Moreover, these narrative reviews predominately discussed aspects of PHES from a theoretical or contextual point of view only and rarely provided concrete and generalisable findings related to the drivers, enablers, and barriers of PHES. Whereas, the systematic review uses rigorous methodological approaches (Gregory and Denniss, 2018). Therefore, this study intends to collect recent findings systemi-cally and coherently from 2000 to 2020 on the prevailing drivers for and barriers to PHES in techno-environmental and socio-economic domains, for both developed and developing countries around the world. A study on this subject involving both domains has not been conducted before. Along with articles and conference proceedings, the search was expanded to the reports published by various organisations or industries which had been mainly ignored in the reviewed articles.

So, the overarching research question of this review is: ‘What are the prevailing techno-environmental and socio-economic drivers for and barriers to PHES development? The study had two related subsidiary questions: (1) What are the more significant drivers and barriers? and (2) What are perceived differences in the importance of drivers and barriers in developing and developed countries?

2. Materials and method

2.1. Overview of the systematic literature review procedure

Following the PRISMA guidelines (Liberati et al., 2009), the meth-odology of this review study was developed as presented in Fig. 1.

It encompasses the evidence available on the prevailing drivers for and barriers to the development of PHES to convey the breadth and depth of PHES developments around the world. The systematic litera-ture review was conducted based on the procedure of Can Sener et al. (2018), who systematically identified multiple drivers and barriers to understand the diverging paths of renewable energy deployment, and Mayeda and Boyd (2020) that studied public perceptions about hydro-power in a systematic fashion. A search strategy was formulated to systematically target peer-reviewed articles according to the identifi-cation methods outlined by (Harari et al., 2020). The search resulted in 1,010 articles from Scopus and 4,583 articles from WOS, a total of 5,593 articles. Only 178 articles were judged relevant for eligibility assess-ment, where they were further assessed for inclusion or exclusion from the final content analysis and synthesis of the data based on the adapted procedure (Salim et al., 2019). Following this was a further filtering method that returned 64 records (Supplementary Table S2) that were eligible for content analysis to synthesize the prevailing drivers for and barriers to PHES applications. The eligible records were studied in detail and were profiled according to (Painuly, 2001), which provides a spe-cific discourse on the categorisation of the drivers for and barriers to diffusing renewable energy, whereas (Deane et al., 2010), broadly en-compasses the techno-economic review of the hydro storage technolo-gies. The details related to the systematic review protocol, the method adopted for the identification of relevant studies, the analysis and cod-ing of the identified records are all provided in the Supplementary Material file (S1.1 to S1.4).

2.2. Categorisation of drivers and barriers

The drivers and barriers are clustered into techno-environmental and socio-economic factors due to the partly overlapping sub-categories. Techno-environmental factors are those that reflect the positive and negative impacts of the employment of PHES due to the technical and environmental reasons e.g., natural topography, clean energy, land use, vegetation clearing etc. The socio-economic factors are the those that reflect the positive and negative impacts of the employment of PHES due to the social and economic reasons e.g. job opportunities, revenue generation, resettlement issues, cost overrun etc (Hossain et al., 2018). Therefore, the drivers were clustered as techno-environmental drivers (TEDs) and socio-economic drivers (SEDs), and the barriers were clus-tered as techno-environmental barriers (TEBs) and socio-economic barriers (SEBs).

2.3. Method for creating global weighting

Weight scoring prioritization is needed to delineate the respective weights of each criterion. Therefore, a global weight analysis procedure was implemented similar to the analytic hierarchy process (AHP). This procedure has been adopted for the identification of criteria weights for the site assessments of rubber wood biomass (Waewsak et al., 2020a), and for assessing renewable energy-based power plants (Waewsak et al., 2020b). In this study weight analysis was conducted to systematically determine the relative importance of the identified drivers and barriers. The techno-environmental and socio-economic factors were combined to understand the separate relative importance of drivers (TEDs and SEDs) and barriers (TEBs and SEBs). The number of studies on the respective factor or item was used as an input to the calculation of the relative weight, where the global weight was calculated by multiplying the relative weights of the hierarchised theme, factors, and items.

S. Ali et al.


3

2.4. Comparison between PHES study completed in developed and developing countries

Lastly, a comparative analysis was conducted to understand how the drivers and barriers to the development of PHES differ between devel-oping and developing countries. Whereas the country’s economic clas-sification was considered according to the world economic situation and prospects provided by the United Nations that classifies them into three broad categories: developed economies, economies in transition and developing economies (United Nations, 2019). Studies considered dur-ing this research were based on either developed or developing economy settings only, the economies in transition was therefore invalid.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Assessment of study characteristics

The identified records were imported to the Mendeley Reference Manager Software, and with the removal of 1,010 duplicates, 4,026 articles were systematically examined. These were narrowed to 64 re-cords (1.589% of the examined records) to be included in this review study. Readers seeking a detailed assessment of the reviewed study characteristics (i.e., publication trends, geographic trends, research subject and methodological trends etc.) are referred to the Supplemen-tary Material file (S2.1 and S2.2).

3.2. Categorisation of PHES drivers

As a result of a full review of the included studies, several techno- environmental and socio-economic themes emerged as main drivers

for PHES development. The drivers under each techno-environmental and socio-economic category of factors were sub-divided and clustered by theme. The following sections describe the engendered positive fac-tors for PHES, whereas the sub-themes follow the precedence ranking based on the number of times they were mentioned in the reviewed studies.

3.2.1. Techno-environmental drivers Fifty-one of the reviewed studies discussed various promoting factors

under the cluster of TEDs, which are described in this section (see Table 1).

3.2.1.1. Grid resilience (TED1). The reviewed studies mentioned grid resilience as the main driver behind the development of pumped hydro in current electricity markets. The development of PHES is highly sig-nificant to the modern electricity networks that are transitioning to renewable power systems (Ghorbani et al., 2019). Pumped hydro stor-age has the potential to ensure the grid balancing and energy time-shifting of intermittent renewable energy sources, by supplying power when demands are high and storing it when generation is high. Moreover, ancillary support such as frequency and voltage modulations, the ability to track and adapt to drastic load changes and black start to solve grid congestions are believed to be significant technical drivers behind the active development of PHES by the reviewed studies. Typi-cally, a PHES acts as a reserve powerhouse that quickly manages un-expected fluctuation caused by either demand or generation, due to its excellent manoeuvrability in operation. Hydropower can move from zero to full power within minutes, and it is vital to avoiding system-wide collisions and recovering from emergencies and disasters (Makarov et al., 2005). The PHES plays an integral complementary role in regional

Fig. 1. PRISMA flow diagram for study collection and selection.

S. Ali et al.


4

grids and cross-regionally interconnected grids in addition to their role in local grids; one study argued that electric grid congestion from the north to the south of Germany was the main reason for its development of a pumped hydro facility (Deane et al., 2010). In some countries, PHES is strongly correlated with the development of nuclear (France and Japan) and coal (USA and China) power plants since these plants are inflexible sources of baseload generation that continuously generate electricity. Therefore, in such scenarios, PHES offers vital storage ca-pacity for energy when demand is low, especially during the night. Researchers thus believe grid resilience to be the driving determinant to embracing pumped storage around the world.

3.2.1.2. Utility-scale storage (TED2). Pumped hydro provides the largest and most mature form of energy storage compared to the energy storage devices currently on the market (Koohi-Fayegh and Rosen, 2020). Its development will increase in the coming years due to the growing concern of climate change and renewed interests in renewable energy. Pumped hydro energy storage could be used as daily and seasonal storage to handle power system fluctuations of both renewable and non-renewable energy (Prasad et al., 2013). This is because PHES is fully dispatchable and flexible to seasonal variations, as reported in New Zealand (Kear and Chapman, 2013), for example. When it is used for intra-day balancing, the surplus electricity from baseload sources such as coal and nuclear is usually used for pumping at night and to reinforce generation capacity during the day when demand is high. On the other hand, some types of PHES could also be used as weekly or monthly storage if they are economically justified (Fitzgerald et al., 2012). Overall, these daily and seasonal storage choices for utility-scale appli-cations are one of the growing reasons for the worldwide implementa-tion of PHES.

3.2.1.3. Sustainability (TED3). Another triggering factor for using pumped-storage plants, described by the reviewed studies, is their sus-tainability characteristics: clean energy and long lifespan. The devel-opment of PHES promotes the use of renewable energy and directly eliminates dependency on non-renewable energy such as coal power, which is still in use. Moreover, substituting PHES consolidated with a renewable source can significantly lower anthropogenic emissions such as sulphides, nitrogen oxides, particulates, carbon monoxide and other greenhouse gas pollutants from unclean electricity generation (Ming

et al., 2013). Arguably, carbon dioxide (CO2) contributes most to greenhouse gases that cause global warming and the greenhouse effect. Therefore, deploying PHES and reducing CO2 means achieving low-carbon economic development that also fulfils the Paris Agreement on climate change (Fan et al., 2020). The estimated lifetime of pumped hydro is anywhere between 40 and 80 years (Aneke and Wang, 2016), while some studies state this lifetime is up to 100 years (Deane et al., 2010), which means it is highly reliable and a one-time investment that is of great interest to investors and policymakers seeking business opportunities.

3.2.1.4. Landscape characteristics (TED4). Pumped hydro storage typi-cally requires two reservoirs (Chen et al., 2016), and the reviewed studies have determined that an existing dam, abandoned coal mine or lake can serve as either the upper or lower reservoir. This can be envi-ronmentally favourable because of the reduced land-use conflicts (Sovacool et al., 2011) and clearing of vegetation required, and it, in turn, reduces construction time and costs. The reviewed studies also described the importance of natural topography and water resources as significant driving factors. A favourable landscape topography provides the technically required head difference and slope between the two reservoirs of pumped energy storage, such as the topographies across most European countries such as Croatia and Austria (Deane et al., 2010); otherwise, artificially developing the required head and slope results in increased construction cost. Water resources in proximity, such as rivers or streams, are useful for the first filling of a reservoir or to replenish water lost due to evaporation or leakage. On the other hand, transportation using water tankers might not be environmentally or economically feasible.

3.2.1.5. Auxiliary services (TED5). The variety of auxiliary services linked to PHES which emerged during this research include flood and sediment control, amphibian breeding grounds and groundwater recharge and replenishment. The reviewed studies perceived the development of pumped hydro storage as an opportunity to control flood and sediment that usually occur due to natural land degradation and building of settlements upstream (Munthali et al., 2011), as the reservoirs store water to reduce the impact of floods and sediments (Hunt et al., 2017) and do not let them pass to the vulnerable settlements downstream. A sophisticated PHES system can also be home to

Table 1 Categorisation of drivers to the deployment of PHES applications.

