The role of hydropower in selected South- Eastern European ... · hydropower projects with an estimated total capac-ity of 12.2 GW and an annual generation of some 36 TWh/a in the

Theroleofhydropower inselectedSouth-EasternEuropeancountries

Theroleofhydropower inselectedSouth-EasternEuropeancountriesCommissionedbyEuroNaturFoundationandRiverWatch–Societyfortheprotectionofrivers29October2018Author:Dr.JürgenNeubarth,e3consultGmbHwww.e3-consult.atThispublicationiscommissionedbyEuroNaturFoundation(www.euronatur.org)andRiverWatch–Soci-etyfortheProtectionofrivers(www.riverwatch.eu)aspartofthe"SavetheBlueHeartofEurope"cam-paign(www.balkanrivers.net).

TheroleofhydropowerinselectedSouth-EasternEuropeancountries

-1-

Tableofcontent

Executivesummary...................................................................................................................................2

1 Introduction..........................................................................................................................................4

2 Existingelectricitygenerationsystem........................................................................................52.1 SEEregionataglance...............................................................................................................................52.2 Countryprofiles..........................................................................................................................................72.2.1 Albania.........................................................................................................................................................................72.2.2 BosniaandHerzegovina.......................................................................................................................................82.2.3 Bulgaria........................................................................................................................................................................92.2.4 TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia...........................................................................................102.2.5 Greece........................................................................................................................................................................112.2.6 Montenegro.............................................................................................................................................................122.2.7 Serbia.........................................................................................................................................................................13

3 Perspectivesforfurtherdevelopmentofhydropower.......................................................143.1 Technicalandeconomichydropowerpotentials..........................................................................143.2 2020NREAPtargets................................................................................................................................173.3 Hydropowerprojectpipeline..............................................................................................................203.4 Aglanceatsmallhydropower.............................................................................................................23

4 FeasibilityofhydropowerprojectsaccordingtoEuroNatur/RiverWatchcriteria...274.1 Ecologicalclassificationofhydropowerprojects..........................................................................274.2 Effectsonoverallhydropowerdevelopment.................................................................................284.3 Alternativerenewableenergysources.............................................................................................30

5 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................36

6 References..........................................................................................................................................37

7 Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................39


-2-

Executivesummary

TheSEEregionhasthe largestremainingunexploit-

ed hydropower potential in Europe. However, the

developmentofuntappedhydropowerpotentialsin

South-Eastern European countries has caused

growingenvironmentalconcerns,sincemanyofthe

effectedriverstretchesareconsideredtobeofhigh

ecological value. Nevertheless, the number of

awardedconcessionshasbeenrapidlyincreasingin

the last few years and today a few thousand new

hydropowerplantsareinthepipelineinthewhole

SEEregion.On theotherhanddespiteapromising

potential alternative renewable energy sources

haveyetexperiencedonlyinafewSEEcountriesan

emergingtrend,i.e.mostSEEcountriesputthefocus

of its energypolicy still onhydropower rather than

on wind, solar and biomass. In this context, Eu-

roNatur and RiverWatch commissioned e3 consult

with a study on the future role of hydropower in

sevenselectedSEEcountries,namelyAlbania,Bos-

niaandHerzegovina,Bulgaria,theFormerYugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, Greece, Montenegro, and

Serbia.The resultsof the studyare summarized in

thefollowing:

Hydropower serves 21% of the electricity de-

mandintheregion

ThesevenSEEcountriescurrentlyhaveaninstalled

hydropowercapacityof12.5GWwithanelectricity

generationofabout34TWh/a.Theaverageshareof

hydropowerintheyearlyelectricityconsumptionis

about21%.However,duetofluctuatinghydropow-

er supply the contribution of hydropower to the

demand varied between 16 and 25% in the years

2011-2017.Onacountryleveltheaverageshareof

hydropower in demand ranged between 10% in

Greeceand88%inAlbania.

One thirdof technical andhalf of economichy-

dropowerpotentialyetexploited

Theremainingavailablehydropowerpotentialsadd

up to total economic potential of 12.8GW

(37TWh/a) and a total technical potential of

25.2GW (65TWh/a), respectively. The countries

with the highest remaining potentials are Albania,

BosniaandHerzegovinaandGreece.