Main theme Code Factors NoS Code Items NoS

Techno-environmental drivers (51 studies)

TED1 Grid resilience 42 TED1.1 Support renewables 38 TED1.2 Grid stabilization 20 TED1.3 Black and quick start 12 TED1.4 Ancillary services 8 TED1.5 Support non-renewables 5 TED1.6 Solution to grid congestion 2

TED2 Utility-scale storage 35 TED2.1 Daily storage 33 TED2.2 Seasonal storage 5

TED3 Sustainability 24 TED3.1 Clean Energy 21 TED3.2 Long lifetime 6

TED4 Landscape characteristics 23 TED4.1 Conventional hydro or lower reservoir 13 TED4.2 Mountain topography and existing rivers/

streams 9

TED4.3 Coal mines 4 TED5 Auxiliary services 5 TED5.1 Flood and sediments control 4

TED5.2 Breeding place for amphibians 1 TED5.3 Groundwater recharge and replenishments 1

Socio-economic drivers (30 studies) SED1 Energy arbitrage 18 SED1.1 Revenue generation 12 SED1.2 Cheap electricity 11

SED2 Rural development 10 SED2.1 Job opportunities 6 SED2.2 Business opportunities 6 SED2.3 Quality of life for rural population 4

SED3 Proximity and cross-functional characteristics

8 SED3.1 Nearby demand centre 5 SED3.2 Irrigation and drinking water 3

*Note: NoS (Number of Studies) – all tables to consider; Extended version of this Table with references at item level is supplied in the Appendix A (Table A1).

S. Ali et al.


5

amphibians and water-related insects. It can positively influence the microclimate and develop the landscape, although most of the studies investigating hydropower developments selected locations where habi-tats and ecosystems were fragile. Another study (Saraf et al., 2001) suggested that pumped hydro could be environmentally useful, since it provides an opportunity to recharge and replenish groundwater, which is an important process in sustainable groundwater management.

3.2.2. Socio-economic drivers Twenty-five of the reviewed studies discussed various socio-

economically stimulating factors for the development of pumped en-ergy storage under the cluster of SEDs, which are described in this sec-tion (see Table 1).

3.2.2.1. Energy arbitrage (SED1). The reviewed studies suggest that pumped hydro is a strong source of revenue generation (Deane et al., 2010). The pumped hydro utilises the cheap electricity from the utility grid during off-peak hours to transport water uphill. This water would be plunged during peak hours to generate electricity to be sold at higher rates. This method of trading on energy arbitrage opportunities strongly attracts energy stockholders. Over the years, with improvements in technology, the cost of electricity from renewable sources has been plummeting, and these sources are believed to be even cheaper than fossil fuels (Ram et al., 2018). This has been true for the pumped hydro technology, although capital costs are still higher (this is usually site-specific). However, cheap operation and maintenance costs make it lucrative for long-term commercial use in addition to supplying cheap electricity.

3.2.2.2. Rural development (SED2). Developmental projects such as PHES usually create numerous job opportunities, especially for locals, during construction and operation. This attracts local populations however, opposition for various social or political reasons is common in a developmental project, therefore the rural development has great so-cial importance, and this has been reported in the reviewed studies (Cebotari and Benedek, 2017). The reviewed studies further highlighted the theme of business opportunities from hydro projects, mostly in developing countries, as a significant social driving factor. These busi-ness opportunities include uplifting tourism (as more people might visit project sites for academic and recreational purposes), fishing or fish farming and property rentals in the proximity of the project sites. Moreover, the local contractors may also receive a fair share for providing materials and other necessary services during the construction phase. Various types of economic prosperity other than job and business opportunities accompany development projects of PHES in rural areas, as the location for PHES is often in remote areas that lack basic facilities such as road and infrastructure, schools, and hospitals. Therefore, the development of PHES reciprocally improves roads and other infra-structure and recreational facilities, and the sharing of revenues and the payment of local taxes are positive economic indicators for rural development.

3.2.2.3. Proximity and cross-functional characteristics (SED3). Favour-able and socially acceptable site conditions allowing a configuration of PHES plants and the construction of integrated grid systems in close proximity would significantly reduce power transmission losses, such as anywhere in the range of 8–15% (Glasnovic and Margeta, 2011), as excerpted from the reviewed studies. The studies reported various other cross-functional abilities, such as water for irrigation and drinking, especially from the run of river-type PHES plants, as a possible driver for the construction of a pumped hydro project in far-off locations.

3.3. Global weight analysis results of the identified drivers

Among the drivers, pumped hydro storage as daily storage (TED2.1),

under the utility-scale storage cluster, was the most important driver, with a global weight of 0.148. Pumped hydro’s ability to generate rev-enue (SED1.1), under the energy arbitrage cluster, was the second most prominent driver, with a global weight of 0.096. This is followed by pumped hydro’s ability to support renewable energy sources (TED1.1), under the grid resilience cluster, with a global weight of 0.091. Fig. 2 shows the determined global weight for TEDs and SEDs that are placed in a precedence rank with specified colour codes for TEDs (dark blue) and SEDs (dark grey). Where the x-axis represents the drivers at the item level and the y-axis represents the obtained global weight of the drivers. The details on the individual and global weights of the driving factors and items are provided in Appendix B (Table B1).

3.4. Comparing PHES drivers from developed with developing countries

The research findings revealed that most drivers for PHES applica-tion are identical in developed and developing countries, except that the number of times they are mentioned is uneven for each cluster. Fig. 3 provides comparative knowledge related to the TEDs and SEDs in developed versus developing countries. In this figure, the number of studies on TED1 (grid resilience), TED3 (sustainability), TED4 (land-scape characteristics) and SED1 (energy arbitrage) in developed coun-tries were noticeably higher than those in developing countries. These results imply that developed countries are persuaded by the integration of pumped hydro based on renewable energy into existing energy sys-tems for cleaner power production. These countries are also motivated to achieve grid stability, exploiting existing reservoirs for PHES and its long lifespan and deploying it in their territories for techno- environmental reasons. Revenue generation and supplying cheap elec-tricity to the population are arguably the core SEDs for the development of pumped hydro storage in developed countries compared to devel-oping countries.

However, studies from developing countries are more attentive to-wards drivers such as TED2 (utility-scale storage), TED5 (auxiliary ser-vices), SED2 (rural development) and SED3 (proximity and cross- functional characteristics). This shows that, compared to developed countries, developing countries are more attracted to pumped hydro development for its energy storage, flood and sediment control and groundwater recharging for techno-environmental reasons. The uplift-ing of rural populations through job and business opportunities, estab-lishing electricity facilities in close proximity to these populations and achieving access to irrigation and drinking water sources are the endorsing socio-economic factors behind PHES development in devel-oping nations. Further, see Appendix C (Table C1) on PHES driver comparison for developed versus developing countries.

3.5. Categorisation of PHES barriers

As a result of a full review of the included studies, several techno- environmental and socio-economic themes emerged as main barriers to PHES development. The barriers under each techno-environmental and socio-economic category of factors were sub-divided and clustered by theme. The following sections describe the engendered negative factors for PHES, whereas the sub-themes follow the precedence ranking based on the number of times they were mentioned in the reviewed studies.

3.5.1. Techno-environmental barriers Forty-seven of the reviewed studies discussed various inhibiting

factors under the cluster of TEBs that either slow or completely block the development of PHES. The themes identified are presented in this sec-tion (see Table 2).

3.5.1.1. Lacking infrastructure (TEB1). This was the foremost barrier cited in the reviewed studies. The absence of roads and transmission

S. Ali et al.


6

lines that prevents access to cheap surplus power is a technical barrier, which in turn delays the development of PHES; this delay has financial consequences. Having an infrastructure of roads and power transmission in proximity is beneficial in several ways. First, it allows easy access to the supply materials required during construction and maintenance phases; without this infrastructure, building new roads would increase the initial cost of the projects. Second, access to nearby transmission lines or a power utility grid is required to transport power, first when there is surplus power in a grid that would be used to pump the water to the upper reservoir and second when the grid requires power to balance the loads by utilising stored water to generate power. However, the unavailability of surplus power causes the facility to be dysfunctional, as power for pumping is mostly available between midnight and early morning. This reduces the overall output from these pumping stations, as mentioned in one of the studies (Sivakumar et al., 2013) in India. This study also reported that during national holidays and weekends, the pumping station in their study obtained a greater power share in the utility grid to operate machines such as water pumps. The closure of industrial sectors and a power surge during the rainy season signifi-cantly reduced the load on this utility grid, as electrically fed agricul-tural pumps were not used. Therefore, the absence of road and, more significantly, the absence of a transmission network may be technically and financially demanding to PHES projects.

3.5.1.2. Landscape topology (TEB2). This was the second most reported precluding factor in the literature. The topography of a site decides the type, height (head or elevation), slope and shape of a dam, the head to length (H/L) ratios and the amount of earthwork required to build it (Lu et al., 2018). The head is the minimum elevation difference between the upper and the lower reservoirs (closed-loop system) or the river, sea, or stream (open-loop system). Having a high head means less construction is required and equipment costs are lower, and vice versa (Kucukali, 2014). A mild slope of the surface reduces the time and cost required to

cut and fill the surface while constructing an artificial reservoir. Therefore, areas with a slope of more than 10%, for example, are a barring factor. The H/L ratio is the ratio between the gross head and the horizontal distance that separates the two reservoirs of the PHES and is usually 10/2 for most PHES projects. Having a higher H/L ratio means more hydraulic losses and a high cost of excavation and construction (Kucukali, 2014), so landscape topology has technical and financial implications on pumped hydro projects.

3.5.1.3. Land acquisition challenges (TEB3). Land acquisition chal-lenges, such as land use, vegetation clearing and land ownership, are environmental complications of pumped hydro development. Usually, land use for a project such as this is meticulously planned. There must be no interference in protected lands or forests, river systems, urban or rural settlements or intensive agriculture, national parks, or areas of historical or cultural value. Violating these guidelines is often discour-aged environmentally and socially; otherwise, this violation complicates project development (Blakers et al., 2017). One study even mentioned that potential sites intersecting with moving transmission lines are a conceivable constraint, as they are expensive and disruptive. Therefore, abstaining from building at such sites is highly favourable (Fitzgerald et al., 2012). Landownership issues were also reported in one of the studies (Sovacool et al., 2011) as a land acquisition barrier, which means the locals claim ownership of uninhabited lands, or they intentionally move into the designated project area to collect compensation money, building temporary accommodation shelters or structures before con-struction work begins.

3.5.1.4. Water issues (TEB4). Water issues were the fourth most re-ported barrier in pursuance of pumped hydro project development. For the studied papers, water issues were emphasised more in developing countries when compared to developed countries. The reviewed studies captured various themes in this regard, such as water availability and

Fig. 2. Global weight analysis representation for drivers.