NREAP targets for hydropowerwillmost likely

bemissed

Between2010and2017about1.7GWofadditional

hydropower capacities were put into operation,

howeveranother1.4GWwouldberequiredtomeet

thecombined2020NREAPtargets forhydropower

ofthesevenSEEcountries.

Identified projects would double annual elec-

tricityoutputfromhydropower

EuroNaturandRiverWatch identifiedalmost2,400

hydropowerprojectswithanestimatedtotalcapac-

ity of 12.2GW and an annual generation of some

36TWh/ainthesevencountries.About92%ofthe

projectsaresmallhydropowerplantsbelow10MW

and two third are even below 1MW. With about

840projectsmorethanonethirdoftheprojectsare

located inSerbia,howeveralmost90%of thispro-

jects are below 1MW. From an economic perspec-

tivethestrongfocusofmostcountriesonverysmall

hydropower is not immediately apparent because

very small hydropower projects are typically less

economicallyattractive.


-3-

8%oftheprojectsecologicallyfeasibleaccord-

ingtoEuroNaturandRiverWatchclassification

EuroNatur and RiverWatch applied an ecological

evaluationtothehydropowerprojectstoclassifythe

feasibility of the projects from EuroNatur/River-

Watch perspective. As a result 92% of the projects

and96%of the totalproject capacity, respectively,

are located in exclusion zones as defined by Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch.

Potentialsofwind,solarPVandbiomassexceed

remaininghydropowerpotentialsbyfar

In total, the seven countries covered in this study

have an economic potential of wind, solar PV and

biomassofabout240TWh/a.Thispotentialdoesnot

only significantly exceed the remaining economic

hydropowerpotentialof37TWh/abutalsoexceeds

thecurrentelectricitydemandofallcountriesthatis

notyetcoveredbyrenewablebyafactorof2.How-

ever,thepromisingpotentialsofwind,solarPVand

biomass have yet not been reflected in the energy

policyofmostofthesevenSEEcountries.OnlyBul-

garia and especially Greece have already experi-

enced an emerging trend towards alternative re-

newableenergysources.

Wind, solarPVandbiomassdiversify thecoun-

try’srenewableportfolios

Even if hydropower is still the most economically

viable renewable energy technology in the SEE re-

gion wind onshore and solar PV have already

reached a competitive cost level. Hence, alternative

renewable energy sources could in principle substi-

tute ecologically sensitive hydropower projects

without major economic disadvantages. Further-

more, agreater considerationofwind, solarPVand

biomass in the country’s renewable and generation

portfolios, respectively, would better diversify the

portfolios and make them less vulnerable to una-

voidable seasonal and yearly fluctuations of elec-

tricity generation from hydropower and potential

impactsofclimatechangeontheavailabilityofhy-

dropowerplants,respectively.

Anoverallassessmentofhydropowerprojectsis

recommended

However, the assessment of hydropower projects

shouldnotonlybebasedonecologicalbut alsoon

energy economic related aspects to consider the

interaction of hydropower projects with the elec-

tricitysystem.Forexample,hydropowerplantsthat

are combinedwitha reservoir canprovide flexible

generationandancillaryservices.Itisexpectedthat

flexibility inapowersystemwillconsiderablygain

importance in the future, if the share of volatile

generationfromwindandsolarincreases.Hence,a

more differentiated classification of hydropower

projects isrecommendedthatwouldallowatrans-

parentandequalconsiderationofenergyeconomic

andenvironmentalaspect.


-4-

1 Introduction

In contrast to other European regions the South-

EasternEuropean(SEE)countriesandespeciallythe

WesternBalkansstillrepresentsasignificantportion

ofuntappedhydropowerpotential[1].Hence,efforts

tofurtherexploithydropowerpotentialsinSEEhave

been strengthen by project developers and govern-

ments,sincetheexpansionofhydropowerisconsid-

ered to serve the expected growing demand and to

replaceoldandinefficientthermalpowerplantsbut

also todeliverasubstantialcontribution for the im-

plementationofrenewableenergytargets.Asacon-

sequence, the number of awarded concessions has

beenrapidlyincreasinginthelastthefewyearsand

todayabout2,800newhydropowerplantsareinthe

pipelineinthewholeSEEregion.[2]