Fig. 3. Driver comparison for developed versus developing countries.

S. Ali et al.


7

quality, water loss, conflict of interest with the local water supply (for open-loop systems), loss of oxygen and other hydrological effects. A high volume of water is normally required to fill the reservoirs. Most studies identified water availability as a key challenge for the development of PHES; as expected, studies where water scarcity is more prevalent such as Jordan, Iran and Cameroon, indicated this issue being of paramount importance (Droogers et al., 2012). Transporting water from a long distance is expensive, and nearby river or stream availability is un-common at potentially available sites. Leakage and water evaporation loss are yet another issue, which is partly compensated by rainwater and occasional water replenishment. The geographical location of any PHES requires consideration for leakage and evaporation effects on life cycle performance; usually, countries near the equator have much lower evaporation (Seager et al., 2003). Some environmental groups in Hud-son Highlands, USA, obstructed the construction of a pumped hydro facility on grounds that posed a threat to the local water (Yang and Jackson, 2011). Some studies also mentioned that pumped hydro res-ervoirs spoil the quality of surface and underground water (Lu et al., 2020), as stagnant water might result in water-borne diseases, especially in tropical areas (Koch, 2002). Oxygen loss in water was reported in the Richard B. Russell Dam and a conventional hydropower station in South Carolina, where an oxygen injection system was installed to compensate for this issue (Yang and Jackson, 2011). The hydrological impacts of

PHES on concentration levels of heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, zinc and copper has been determined as an issue (Provis, 2019).

3.5.1.5. Geological faults (TEB5). The reviewed studies described geological faults as a technical constraint on the development of pumped hydro facilities. These faults are no longer frequently considered. However, more detailed future studies on large-scale pumped hydro facilities should consider geological constraints such as active faults, large-scale faults and fracture zones and the presence of permeable bedrock, such as in karstic areas, in the lining of the reservoirs. This may increase the overall construction costs (Kucukali, 2014). Screening of these faults is crucial to the construction of underground waterways (tunnel and shaft) and control rooms. Seismic activity and large-scale landslide areas are other factors entailing consideration while executing a pumped hydro project (de Carvalho and do Carmo, 2007).

3.5.1.6. Biodiversity loss (TEB6). The studies highlighted biodiversity loss related to pumped hydropower development as a prominent envi-ronmental barrier to the development of PHES. The participants across studies cited the environmental impacts on birds and fisheries and temperature changes and soil erosions. For example, an environmental activist against the Hudson River project in the USA blocked its

Table 2 Categorisation of barriers to the deployment of PHES applications.

Main theme Code Factors NoS Code Items NoS

Techno-environmental barriers (47 studies) TEB1 Lacking infrastructure 26 TEB1.1 Transmission lines 23 TEB1.2 Roads 15 TEB1.3 System integration 1 TEB1.4 Lacking surplus power 1

TEB2 Landscape topology 25 TEB2.1 Head 25 TEB2.2 H/L 13 TEB2.3 Slope 10 TEB2.4 Landfill works 5

TEB3 Land acquisition challenges 21 TEB3.1 Land use 16 TEB3.2 Vegetation clearing 5 TEB3.3 Land ownership 2

TEB4 Water issues 20 TEB4.1 Availability 12 TEB4.2 Quality 6 TEB4.3 Leakage loss and evaporation 5 TEB4.4 Local supply 3 TEB4.5 Hydrological effects 2 TEB4.6 Oxygen loss in water 1

TEB5 Geological faults 16 TEB5.1 Seismic activities 16 TEB5.2 Landslide 1

TEB6 Biodiversity loss 15 TEB6.1 Aquatic life and spawning 12 TEB6.2 Birds loss 3 TEB6.3 Temperature change 1 TEB6.4 Soil erosion 1

Socio-economic barriers (45 studies) SEB1 Project investment 35 SEB1.1 High capital cost 29 SEB1.2 High payback period and cost overruns 10 SEB1.3 Operation costs (Grid fee, water fee) 7 SEB1.4 Land compensations 5

SEB2 Public opposition 24 SEB2.1 Acceptance (Inundation public) 15 SEB2.2 Forced displacements 13 SEB2.3 Affect fisheries business 13 SEB2.4 Awareness 10 SEB2.5 Not in my backyard 7 SEB2.6 Lengthy const. time 6 SEB2.7 Scattered houses 1

SEB3 Institutional challenges 13 SEB3.1 Absence legal and policy framework 13 SEB3.2 Institutional coordination 3

SEB4 Political government interference 12 SEB4.1 Lack of political will 10 SEB4.2 Bureaucratic drags 4 SEB4.3 Corruption 2 SEB4.4 Forest and Land departments 1

SEB5 Market failure 9 SEB5.1 Lack of skilled human resources and technology 7 SEB5.2 Controlled energy sector 2 SEB5.3 Market rule uncertainties 2

SEB6 Sponsorship 8 SEB6.1 Finance procurement challenges 6 SEB6.2 Lack of private investor 3

*Note: Extended version of this Table with references at item level is supplied in the Appendix A (Table A2).

S. Ali et al.


8

construction based on claims that it posed a threat to the fisheries business (Yang and Jackson, 2011). Similarly, a study in Turkey flagged a PHES construction site for its sensitivity to biodiversity loss and asked to ensure the protection of critical habitats, threatened species and spawning areas (Kucukali, 2014). A study in Nepal also warned that the run from river projects could pose a threat to fish migrations due to the disturbance of river ecology (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019). One of the studies also warned that PHES might impact on bird habitats (Lu et al., 2020), and PHES induced soil erosion issues was reported in another study (Lu et al., 2018). One of the studies noted that creating large reservoirs or lakes might change the local climate by increasing the lowest temperature and decreasing the highest temperature; hence, the region would become colder (Gajic et al., 2019). The issues described in these studies could agitate locals and environmental groups.

3.5.2. Socio-economic barriers Forty-five of the reviewed studies discussed various SEBs to the

development of PHES, such as high capital costs and social and political opposition. These themes are presented in this section (see Table 2).

3.5.2.1. Project investment (SEB1). This was the most cited SEB in the reviewed studies that considered capital costs, operation and mainte-nance costs, the payback period and other economic parameters as complex financial hurdles to pumped hydro projects. The capital in-vestment of pumped hydro projects is usually site-specific, and some studies have stated that it varies from €600–3,000/kW (Deane et al., 2010). This cost is for land, road construction, development costs (project study and management, as this, comprises of 7–10% of the initial costs), equipment, control rooms, secondary electromechanical equipment, grid connection and internal cabling and the transformer’s initial cost (Kapsali et al., 2012). The cited studies mentioned that an additional cost is likely to be incurred in securing financing for all the capital costs. Operation and maintenance costs might include the costs of maintaining the facility and pumping water back to the upper reser-voir. However, this cost can vary depending on the time when the power is borrowed from the grid to run the pumping machine. Furthermore, open-loop-configured plants might be subject to a water usage fee for using water from a river or lake (Bjarne Steffen, 2012). The wages and salaries of workers, engineers and the management team are yet other costs involved. Further costs would also be required to compensate businesses such as agricultural and fishery businesses in the inundated public downstream. The payback period required to repay loans is believed to be another hurdle in developing pumped hydro, as it requires at least 2.5–5.5 years (Connolly et al., 2012).

3.5.2.2. Public opposition (SEB2). This was the second most reported barrier in the literature. The relevant studies discussed public accep-tance, lack of awareness, not in my backyard syndrome, business impact, forced displacement, construction time complaints and scattered set-tlement issues, among other issues. Public debate and dispute in pumped hydro developmental projects are relatively common. A study (Yang and Jackson, 2011) described that its local environmental group objected to the profitability and the concept of energy storage itself, calling it a ‘perpetual money machine’ and said it is not renewable, rather a power arbitrage thus preventing the acceptance of PHES systems. The public can also oppose PHES construction, saying that stagnant water has a bad smell and causes disease from mosquitos, and there is a risk of bursting during earthquakes. Another study (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019) claimed that these oppositions are mostly due to a lack of awareness of the ecological and financial benefits of the projects. Another study (Sovacool et al., 2011) claimed that the public in rural areas are unaware of the timeline for project completion and are bothered by the prolonged construction time (10 years or more in some circumstances), and they thus raise concerns. When potential construction sites are found in rural areas with scattered housing or low population density, these areas are

disrupted for the greater good and their people are forced to relocate, which is often met with opposition from the anti-dam communities, as reported in Nepal (Sovacool et al., 2011). Disturbing fisheries and other benefits linked to the locals residing downstream are also potential reasons for public dispute of hydro projects. This makes the approval and construction of these projects controversial and time-consuming.

3.5.2.3. Institutional challenges (SEB3). The reviewed studies under-scored the absence of legal frameworks, lack of decision making and lack of coordination among the participating institutions as potential barriers to pumped hydro storage systems. For example, NHA (2013) docu-mented the extensive delays in obtaining a licence for a new PHES project from the various regulatory authorities across various jurisdic-tional levels, such as the state and then federal level. This issue was also reported in in developed countries (e.g., the USA), often making it cost inhibitive to deliver an economically viable PHES project (Deane et al., 2010). Similar problems can be found in developing countries such as Nepal, where the delayed response of institutions and lack of coordi-nation, in addition to the impacts of the decade-long civil war, has incapacitated their purpose of hydro energy utilization. The lack of unified planning and decision making has exacerbated the issues with hydro project development, in addition to wasting social resources (Ghimire and Kim, 2018).

3.5.2.4. Political government interference (SEB4). The studies underlined that government lobbying, bureaucratic drag and corruption are barriers to the construction of pumped energy facilities. They determined that having different ruling political parties at the state and federal level is likely to create a rift for political gain that could delay the timely execution of projects. Bureaucrats are administrative officials, and they reportedly pose administrative hurdles due to a lack of coordination between the heads of different departments. They might also purposely delay the project’s start time by slackening the bureaucratic system to extort more bribes, which also reduce motivation (Locatelli et al., 2017). One of the studies (Kear and Chapman, 2013) mentioned that a pumped hydro project would allegedly be opposed by the Forest and Bird department due to the destruction it would cause to the ecological value of the existing landscape.

3.5.2.5. Market failures (SEB5). This cluster includes the state- controlled energy sector, market rule uncertainties and a lack of skil-led labour, which were reported by the reviewed studies. Skilled labour, including engineers, energy and policy experts and technical diploma holders, are vital to the construction of power plants. However, the availability of skilled labour mainly depends on the educational systems of the country. Due to a struggling economy, developing countries mostly lack local specialists who can conduct feasibility studies or help in the construction of hydro projects, and in procuring outside labour, high salaries and perks increase the overall costs of the project (Jaber, 2012). Liberalising electricity markets expedites the development of energy projects (Deane et al., 2010), and failing to do so has negative impacts. Uncertain market rules are a prime reason for low investment in projects, so this is also considered a barrier.

3.5.2.6. Project financing (SEB6). The construction of a new pumped hydro project is subject to the availability of funds, either from the government, private sector investors or multiple financing sources, and it is a challenging and complex task (IHA, 2018b). Very few organisa-tions or private investors agree to finance such long-term projects due to licensing timeframe uncertainties or long payback periods (NHA, 2013). A study (IHA, 2018b) determined that presently, most PHES systems in operation are financed under public sector ownership.

S. Ali et al.


9

3.6. Global weight analysis results of the identified barriers

Among barriers, the top-weighted item was high capital cost (SEB1.1), under the cluster of project investment, with a global weight of 0.0963. Seismic activities (TEB5.1), under the cluster of Geological faults, were the second most weighted barrier, with a global weight of 0.0625. This was followed by the absence of transmission lines (TEB1.1), under lacking infrastructure, as the third most prominent barrier, with a global weight of 0.0620. Fig. 4 shows the determined global weight for TEBs and SEBs that are placed in a precedence rank with specified colour codes for TEBs (dark blue) and SEBs (dark grey). The details on the in-dividual and global weights of the barring factors and items are provided in Appendix B (Table B2).

3.7. Comparing PHES barriers from developed with developing countries

For barriers (see Fig. 5), a similar response to drivers was recorded, where the techno-environmental barriers to PHES reveal that studies in developed nations compared to developing nations focus more on lack of infrastructure (TEB1), landscape topology (TEB2) and geology-related issues (TEB5) as potential barriers to the installation of PHES. On the other hand, studies in developing nations compared to developed na-tions emphasise TEB3 (land acquisition challenges), TEB4 (emerging water issues) and TEB6 (biodiversity losses) as potential barriers to executing PHES. The SEBs to PHES development identified during this study were more apparent in studies conducted in developing countries than developed countries and include SEB1 (Project investment), SEB2 (public opposition), SEB3 (institutional challenges), SEB4 (political government interference) and SEB5 (market failures). However, SEB6 (sponsorship) was reported the same number of times in developed and developing countries. These findings for SEBs imply that it is difficult for developing countries to secure funding and investments for the devel-opment of PHES, coupled with public and political opposition, corrup-tion and lack of institutions. Although it appears that developed countries report these issues less often, they are there. Further, see Ap-pendix C (Table C2). on PHES barrier comparison for developed versus developing countries.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, a wide range of techno-economic and socio- environmental drivers for and barriers to pumped hydro applications have been systematically analysed, synthesised and tabulated, following PRISMA guidelines. This study reviewed the published literature over the past 20 years (2000–2020). It used a forward search strategy of re-cords in the computerised databases WOS and Scopus. Backward

reference search was also used to include the records that might have missed.

This study also synthesised the different methodologies that were implemented in relation to PHES applications and found that feasibility studies were the most reported method. In these studies, a GIS–MCDM algorithm was frequently used. Hybrid wind–PHES system to energise urban and rural areas was the most reported subject, as PHES provides the storage mechanism crucial to buffer the volatility from the wind supply. This study also discovered that there was a growing interest in the closed-loop system due to greater certainty in gaining an operating license, since closed systems don’t interfere with water supply security and typically have a lower environmental impact.

The important drivers for PHES were its ability to act as utility-scale storage, generate revenue by pumping water at cheap prices during off- peak times and then selling it at higher rates during peak hours, and their ability to support volatile renewable energy sources. The main barriers to PHES development were a lack of supporting infrastructures such as roads and transmission lines, unfavourable topography such as low head or H/L ratio, high capital costs, high operation and mainte-nance costs, and long payback periods. The overall findings of this study have been synthesised in an illustration (Fig. 6). In this figure, the drivers, and the barriers of PHES are presented and their relative sig-nificance prioritized based on the findings in a clockwise direction, whereas the bi-directional arrow sign (⇆) at the centre represents the pumping modes of a PHES. The inner-circle represents TEDs and SEDs whereas the outer circle represents the TEBs and SEBs.

While this study outlines various drivers for and barriers to the development of PHES, it has limitations that could be addressed by future researchers. This review primarily retrieved records only from WOS and Scopus databases, however, other databases could be used to search articles not indexed by WOS and Scopus. Articles in other lan-guages and/or with access restrictions could also be used as most of these services are available only to registered users. The records profiling and coding of drivers and barriers were guided by related past studies and the authors experience. Future work could solicit expert stakeholder opinion through extensive surveys and in-depth interviews in order to verify the barrier and driver factors, their categorisation, and their relative significance. Overall, by systematically collecting and reviewing the literature, this paper has provided a sophisticated un-derstanding of the existing drivers for and barriers to PHES applications in developed and developing countries as well as the ongoing method-ological trends. The findings of this study will be of significant use to researchers and developers of PHES in the future.

Fig. 4. Global weight analysis representation for barriers.

S. Ali et al.


10

CRediT author statement

Shahid Ali: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing– Original draft preparation. Rodney A. Stewart: Supervision – reviewing and editing. Oz Sahin: Co-supervision – reviewing and editing.

Declaration of competing interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Fig. 5. Barrier comparison for developed versus developing countries.

Fig. 6. Summary of the drivers and barriers influencing the implementation of PHES projects.

S. Ali et al.


11

Appendix A. Categorisation of drivers and barriers

Table A.1 Categorisation of drivers to the deployment of PHES applications.

Main theme Code Factors NoS Code Items NoS Reviewed studies

Techno- environmental drivers (51 studies)

TED1 Grid resilience 42 TED1.1 Support renewables 38 (Abdellatif et al., 2018), (Abdon et al., 2017), (Albadi et al., 2017), (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Canales et al., 2015), (Deane et al., 2010), (Duque et al., 2011), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Hall and Lee, 2014), (Hessami and Bowly, 2011), (Hunt et al., 2017), (IHA, 2018b), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al, 2008, 2012), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Lu et al., 2020), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Ma et al., 2014), (Ming et al., 2013), (Murage and Anderson, 2014), (NHA, 2013), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Padron et al., 2011), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Provis, 2019), (Rehman et al., 2015), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Sivakumar et al., 2013), (Soha et al., 2017), (Tuohy and O’Malley, 2011), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

TED1.2 Grid stabilization 20 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Canales et al., 2015), (Connolly et al., 2010), (Deane et al., 2010), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Hunt et al., 2017), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Lu et al., 2018), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Ma et al., 2014), (Ming et al., 2013), (NHA, 2013), (Padron et al., 2011), (Provis, 2019), (Rehman et al., 2015), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

TED1.3 Black and quick start 12 (Canales et al., 2015), (Deane et al., 2010), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Hall and Lee, 2014), (Jaber, 2012), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Kucukali, 2014), (Ming et al., 2013), (Padron et al., 2011), (Rehman et al., 2015), (Soha et al., 2017)

TED1.4 Ancillary services 8 (Abdellatif et al., 2018), (Deane et al., 2010), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Javed et al., 2020), (Lu et al., 2018), (Ming et al., 2013), (NHA, 2013), (Rehman et al., 2015)

TED1.5 Support non-renewables 5 (Deane et al., 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2008), (Kucukali, 2014), (Ming et al., 2013), (Sivakumar et al., 2013)

TED1.6 Solution to grid congestion

2 (Deane et al., 2010), (Ming et al., 2013)

TED2 Utility-scale storage 35 TED2.1 Daily storage 33 (Abdellatif et al., 2018), (Abdon et al., 2017), (Albadi et al., 2017), (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Canales et al., 2015), (Connolly et al., 2010), (Deane et al., 2010), (Duque et al., 2011), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Hessami and Bowly, 2011), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2008), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Ma et al., 2014), (Ming et al., 2013), (Murage and Anderson, 2014), (NHA, 2013), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Padron et al., 2011), (Pali and Vadhera, 2018), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Provis, 2019), (Rehman et al., 2015), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Sivakumar et al., 2013), (Tuohy and O’Malley, 2011), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

TED2.2 Seasonal storage 5 (Abdon et al., 2017), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Hunt et al., 2017), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kear and Chapman, 2013)

TED3 Sustainability 24 TED3.1 Clean Energy 21 (Abdon et al., 2017), (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Brancucci Martinez-Anido and De Vries, 2013), (Canales et al., 2015), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Jaber, 2012), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Koch, 2002), (Lu et al., 2020), (Ma et al., 2014), (Ming et al., 2013), (NHA, 2013), (Padron et al., 2011), (Provis, 2019), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Soha et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

TED3.2 Long lifetime 6 (Abdellatif et al., 2018), (Deane et al., 2010), (Hall, Douglas, and Lee, 2014), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Ming et al., 2013), (Soha et al., 2017)

TED4 Landscape characteristics

23 TED4.1 Conventional hydro or lower reservoir

13 (Deane et al., 2010), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Hall and Lee, 2014), (Jaber, 2012), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Padron et al., 2011), (Pali and Vadhera, 2018), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Soha et al., 2017), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

TED4.2 Mountain topography and existing rivers/ streams

9 (Blakers et al., 2017), (Deane et al., 2010), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Hessami and Bowly, 2011), (Hunt et al., 2017), (Jaber, 2012), (Javed et al., 2020), (Sivakumar et al., 2013), (Sovacool et al., 2011)

TED4.3 Coal mines 4 (Devi et al., 2018), (Lu et al., 2018), (Provis, 2019), (Soha et al., 2017)

TED5 Auxiliary services 5 TED5.1 Flood and sediments control

4 (Hunt et al., 2017), (Jaber, 2012), (Koch, 2002), (Saraf et al., 2001)

(continued on next page)

S. Ali et al.


12

Table A.1 (continued )


TED5.2 Breeding place for amphibians

1 Soha et al. (2017)

TED5.3 Groundwater recharge and replenishments

1 Saraf et al. (2001)

Socio-economic drivers (30 studies)

SED1 Energy arbitrage 18 SED1.1 Revenue generation 12 (Deane et al., 2010), (Duque et al., 2011), (Hessami and Bowly, 2011), (Hunt et al., 2017), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Koch, 2002), (Murage and Anderson, 2014), (NHA, 2013), (Provis, 2019), (Soha et al., 2017), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

SED1.2 Cheap electricity 11 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Brancucci Martinez-Anido and De Vries, 2013), (Deane et al., 2010), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al, 2008, 2012), (Koch, 2002), (Ma et al., 2014), (Pali and Vadhera, 2018), (Provis, 2019)

SED2 Rural development 10 SED2.1 Job opportunities 6 (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Koch, 2002), (Saraf et al., 2001), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

SED2.2 Business opportunities 6 (Hunt et al., 2017), (Jaber, 2012), (Koch, 2002), (Saraf et al., 2001), (Wu et al., 2019)

SED2.3 Quality of life for rural population

4 (Jaber, 2012), (Javed et al., 2020), (Koch, 2002), (Ming et al., 2013)

SED3 Proximity and cross- functional characteristics

8 SED3.1 Nearby demand centre 5 (Canales et al., 2015), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Lu and Wang, 2017)

SED3.2 Irrigation and drinking water

3 (Hunt et al., 2017), (Javed et al., 2020), (Koch, 2002)

Table A.2 Categorisation of barriers to the deployment of PHES applications.