However, the expansion of hydropower has caused

increasing environmental concerns because the in-

dustries’ appetite for new hydropower capacities

also affects river stretches with a high ecological

valueandhence,potentiallythreatenstheecosystem

of the rivers in terms of e.g. hydromorphology and

biodiversity.Forexample,arecentlypublishedstudy

by Fluvius concluded that 37% of the planned pro-

jects in the SEE region are in protected areas. [3]

Consequently, the conflicting interests between en-

ergy industryandnatureconversationneeds inSEE

havealreadybeenputontheagendaoftheEuropean

Union.For example, theEU-fundedprojectRegional

Strategy for Sustainable Hydropower in theWestern

Balkans [4] aims to define how the region’s hydro-

powerpotentialcouldbedevelopedinawaythate.g.

energy generation, flood protection and ecological

concernsarewellbalanced.However,thefocusofthe

projectwasputona“fullexploitationofhydropower

potentialsinasustainableway”ratherthantheques-

tionifa(untouched)riverstretchshouldbeexcluded

for any use of hydropower from an environmental

perspective. Additionally, the assessments mainly

considered largehydropowerprojectswith an elec-

trical output above 10MW and did not include the

large amount of small hydropower projects in the

SEE region.Against thisbackgrounde3 consultwas

commissioned by EuroNatur/RiverWatch to carry

out a study on the future role of hydropower that

includesaprojectspecificevaluationoftheecological

feasibility of hydropower projects in seven selected

SEEcountries(cf.Fig.1).

Fig.1:South-EasternEuropeancountriescov-eredinthisstudy

*TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia

Basedonanoverviewoftheexistinggenerationmix

this study analyses the overall perspectives of hy-

dropowerinthecoveredSEEcountries.Furthermore

thestudyprovidesanassessmentoftheimpactofthe

ecological classification of hydropower projects by

EuroNatur/RiverWatch on the further development

ofhydropowerinthesevenSEEcountriesandgives

anoverviewaboutthepotentialsofotherrenewable

technologies to verify if ecologically unattractive

projects could in principle be substituted by wind,

solarand/orbiomass.

BulgariaFYRMace-donia*

BosniaandHerzegovina Serbia

Albania

Greece

Monte-negro


-5-

2 Existingelectricitygenerationsystem

This chapter contains a brief summaryof the elec-

tricity generation systems of the seven SEE coun-

triescoveredinthisreport, i.e.Albania,Bosniaand

Herzegovina,Bulgaria,theFormerYugoslavRepub-

lic of Macedonia (FYRMacedonia), Greece, Monte-

negro,andSerbia.Afterahighleveloverviewofthe

maincharacteristicsofallsevencountriesindividu-

alcountryprofilesprovideamoredetailedpicture.

of the country specific generation and demand

structureintheyears2011to2017.

Inordertohaveaconsistentdatabasisallpresent-

eddataare– if available– taken fromvariousEN-

TSO-E publications [5] even if ENTSO-E data can

differ from other data sources. However, data in-

consistency amongst different sources is a general

issueandnotonlyrelatedtoSEEcountries.

2.1 SEEregionataglanceWithaninstalledgenerationcapacityof48GWand

an annual electricity consumption of 156TWh Al-

bania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, the Former

YugoslavRepublic ofMacedonia, Greece,Montene-

gro and Serbia represent about 4.2% of the total

installedcapacity(1,150GW)aswellthetotalelec-

tricity consumption (3,700TWh) in the ENTSO-E

systemin2017.Incomparison,theinstalledhydro-

power capacity (including pumped storage) in the

seven countries of 15GW account for 6.4% of the

total ENTSO-E1 hydropower capacity of 235GW.

However,thenationalgenerationmixdifferswidely

betweentheindividualcountriesasshowninFig.2.

The share of hydropower capacities (excl. pumped

storage)inthenationalpowerplantportfolioshasa

wide range between 95% in Albania and 15% in

Greece. Besides hydropower the main domestic

sourceofelectricitygenerationintheregioniscoal

(mainly lignite) – only Greece and Bulgaria have a

considerable shareofnon-hydrorenewablesso far

andBulgariaistheonlycountrywithnuclearcapac-

ities.

As a consequence of the yearly fluctuating hydro-

power conditions the annual load coverage of hy-

dropower varies strongly amongst the countries.1 European Network of Transmission System Operators forElectricity(https://www.entsoe.eu/)

For example, Albania shows a share of renewable

hydropower generation (i.e. excl. pumped storage)

in the years 2011-2017 between 57 and 100%,

Montenegro between 28 and 59% and Greece be-

tween8and12%.