Techno-environmental barriers (47 studies)

TEB1 Lacking infrastructure

26 TEB1.1 Transmission lines 23 (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (Blakers et al., 2017), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Hessami and Bowly, 2011), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Lu et al., 2020), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (NHA, 2013), (Nzotcha et al., 2019) (Provis, 2019), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

TEB1.2 Roads 15 (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Provis, 2019), (Soha et al., 2017), (Sovacool et al., 2011)

TEB1.3 System integration 1 Lu et al. (2020) TEB1.4 Lacking surplus power 1 Sivakumar et al. (2013)

TEB2 Landscape topology

25 TEB2.1 Head 25 (Abdon et al., 2017), (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Blakers et al., 2017), (Canales et al., 2015), (Connolly et al., 2010), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Hall and Lee, 2014), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Katsaprakakis et al, 2008, 2012), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Rogeau et al., 2017), (Soha et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019), (Yi et al., 2010)

TEB2.2 H/L 13 (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Hall and Lee, 2014), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2008), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Soha et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

TEB2.3 Slope 10 (Abdon et al., 2017), (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Lu et al., 2018), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Soha et al., 2017)

TEB2.4 Landfill works 5 (Abdon et al., 2017), (Connolly et al., 2010), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Nzotcha et al., 2019)

TEB3 Land acquisition challenges

21 TEB3.1 Land use 16 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Blakers et al., 2017), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Gimeno-Gutierrez and Lacal-Arantegui, 2015), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Provis, 2019), (Rogeau et al.,


S. Ali et al.


13



2017), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Soha et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

TEB3.2 Vegetation clearing 5 (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Lu et al., 2020), (Normyle and Pittock, 2019), (Nzotcha et al., 2019)

TEB3.3 Land ownership 2 (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (Sovacool et al., 2011) TEB4 Water issues 20 TEB4.1 Availability 12 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Canales et al., 2015), (Jaber, 2012),

(Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Lu et al., 2018, 2020), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (NHA, 2013), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Yang and Jackson, 2011), (Yi et al., 2010)

TEB4.2 Quality 6 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Koch, 2002), (Lu et al., 2020), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

TEB4.3 Leakage loss and evaporation

5 (Blakers et al., 2017), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Lu et al., 2018)

TEB4.4 Local supply 3 (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Sivakumar et al., 2013), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

TEB4.5 Hydrological effects 2 (Provis, 2019), (Wu et al., 2019) TEB4.6 Oxygen loss in water 1 Yang and Jackson (2011)

TEB5 Geological faults 16 TEB5.1 Seismic activities 16 (Abdon et al., 2017), (Ahmadi and Shamsai, 2009), (de Carvalho and do Carmo, 2007), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Kucukali, 2014), (Lu et al., 2018, 2020), (NHA, 2013), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Provis, 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017), (B. Steffen, 2012), (Wu et al., 2019)

TEB5.2 Landslide 1 (de Carvalho and do Carmo, 2007) TEB6 Biodiversity loss 15 TEB6.1 Aquatic life and

spawning 12 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Koch,

2002), (Kucukali, 2014), (Normyle and Pittock, 2019), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Rytwinski et al., 2017), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019), (Wang et al., 2012), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

TEB6.2 Birds loss 3 (Lu et al., 2020), (Normyle and Pittock, 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017)

TEB6.3 Temperature change 1 Gajic et al. (2019) TEB6.4 Soil erosion 1 Lu et al. (2018)

Socio-economic barriers (45 studies)

SEB1 Project investment 35 SEB1.1 High capital cost 29 (Abdellatif et al., 2018), (Abdon et al., 2017), (Albadi et al., 2017), (Anagnostopoulos and Papantonis, 2012), (Blakers et al., 2017), (Brancucci Martinez-Anido and De Vries, 2013), (Canales et al., 2015), (Connolly et al., 2010), (Deane et al., 2010), (Fitzgerald et al., 2012), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Hessami and Bowly, 2011), (IHA, 2018b), (Jaber, 2012), (Javed et al., 2020), (Kapsali et al., 2012), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Lu and Wang, 2017), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (NHA, 2013), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Tuohy and O’Malley, 2011), (Wang et al., 2012), (Wu et al., 2019)

SEB1.2 High payback period and cost overruns

10 (Blakers et al., 2017), (IHA, 2018b), (Javed et al., 2020), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (Katsaprakakis et al., 2012), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019)

SEB1.3 Operation costs (Grid fee, water fee)

7 (Abdellatif et al., 2018), (Brancucci Martinez-Anido and De Vries, 2013), (Kapsali et al., 2012; Kapsali and Kaldellis, 2010), (NHA, 2013), (Shimray et al., 2017), (B. Steffen, 2012)

SEB1.4 Land compensations 5 (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019), (Yi et al., 2010)

SEB2 Public opposition 24 SEB2.1 Acceptance (Inundation public)

15 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Jaber, 2012), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Koch, 2002), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Prasad et al., 2013), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (B. Steffen, 2012), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019), (Wu et al., 2019), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

SEB2.2 Forced displacements 13 (de Carvalho and do Carmo, 2007), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Koch, 2002), (Kucukali, 2014), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Rytwinski et al., 2017), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019), (Wang et al., 2012), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019), (Yi et al., 2010)

SEB2.3 Affect fisheries business 13 (de Carvalho and do Carmo, 2007), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Koch, 2002), (Kucukali, 2014), (Nzotcha et al., 2019), (Rytwinski et al., 2017), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019), (Wang et al., 2012), (Wu et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019), (Yi et al., 2010)

SEB2.4 Awareness 10 (Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Ghorbani et al., 2019), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Koch, 2002), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Wu et al., 2019), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

SEB2.5 Not in my backyard 7


S. Ali et al.


14



(Ardizzon et al., 2014), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Jimenez Capilla et al., 2016), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Wang et al., 2012)

SEB2.6 Lengthy const. time 6 (Lu and Wang, 2017), (NHA, 2013), (Shimray et al., 2017), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (B. Steffen, 2012), (Wang et al., 2012)

SEB2.7 Scattered houses 1 Ghimire and Kim (2018) SEB3 Institutional

challenges 13 SEB3.1 Absence legal and

policy framework 13 (Deane et al., 2010), (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018),

(IHA, 2018b), (Jaber, 2012), (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Koch, 2002), (Kucukali, 2014), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (NHA, 2013), (Provis, 2019), (Sovacool et al., 2011), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019)

SEB3.2 Institutional coordination

3 (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Sovacool et al., 2011)

SEB4 Political government interference

12 SEB4.1 Lack of political will 10 (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Jaber, 2012), (Koch, 2002), (Ming et al., 2013), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Provis, 2019), (Suhardiman and Karki, 2019), (Yang and Jackson, 2011)

SEB4.2 Bureaucratic drags 4 (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Provis, 2019), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019)

SEB4.3 Corruption 2 (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Sovacool et al., 2011) SEB4.4 Forest and Land

departments 1 Kear and Chapman (2013)

SEB5 Market failure 9 SEB5.1 Lack of skilled human resources and technology

7 (Gajic et al., 2019), (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (Jaber, 2012), (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Sovacool et al., 2011)

SEB5.2 Controlled energy sector

2 (Deane et al., 2010), (Provis, 2019)

SEB5.3 Market rule uncertainties

2 (Gajic et al., 2019), (Kear and Chapman, 2013)

SEB6 Sponsorship 8 SEB6.1 Finance procurement challenges

6 (Ghimire and Kim, 2018), (IHA, 2018b), (Nasirov et al., 2015), (NHA, 2013), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019), (Sovacool et al., 2011)

SEB6.2 Lack of private investor 3 (Kear and Chapman, 2013), (Provis, 2019), (Seetharaman, Moorthy et al., 2019)

Appendix B. Global weight analysis for PHES drivers and barriers

Table B.1 Global weight analysis of drivers for the development of PHES applications.

Main theme Weight 1

Factors Weight 2

Items Weight 3 Global Weight

Relative Rank

Techno-environmental drivers (51 studies)

0.629 Grid resilience 0.325 Support renewables 0.447 0.091 3 Grid stabilization 0.235 0.048 8 Black and quick start 0.141 0.028 13 Ancillary services 0.094 0.019 17 Support non-renewables 0.058 0.012 20 Solution to grid congestion 0.023 0.004 21

Utility scale storage 0.271 Daily storage 0.868 0.148 1 Seasonal storage 0.131 0.022 16

Sustainability 0.186 Clean Energy 0.778 0.091 4 Long lifetime 0.222 0.026 14

Landscape characteristics 0.178 Conventional hydro or lower reservoir

0.500 0.056 6

Mountain topography and existing rivers/streams

0.346 0.038 9

Coal mines 0.153 0.017 18 Auxiliary services 0.038 Flood and sediments control 0.667 0.016 19

Breeding place for amphibians 0.167 0.004 22 Ground water recharge and replenishments

0.167 0.004 22


0.370 Energy arbitrage 0.500 Revenue generation 0.521 0.096 2 Cheap electricity 0.478 0.088 5

Rural development 0.278 Job opportunities 0.375 0.038 10 Business opportunities 0.375 0.038 10 Quality of life for rural population 0.250 0.025 15

Proximity and cross-functional characteristics

0.222 Nearby demand centre 0.625 0.051 7 Irrigation and drinking water 0.375 0.030 12

Overall sum

1.000 Total = 23 items

Note: 1) The numbers are rounded up to 3 decimals only, 2) Global weight = Weight 1 × Weight 2 × Weight 3. 3) Top 3 ranked drivers are shaded light grey.

S. Ali et al.


15

Table B.2 Global weight analysis of barriers to the development of PHES applications.

Main theme Weight 1

Factors Weight 2

Items Weight 3 Global Weight

Relative Rank

Techno-environmental barriers (47 studies)

0.510 Lacking infrastructure 0.211 Transmission lines 0.575 0.062 3 Roads 0.375 0.040 8 System integration 0.025 0.002 43 Lacking surplus power 0.025 0.002 43

Landscape topology 0.203 Head 0.471 0.048 6 H/L ratio 0.245 0.025 15 Slope 0.188 0.019 19 Landfill works 0.094 0.009 31

Land acquisition challenges

0.170 Land use 0.695 0.060 4 Vegetation clearing 0.217 0.018 20 Land ownership 0.086 0.007 35

Water issues 0.162 Availability 0.413 0.034 9 Quality 0.206 0.017 22 Leakage loss and evaporation 0.172 0.014 24 Local supply 0.103 0.008 32 Hydrological effects 0.068 0.005 37 Oxygen loss in water 0.034 0.002 42

Geological faults 0.130 Seismic activities 0.941 0.062 2 Landslide 0.058 0.003 38

Biodiversity loss 0.121 Aquatic life and spawning 0.705 0.043 7 Birds loss 0.176 0.010 29 Temperature change 0.058 0.003 39 Soil erosion 0.058 0.003 39

Socio-economic barriers (45 studies)

0.489 Project investment 0.346 High capital cost 0.568 0.096 1 High payback period and cost overruns

0.196 0.033 11

Operation costs (Grid fee, water fee) 0.137 0.023 16 Land compensations 0.098 0.016 23

Public opposition 0.237 Acceptance (Inundation public) 0.230 0.026 13 Forced displacements 0.200 0.023 17 Affect fisheries business 0.200 0.023 17 Awareness 0.153 0.017 21 Not in my backyard 0.107 0.012 27 Lengthy const. Time 0.092 0.010 30 Scattered houses 0.015 0.001 45

Institutional challenges 0.128 Absence legal and policy framework 0.812 0.051 5 Institutional coordination’s 0.187 0.011 28

Political government interference

0.118 Lack of political will 0.588 0.034 10 Bureaucratic drags 0.235 0.013 25 Corruption 0.117 0.006 36 Forest and Land departments 0.058 0.003 41

Market failure 0.089 Lack of skilled human resources and technology

0.636 0.027 12

Controlled energy sector 0.181 0.007 33 Market rule uncertainties 0.181 0.007 33

Sponsorship 0.079 Finance procurement challenges 0.667 0.025 14 Lack of private investor 0.333 0.012 26

Overall sum

1.000 Total = 45 items

Note: 1) The numbers are rounded up to 3 decimals only, 2) Global weight = Weight 1 × Weight 2 × Weight 3. 3) Top 3 ranked barriers are shaded light grey.

Appendix C. Comparison of drivers and barriers developed versus developing countries

Table C.1 Driver comparison for developed versus developing countries.

Main theme NoS Code Factors NoS Nos Code Items NoS NoS

Developed Developing Developed Developing Developed Developing

Techno- environmental drivers (51 studies)

27 24 TED1 Grid resilience 42 23 19 TED1.1 Support renewables 38 21 17 TED1.2 Grid stabilization 20 11 9 TED1.3 Black and quick start 12 5 7 TED1.4 Ancillary services 8 3 5 TED1.5 Support non-renewables 5 2 3 TED1.6 Solution to grid congestion 2 1 1

TED2 Utility Scale Storage 35 16 19 TED2.1 Daily storage 33 15 18 TED2.2 Seasonal storage 5 3 2

TED3 Sustainability 24 15 9 TED3.1 Clean Energy 21 13 8 TED3.2 Long lifetime 6 4 2

TED4 Landscape characteristics

23 13 10 TED4.1 conventional hydro or lower reservoir

13 9 4

TED4.2 Mountain topography and existing rivers/streams

9 3 6


S. Ali et al.


16

Table C.1 (continued )

Main theme NoS Code Factors NoS Nos Code Items NoS NoS


TED4.3 Coal mines 4 3 1 TED5 Auxiliary services 5 2 3 TED5.1 Flood and sediments

control 4 1 3

TED5.2 Breeding place for amphibians

1 1 0

TED5.3 Ground water recharge and replenishments

1 0 1


16 14 SED1 Energy arbitrage 18 13 5 SED1.1 Revenue generation 12 10 2 SED1.2 Cheap electricity 11 8 3

SED2 Rural development 10 3 7 SED2.1 Job opportunities 6 3 3 SED2.2 Business opportunities 6 2 4 SED2.3 Quality of life for rural

population 4 1 3

SED3 Proximity and cross- functional characteristic

8 3 5 SED3.1 Nearby demand centre 5 2 3 SED3.2 Irrigation and drinking

water 3 1 2

Table C.2 Barrier comparison for developed versus developing countries.

Main theme NoS Code Factors NoS NoS Code Items NoS NoS


Techno- environmental barriers (47 studies)

25 22 TEB1 Lacking infrastructure

26 14 12 TEB1.1 Transmission lines

23 13 10

TEB1.2 Roads 15 9 6 TEB1.3 System

integration 1 0 1

TEB1.4 Lacking surplus power

1 0 1

TEB2 Landscape topology

25 14 11 TEB2.1 Head 25 14 11 TEB2.2 H/L 13 7 6 TEB2.3 Slope 10 7 3 TEB2.4 Landfill works 5 4 1

TEB3 Land acquisition challenges

21 10 11 TEB3.1 Land use 16 9 7 TEB3.2 vegetation

clearing 5 2 3

TEB3.3 Land ownership

2 0 2

TEB4 Water issues 20 9 11 TEB4.1 Availability 12 5 7 TEB4.2 Quality 6 4 2 TEB4.3 Leakage loss

and evaporation

5 4 1

TEB4.4 Local supply 3 1 2 TEB4.5 Hydrological

effects 2 1 1

TEB4.6 Oxygen loss in water

1 1 0

TEB5 Geological faults

16 9 7 TEB5.1 Seismic activities

16 9 7

TEB5.2 Landslide 1 1 0 TEB6 Biodiversity

loss 15 7 8 TEB6.1 Aquatic life

and spawning 12 6 6

TEB6.2 Birds loss 3 1 2 TEB6.3 Temperature

change 1 0 1

TEB6.4 Soil erosion 1 1 0 Socio-economic

barriers (45 studies)

23 22 SEB1 Project investment

35 16 19 SEB1.1 High capital cost

29 13 16

SEB1.2 High payback period and cost overruns

10 5 5

SEB1.3 Operation costs

7 5 2

SEB1.4 Land compensations

5 0 5

SEB2 Public opposition

24 8 16 SEB2.1 Acceptance (Inundation public)

15 5 10

SEB2.2 13 4 9


S. Ali et al.


17

Table C.2 (continued )

Main theme NoS Code Factors NoS NoS Code Items NoS NoS


Forced displacements

SEB2.3 Affect fisheries business

13 4 9

SEB2.4 Awareness 10 4 6 SEB2.5 Not in my

backyard 7 2 5

SEB2.6 Lengthy const. time

6 2 4

SEB2.7 Scattered houses

1 0 1

SEB3 Institutional challenges

13 6 7 SEB3.1 Absence legal and policy framework

13 6 7

SEB3.2 Institutional coordination’s

3 0 3

SEB4 Political government interference

12 4 8 SEB4.1 Lack of political will

10 3 7

SEB4.2 Bureaucratic drags

4 1 3

SEB4.3 Corruption 2 0 2 SEB4.4 Forest and

Land departments

1 1 0

SEB5 Market failure

9 3 6 SEB5.1 Lack of skilled human resources and technology

7 1 6

SEB5.2 Controlled energy sector

2 2 0

SEB5.3 Market rule uncertainties

2 1 1

SEB6 Sponsorship 8 4 4 SEB6.1 Finance procurement challenges

6 2 4

SEB6.2 Lack of private investor

3 2 1

Appendix D. Supplementary data

Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2021.100281.

References

Abdellatif, D., AbdelHady, R., Ibrahim, A.M., El-Zahab, E.A., 2018. Conditions for Economic Competitiveness of Pumped Storage Hydroelectric Power Plants in Egypt. Renewables Wind, Water, Sol. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-018-0048-1.

Abdon, A., Zhang, X., Parra, D., Patel, M.K., Bauer, C., Worlitschek, J., 2017. Techno- economic and environmental assessment of stationary electricity storage technologies for different time scales. Energy 139, 1173–1187. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.097.

Ahmadi, H., Shamsai, A., 2009. Preliminary site selection of pumped storage hydropower plants - a GIS-based approach. AUT J. Model. Simul. 11, 25–32. https://doi.org/ 10.22060/MISCJ.2009.237.

Albadi, M.H., Al-Busaidi, A.S., El-Saadany, E.F., 2017. Using PHES to facilitate wind power integration in isolated systems - case study. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Industrial Technology, pp. 469–474. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/ICIT.2017.7913276.

Ali, F., Srisuwan, C., Techato, K., Bennui, A., Suepa, T., Niammuad, D., 2020. Theoretical hydrokinetic power potential assessment of the u-Tapao river basin using GIS. Energies 13, 1749. https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071749.

Anagnostopoulos, J.S., Papantonis, D.E., 2012. Study of pumped storage schemes to support high RES penetration in the electric power system of Greece. Energy 45, 416–423. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2012.02.031.

Aneke, M., Wang, M., 2016. Energy storage technologies and real life applications – a state of the art review. Appl. Energy 179, 350–377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2016.06.097.

Ardizzon, G., Cavazzini, G., Pavesi, G., 2014. A new generation of small hydro and pumped-hydro power plants: advances and future challenges. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 31, 746–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.043.

Barbour, E., Wilson, I.A.G., Radcliffe, J., Ding, Y., Li, Y., 2016. A review of pumped hydro energy storage development in significant international electricity markets. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 61, 421–432. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.04.019.

Blakers, A., Lu, B., Stocks, M., 2017. 100% renewable electricity in Australia. Energy 133, 471–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.05.168.

Brancucci Martinez-Anido, C., De Vries, L., 2013. Are cross-border electricity transmission and pumped hydro storage complementary technologies?. In: International Conference on the European Energy Market. EEM. https://doi.org/ 10.1109/EEM.2013.6607370.

Budt, M., Wolf, D., Span, R., Yan, J., 2016. A review on compressed air energy storage: basic principles, past milestones and recent developments. Appl. Energy 170, 250–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.02.108.

Can Sener, S.E., Sharp, J.L., Anctil, A., 2018. Factors impacting diverging paths of renewable energy: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 81 (2), 2335–2342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.06.042.

Canales, F.A., Beluco, A., Mendes, C.A.B., 2015. A comparative study of a wind hydro hybrid system with water storage capacity: conventional reservoir or pumped storage plant? J. Energy Storage 4, 96–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. est.2015.09.007.

Cebotari, S., Benedek, J., 2017. Renewable energy project as a source of innovation in rural communities: lessons from the periphery. Sustainability 9, 509. https://doi. org/10.3390/su9040509.