Fig. 2: Installed generation capacity by tech-nologyandcountry2017

Source:ENTSO-E;IHAandAEAforAlbania

Electricity demand in the South-East European re-

gionexhibitedbetween2000and2008arelatively

stronggrowth rate.However, the impactof the re-

cessiononthedemandwassignificantandthepre-

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

hydro RESexcl.hydro nuclearcoal gas&oil pumpedstorage


-6-

viously expected growth rates for current years

haveyetnotbeenseeninmarkettrends.

Hence, the electricity consumption of the seven

South-Eastern European countries in 2017 was

roughly at or evenbelow the level of 2011 (Fig. 3,

left chart). Greece is by far the largest consumer

with an electricity demand of about 52TWh/a fol-

lowed by Serbia (40TWh/a) and Bulgaria

(34TWh).Thelowerboundaryofthebandwidthof

electricityconsumptionmarksMontenegrowithan

annualdemandofsome3TWh/ain2017.

Despite the relatively slow growth rate of demand

intherecentyearsmostof thesevencountriesde-

pendonelectricityimports–atleastinperiodswith

low water levels in rivers and reservoirs, respec-

tively, and therefore a low electricity production

fromhydropower.Hence,somecountrieshavebeen

import-dependenttoaveryhighdegreeinthepast

years, including FYR Macedonia with on average

31%,Albaniawith27%andMontenegrowith22%

of its total consumption. Only Bulgaria and Bosnia

andHerzegovinawerenetexportingcountriesinall

ofthepast7years(Fig.3,rightchart).

HistoricallytheelectricitygridofformerYugoslavia

was interconnectedandsynchronizedwith theEu-

ropeangrid.In1991thegridintheregionwassplit

into two separately operating synchronous zones,

which were reconnected to the Central European

system in 2004. Additionally, the interconnection

capacity has been increased in the South-Eastern

Europeanregion, i.e.majorbarriers to thecreation

ofaregionalelectricitymarketandasupra-national

dispatch optimization have been removed. Hence,

nationalimportdependencyforsmallercountriesis

at least from the perspective of security of supply

notascriticalas itmayhasbeenthecase inprevi-

ous years. This is especially true against the back-

ground of an almost balanced electricity exchange

of the seven SEE countries with neighbouring re-

gions.

Fig.3:Consumptionandexchangebalance2011–2017

Source:ENTSO-E(forGreecedatarefertointerconnectedsystem)

-

10

20

30

40

50

60

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

[TWh/a]

Consumption

-15

-10

-5

-

5

10

15

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

[TWh/a]

Exchangebalance

import

export

Albania BiH Bulgaria FYRM Greece Montenegro Serbia


-7-

2.2 Countryprofiles2.2.1 AlbaniaSince 1996 Albanian is synchronizedwith the EN-

TSO-Esystemandin2017thetransmissionsystem

operator OST became a member of ENTSO-E. The

country’s domestic generation is almost entirely

dependent on hydropower – in 2017 the total in-

stalled capacity reached about 2,100MW from

which 100MW was thermal. Besides hydropower

no other renewable technology has yet been in-

stalled even if the Ministry of Infrastructure and

Energy launched the selection process for the de-

velopmentandconstructionof the largest solarPV

plant in the region with an installed capacity of

50MW [6]. Though, as the only oil-fired power

planthasbeenoutofoperationtheshareofrenew-

ablesintotalelectricitygenerationisstill100%.

Even if the total installed hydropower generation

capacity has been increased in the last 6 years by

about500MWAlbania ishighly import-dependent,

particularly in drought years. Depending on the

availablewatersupplyhydropowerproductioncan

vary significantly – the capacity factor (defined as

annualgenerationdividedbyinstalledcapacityand

8,760hours)oftheyears2011-2017showsarange

between 24% (2017) and 48% (2013), which

equals to annual full load hours of 2,100h/a and

4,200h/a, respectively.Hence, Albania has been a

considerablenetimporterofelectricityfromneigh-

bouringcountriesandinyearswithseveredrought

–asforexamplein2017–securityofsupplyisstill

achallenge.