Chen, H., Cong, T.N., Yang, W., Tan, C., Li, Y., Ding, Y., 2009. Progress in electrical energy storage system: a critical review. Prog. Nat. Sci. 19 (3), 291–312. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014.

Chen, H., Xu, Y., Liu, C., He, F., Hu, S., 2016. Storing energy in China-an overview. In: Storing Energy: with Special Reference to Renewable Energy Sources. https://doi. org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803440-8.00024-5.

Connolly, D., Lund, H., Mathiesen, B.V., Pican, E., Leahy, M., 2012. The technical and economic implications of integrating fluctuating renewable energy using energy storage. Renew. Energy 43, 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.11.003.

Connolly, D., MacLaughlin, S., Leahy, M., 2010. Development of a computer program to locate potential sites for pumped hydroelectric energy storage. Energy 35, 375–381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2009.10.004.

S. Ali et al.


https://doi.org/10.1186/s40807-018-0048-1

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2017.07.097


https://doi.org/10.22060/MISCJ.2009.237

https://doi.org/10.22060/MISCJ.2009.237

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2017.7913276

https://doi.org/10.1109/ICIT.2017.7913276

https://doi.org/10.3390/en13071749

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2012.02.031

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2016.06.097


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.12.043



https://doi.org/10.1109/EEM.2013.6607370

https://doi.org/10.1109/EEM.2013.6607370



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2015.09.007


https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040509

https://doi.org/10.3390/su9040509

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2008.07.014

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803440-8.00024-5

https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-803440-8.00024-5

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2011.11.003



18

de Carvalho, R.F., do Carmo, J.S.A., 2007. Landslides into reservoirs and their impacts on banks. Environ. Fluid Mech. 7, 481–493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-007- 9039-2.

Deane, J.P., O Gallachoir, B.P., McKeogh, E.J., 2010. Techno-economic review of existing and new pumped hydro energy storage plant. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 14, 1293–1302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2009.11.015.

Devi, Y.Z., Harto, A.W., Budiarto, R., Trihastuti, N., 2018. Potential analysis of ex-coal mining land as pumped storage hydro powerplant in Kutai Kartanegara, east Kalimantan. In: E3S Web of Conferences. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/ 20184201009.

Droogers, P., Immerzeel, W.W., Terink, W., Hoogeveen, J., Bierkens, M.F.P., Van Beek, L. P.H., Debele, B., 2012. Water resources trends in Middle East and North africa towards 2050. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 16 (9), 3101–3114. https://doi.org/10.5194/ hess-16-3101-2012.

Duque, A.J., Castronuovo, E.D., Sanchez, I., Usaola, J., 2011. Optimal operation of a pumped-storage hydro plant that compensates the imbalances of a wind power producer. Elec. Power Syst. Res. 81, 1767–1777. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. EPSR.2011.04.008.

Fan, J., Xie, H., Chen, J., Jiang, D., Li, C., Ngaha Tiedeu, W., Ambre, J., 2020. Preliminary feasibility analysis of a hybrid pumped-hydro energy storage system using abandoned coal mine goafs. Appl. Energy 258, 114007. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114007.

Fitzgerald, N., Lacal Arantegui, R., McKeogh, E., Leahy, P., 2012. A GIS-based model to calculate the potential for transforming conventional hydropower schemes and non- hydro reservoirs to pumped hydropower schemes. Energy 41, 483–490. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.energy.2012.02.044.

Gajic, A., Stevanovic, V., Pejovic, S., 2019. Pumped-hydro storages are balancing electric energy production of wind and solar reducing average costs and pollution. Int. J. Fluid Mach. Syst. 12, 47–55. https://doi.org/10.5293/IJFMS.2019.12.1.047.

Ghimire, L.P., Kim, Y., 2018. An analysis on barriers to renewable energy development in the context of Nepal using AHP. Renew. Energy 129, 446–456. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.renene.2018.06.011.

Ghorbani, N., Makian, H., Breyer, C., 2019. A GIS-based method to identify potential sites for pumped hydro energy storage - case of Iran. Energy 169, 854–867. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.12.073.

Gimeno-Gutierrez, M., Lacal-Arantegui, R., 2015. Assessment of the European potential for pumped hydropower energy storage based on two existing reservoirs. Renew. Energy 75, 856–868. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.068.

Glasnovic, Z., Margeta, J., 2011. Vision of total renewable electricity scenario. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (4), 1873–1884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2010.12.016.

Gregory, A.T., Denniss, A.R., 2018. An introduction to writing narrative and systematic reviews — tasks, tips and traps for aspiring authors. Heart Lung Circ. 27 (7), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2018.03.027.

Guezgouz, M., Jurasz, J., Bekkouche, B., Ma, T., Javed, M.S., Kies, A., 2019. Optimal hybrid pumped hydro-battery storage scheme for off-grid renewable energy systems. Energy Convers. Manag. 199, 112046. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. enconman.2019.112046.

Guittet, M., Capezzali, M., Gaudard, L., Romerio, F., Vuille, F., Avellan, F., 2016. Study of the drivers and asset management of pumped-storage power plants historical and geographical perspective. Energy 111 (15), 560–579. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2016.04.052.

Hall, Douglas, Lee, R., 2014. Assessment of opportunities for new United States pumped storage hydroelectric plants using existing water features as auxiliary reservoirs. United States. https://doi.org/10.2172/1129112.

Harari, M.B., Parola, H.R., Hartwell, C.J., Riegelman, A., 2020. Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a review, evaluation, and recommendations. J. Vocat. Behav. 118, 103377. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377.

Hessami, M.A., Bowly, D.R., 2011. Economic feasibility and optimisation of an energy storage system for Portland Wind Farm (Victoria, Australia). Appl. Energy 88 (8), 2755–2763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.12.013.

Hossain, M., Huda, A.S.N., Mekhilef, S., Seyedmahmoudian, M., Horan, B., Stojcevski, A., Ahmed, M., 2018. A state-of-the-art review of hydropower in Malaysia as renewable energy: current status and future prospects. Energy Strateg. Rev. 22, 426–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.11.001.

Hunt, J.D., Freitas, M.A.V. de, Pereira Junior, A.O., 2017. A review of seasonal pumped- storage combined with dams in cascade in Brazil. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 70, 385–398. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.255.

IHA, 2018a. International hydropower association [WWW Document]. URL. https:// www.hydropower.org/. accessed 12.8.19.

IHA, 2018b. The world’s water battery: pumped hydropower storage and the clean energy transition. IHA Working Paper.

Jaber, J.O., 2012. Prospects and challenges of small hydropower development in Jordan. Jordan J. Mech. Ind. Eng. 6, 110–118.

Javed, M.S., Ma, T., Jurasz, J., Amin, M.Y., 2020. Solar and wind power generation systems with pumped hydro storage: review and future perspectives. Renew. Energy 148, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2019.11.157.

Jimenez Capilla, J.A., Carrion, J.A., Alameda-Hernandez, E., 2016. Optimal site selection for upper reservoirs in pump-back systems, using geographical information systems and multicriteria analysis. Renew. Energy 86, 429–440. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. RENENE.2015.08.035.

Kadri, A., Marzougui, H., Aouiti, A., Bacha, F., 2020. Energy management and control strategy for a DFIG wind turbine/fuel cell hybrid system with super capacitor storage system. Energy 192, 116518. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.116518.

Kapsali, M., Anagnostopoulos, J.S., Kaldellis, J.K., 2012. Wind powered pumped-hydro storage systems for remote islands: a complete sensitivity analysis based on

economic perspectives. Appl. Energy 99, 430–444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. apenergy.2012.05.054.

Kapsali, M., Kaldellis, J.K., 2010. Combining hydro and variable wind power generation by means of pumped-storage under economically viable terms. Appl. Energy 87, 3475–3485. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2010.05.026.

Karellas, S., Tzouganatos, N., 2014. Comparison of the performance of compressed-air and hydrogen energy storage systems: Karpathos island case study. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 29, 865–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2013.07.019.

Katsanevakis, M., Stewart, R.A., Lu, J., 2017. Aggregated applications and benefits of energy storage systems with application-specific control methods: a review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 75, 719–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.11.050.

Katsaprakakis, D.A., Christakis, D.G., Pavlopoylos, K., Stamataki, S., Dimitrelou, I., Stefanakis, I., Spanos, P., 2012. Introduction of a wind powered pumped storage system in the isolated insular power system of Karpathos-Kasos. Appl. Energy 97, 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2011.11.069.

Katsaprakakis, D.A., Christakis, D.G., Zervos, A., Papantonis, D., Voutsinas, S., 2008. Pumped storage systems introduction in isolated power production systems. Renew. Energy 33, 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2007.03.021.

Kear, G., Chapman, R., 2013. “Reserving judgement”: perceptions of pumped hydro and utility-scale batteries for electricity storage and reserve generation in New Zealand. Renew. Energy 57, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2013.01.015.

Koch, F.H., 2002. Hydropower - the politics of water and energy: introduction and overview. Energy Pol. 30 (14), 1207–1213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215 (02)00081-2.

Koohi-Fayegh, S., Rosen, M.A., 2020. A review of energy storage types, applications and recent developments. J. Energy Storage 27, 101047. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. est.2019.101047.

Kucukali, S., 2014. Finding the most suitable existing hydropower reservoirs for the development of pumped-storage schemes: an integrated approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 37, 502–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.05.052.

Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P.J., Kleijnen, J., Moher, D., 2009. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 339 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006.

Locatelli, G., Mariani, G., Sainati, T., Greco, M., 2017. Corruption in public projects and megaprojects: there is an elephant in the room! Int. J. Proj. Manag. 35 (3), 252–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.010.

Lu, B., Stocks, M., Blakers, A., Anderson, K., 2018. Geographic information system algorithms to locate prospective sites for pumped hydro energy storage. Appl. Energy 222, 300–312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.03.177.

Lu, X., Wang, S., 2017. A GIS-based assessment of Tibet’s potential for pumped hydropower energy storage. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 69, 1045–1054. https:// doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2016.09.089.

Lu, Z., Gao, Y., Zhao, W., 2020. A TODIM-based approach for environmental impact assessment of pumped hydro energy storage plant. J. Clean. Prod. 248 https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119265.

Ma, T., Yang, H., Lu, L., Peng, J., 2014. Technical feasibility study on a standalone hybrid solar-wind system with pumped hydro storage for a remote island in Hong Kong. Renew. Energy 69, 7–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.03.028.

Mahmoud, M., Ramadan, M., Olabi, A.-G., Pullen, K., Naher, S., 2020. A review of mechanical energy storage systems combined with wind and solar applications. Energy Convers. Manag. 210, 112670. https://doi.org/10.1016/J. ENCONMAN.2020.112670.

Makarov, Y.V., Reshetov, V.I., Stroev, V.A., Voropai, N.I., 2005. Blackouts in North America and Europe: analysis and generalization. In: 2005 IEEE Russia Power Tech, PowerTech. https://doi.org/10.1109/PTC.2005.4524782.

May, G.J., Davidson, A., Monahov, B., 2018. Lead batteries for utility energy storage: a review. J. Energy Storage 15, 145–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2017.11.008.

Mayeda, A.M., Boyd, A.D., 2020. Factors influencing public perceptions of hydropower projects: a systematic literature review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 121, 109713. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109713.

Ming, Z., Junjie, F., Song, X., Zhijie, W., Xiaoli, Z., Yuejin, W., 2013. Development of China’s pumped storage plant and related policy analysis. Energy Pol. 61, 104–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.061.

Mousavi G, S.M., Faraji, F., Majazi, A., Al-Haddad, K., 2017. A comprehensive review of flywheel energy storage system technology. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 67, 477–490. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2016.09.060.

Munthali, K.G., Irvine, B.J., Murayama, Y., 2011. Reservoir sedimentation and flood control: using a geographical information system to estimate sediment yield of the Songwe River watershed in Malawi. Sustainability 3 (1), 254–269. https://doi.org/ 10.3390/su3010254.

Murage, M.W., Anderson, C.L., 2014. Contribution of pumped hydro storage to integration of wind power in Kenya: an optimal control approach. Renew. Energy 63, 698–707. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2013.10.026.

Nasirov, S., Silva, C., Agostini, C.A., 2015. Investors’ perspectives on barriers to the deployment of renewable energy sources in Chile. Energies 8 (5), 3794–3814. https://doi.org/10.3390/en8053794.

NHA, 2013. Challenges and Opportunities for New Pumped Storage Development. Normyle, A., Pittock, J., 2019. A review of the impacts of pumped hydro energy storage

construction on subalpine and alpine biodiversity: lessons for the Snowy Mountains pumped hydro expansion project. Aust. Geogr. 51 (1), 53–68. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/00049182.2019.1684625.

Nzotcha, U., Kenfack, J., Manjia, M.B., 2019. Integrated multi-criteria decision making methodology for pumped hydro-energy storage plant site selection from a

S. Ali et al.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-007-9039-2

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10652-007-9039-2


https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184201009

https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20184201009

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3101-2012

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3101-2012

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EPSR.2011.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EPSR.2011.04.008

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114007

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2019.114007



https://doi.org/10.5293/IJFMS.2019.12.1.047








https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2018.03.027

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112046

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enconman.2019.112046



https://doi.org/10.2172/1129112

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2020.103377


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2018.11.001


https://www.hydropower.org/

https://www.hydropower.org/

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2666-7908(21)00241-X/sref41





https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RENENE.2015.08.035


https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENERGY.2019.116518









https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00081-2

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4215(02)00081-2

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.101047

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2019.101047

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.RSER.2014.05.052

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2016.09.010




https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119265

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119265


https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.112670

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENCONMAN.2020.112670

https://doi.org/10.1109/PTC.2005.4524782


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.109713

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.06.061


https://doi.org/10.3390/su3010254

https://doi.org/10.3390/su3010254


https://doi.org/10.3390/en8053794


https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2019.1684625

https://doi.org/10.1080/00049182.2019.1684625


19

sustainable development perspective with an application. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 112, 930–947. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.06.035.

Padron, S., Medina, J.F., Rodríguez, A., 2011. Analysis of a pumped storage system to increase the penetration level of renewable energy in isolated power systems. Gran Canaria: a case study. Energy 36, 6753–6762. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2011.10.029.

Painuly, J.P., 2001. Barriers to renewable energy penetration: a framework for analysis. Renew. Energy 24, 73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00186-5.

Pali, B.S., Vadhera, S., 2018. A novel pumped hydro-energy storage scheme with wind energy for power generation at constant voltage in rural areas. Renew. Energy 127, 802–810. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2018.05.028.

Perez-Díaz, J.I., Chazarra, M., García-Gonzalez, J., Cavazzini, G., Stoppato, A., 2015. Trends and challenges in the operation of pumped-storage hydropower plants. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44, 767–784. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. rser.2015.01.029.

Prasad, A.D., Jain, K., Gairola, A., Hernandez-Guzman, R., 2013. Ranking of pumped storage hydropower site for preliminary studies. Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng. 6, 136–142.

Provis, E.L., 2019. Pumped-hydro in Bendigo: room for wider reform? Electr. J. 32, 106634. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2019.106634.

Ram, M., Child, M., Aghahosseini, A., Bogdanov, D., Lohrmann, A., Breyer, C., 2018. A comparative analysis of electricity generation costs from renewable, fossil fuel and nuclear sources in G20 countries for the period 2015-2030. J. Clean. Prod. 199, 687–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.159.

Rehman, S., Al-Hadhrami, L.M., Alam, M.M., 2015. Pumped hydro energy storage system: a technological review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 44, 586–598. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2014.12.040.

Rogeau, A., Girard, R., Kariniotakis, G., 2017. A generic GIS-based method for small Pumped Hydro Energy Storage (PHES) potential evaluation at large scale. Appl. Energy 197, 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2017.03.103.

Rytwinski, T., Algera, D.A., Taylor, J.J., Smokorowski, K.E., Bennett, J.R., Harrison, P. M., Cooke, S.J., 2017. What are the consequences of fish entrainment and impingement associated with hydroelectric dams on fish productivity? A systematic review protocol. Environ. Evid. 6 (8) https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0087-x.

Salim, H.K., Stewart, R.A., Sahin, O., Dudley, M., 2019. Drivers, barriers and enablers to end-of-life management of solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage systems: a systematic literature review. J. Clean. Prod. 211, 537–554. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.jclepro.2018.11.229.

Saraf, A.K., Choudhary, P.R., Sarma, B., Ghosh, P., 2001. Impacts of reservoirs on groundwater and vegetation: a study based on remote sensing and GIS techniques. Int. J. Rem. Sens. 22, 2439–2448. https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160119374.

Seager, R., Murtugude, R., Clement, A., Herweijer, C., 2003. Why is there an evaporation minimum at the equator? J. Clim. 2. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003) 016<3793:WITAEM>2.0.CO.

Seetharaman, Moorthy, K., Patwa, N., Saravanan, Gupta, Y., 2019. Breaking barriers in deployment of renewable energy. Heliyon 5 (1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. heliyon.2019.e01166.

Shimray, B.A., Singh, K.M., Khelchandra, T., Mehta, R.K., 2017. Ranking of sites for installation of hydropower plant using MLP neural network trained with GA: a MADM approach. Comput. Intell. Neurosci. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/ 4152140.

Sivakumar, N., Das, D., Padhy, N.P., Senthil Kumar, A.R., Bisoyi, N., 2013. Status of pumped hydro-storage schemes and its future in India. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 19, 208–213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.001.

Soha, T., Munkacsy, B., Harmat, A., Csontos, C., Horvath, G., Tamas, L., Csüllog, G., Daroczi, H., Safian, F., Szabo, M., 2017. GIS-based assessment of the opportunities for small-scale pumped hydro energy storage in middle-mountain areas focusing on artificial landscape features. Energy 141, 1363–1373. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. energy.2017.11.051.

Sovacool, B.K., Dhakal, S., Gippner, O., Bambawale, M.J., 2011. Halting hydro: a review of the socio-technical barriers to hydroelectric power plants in Nepal. Energy 36 (5), 3468–3476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2011.03.051.

Steffen, Bjarne, 2012. Prospects for pumped-hydro storage in Germany. Energy Pol. 45, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.052.

Steffen, B., 2012. Prospects for pumped-hydro storage in Germany. Energy Pol. 45, 420–429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2012.02.052.

Suhardiman, D., Karki, E., 2019. Spatial Politics and Local Alliances Shaping Nepal Hydropower. World Dev. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.022.

Tuohy, A., O’Malley, M., 2011. Pumped storage in systems with very high wind penetration. Energy Pol. 39, 1965. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.01.026. –1974.

United Nations, 2019. World Economic Situation and Prospects. Waewsak, J., Ali, S., Gagnon, Y., 2020a. Site suitability assessment of para rubberwood-

based power plant in the southernmost provinces of Thailand based on a multicriteria decision-making analysis. Biomass and Bioenergy 137. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105545.

Waewsak, J., Ali, S., Natee, W., Kongruang, C., Chancham, C., Gagnon, Y., 2020b. Assessment of hybrid, firm renewable energy-based power plants: application in the southernmost region of Thailand. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 130 https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.rser.2020.109953.

Wang, Q.G., Du, Y.H., Su, Y., Chen, K.Q., 2012. Environmental impact post-assessment of Dam and reservoir projects: a review. In: Yang, Z., Chen, B. (Eds.), 18TH BIENNIAL ISEM CONFERENCE ON ECOLOGICAL MODELLING FOR GLOBAL CHANGE AND COUPLED HUMAN AND NATURAL SYSTEM. Procedia Environmental Sciences, pp. 1439–1443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.135.

Wu, Y., Liu, L., Gao, J., Chu, H., Xu, C., 2017. An extended VIKOR-based approach for pumped hydro energy storage plant site selection with heterogeneous information. OR Inf. 8, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.3390/info8030106.

Wu, Y., Zhang, T., Xu, C., Zhang, X., Ke, Y., Chu, H., Xu, R., 2019. Location selection of seawater pumped hydro storage station in China based on multi-attribute decision making. Renew. Energy 139, 410–425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. renene.2019.02.091.

Yang, C.J., Jackson, R.B., 2011. Opportunities and barriers to pumped-hydro energy storage in the United States. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 15 (1), 839–844. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2010.09.020.

Yi, C.S., Lee, J.H., Shim, M.P., 2010. Site location analysis for small hydropower using geo-spatial information system. Renew. Energy 35, 852–861. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.renene.2009.08.003.

Zeng, M., Zhang, K., Liu, D., 2013. Overall review of pumped-hydro energy storage in China: status quo, operation mechanism and policy barriers. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 17, 35–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.05.024.

S. Ali et al.




https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-1481(00)00186-5






https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tej.2019.106634

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.159




https://doi.org/10.1186/s13750-017-0087-x



https://doi.org/10.1080/01431160119374

https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<3793:WITAEM>2.0.CO

https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0442(2003)016<3793:WITAEM>2.0.CO

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01166

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4152140

https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/4152140







https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.06.022

https://doi.org/10.1016/J.ENPOL.2011.01.026


https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105545

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biombioe.2020.105545



https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2012.01.135

https://doi.org/10.3390/info8030106








Documents

Drivers and barriers to the deployment of pumped hydro