The annual electricity consumption was about

7.1TWh in 2017 and peak load demand was

1.4GW. However, the Albanian power sector has

been suffering from comparatively high losses due

to an inefficient transmission anddistribution grid

butmainlyduetonon-technical losses frompower

thefts andnon-collections.Hence, to address these

issues the government has launched energy sector

reforms,whichcouldbeonereasonforthenoticea-

ble decrease in electricity consumption in the last

fewyears.

Fig.4:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandAlbania2011–2017

Source:EIA,ANA,AEA,IHA

4.04.7

7.0

4.75.9

7.1

4.2

7.0

7.8 7.8 7.77.3 7.1 7.1

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]

Generationanddemand2011-2017

2.0GW0.1GW

Generationcapacity2017(2.1GW)

hydro fossil demand

TheroleofhydropowerinselectedSouth-easternEuropeancountries

-8-

2.2.2 BosniaandHerzegovinaBosnia andHerzegovina has a total installed genera-

tioncapacityof4.0GW(2017),ofwhich1.9GWlignite

and 2.1GW hydropower incl. pumped storage. Until

2017no other renewable energy sources but hydro-

power have provided a contribution to the national

generationmix.However, in 2018 the country’s first

windfarmwith22turbinesandaninstalledcapacity

of50.6MWwascommissionedinMesihovina[7]and

the first utility-scale tender for a 65MWPVplant in

Ljubinjewasannounced[8].Hydropowercapacityhas

beenincreasedbyabout130MWinlast6yearsandin

2016 some 300MW of lignite were newly commis-

sioned – the latter increased the output from lignite

power plants by 2TWh to 10.5TWh in 2016 and

10.8TWhin2017.Consequently,theshareofrenewa-

blesintotalelectricitygenerationdroppedin2016on

ayear-to-yearbasis from40%to34%.Duetoanex-

ceptional drought the share of renewables in total

generationfurtherplungedin2017to24%.

DespitethestrongdependencyonhydropowerBosnia

and Herzegovina is the only power exporter in the

Western Balkans. However, hydro conditions have

been affecting the actual import-export balance in

recent years. Depending on thewater supply hydro-

powerproductioncanvarysignificantly–inthepast7

yearsbetween3.6TWhin2017(25%capacityfactor

or2,200 full loadhours) and7.0TWh in2013 (50%

capacity factor or 4,400 full load hours). Bosnia and

Herzegovinaalsohassubstantialhydropumpedstor-

agecapacitiesbutaccordingtoENTSO-Estatistics[5]

the pumped storage plants have only been operated

forafewhoursinthepastyears.

Power consumption has not been significantly

changedinlastfewyearsandwasat12.9TWhwitha

peak load of some2,240MW in 2017. Generally, the

annualdemandhasbeenmostlymovedbyeconomic

andweatherevents.Powerconsumptiongrowthwas

negative in 2012 and 2013 during warm years, and

weak economic growth. Even if the consumption is

expectedtoincreaseinthefuturethepotentiallypos-

sible closure of Aluminij d.d. Mostar could cause a

significantdropinthenationalpowerconsumption.

Fig.5:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandBosniaandHerzegovina2011–2017

Source:ENTSO-E

4.3 3.8

7.05.7 5.6 5.5

3.6

9.48.4

8.7 8.7 8.510.5

10.8

0.2

12.2 12.2 12.0 11.6 12.0 12.3 12.9

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]


1.7GW

1.9GW

0.4GW


hydro fossil pumpedstorage demand


-9-

2.2.3 BulgariaBulgaria has a total installed generation capacity of

12.0GW (2017), including 4.5GW lignite and hard

coal, 2.0GW nuclear, 0.6GW natural gas, 3.2GW

hydropower incl.pumpedstorageand1.8GWother

renewables.Hence, thegenerationmixdependspri-

marily ondomestic coal andnuclear, i.e. Bulgaria is

the only SEE country considered in this study that

operates a nuclear power station. The country also

have substantial hydro (storage) capacities and un-

like most other SEE countries already considerable

windandsolarcapacityinstalledduetoasuccessful

five-yearimplementationoffeed-intariffs.Neverthe-

less,theshareofrenewablesintotalelectricitygen-

erationisstillcomparativelylowandreachedabout

14%in2017.

Hydropowerhasshownarelativelyslowgrowthrate

inthepast6yearswithanetadditionofonlysome

50MW. Capacity growth in the upcoming years is

expectedtocomemostlyfrom“new”renewablesand

gas to substituteoldanefficient fossil fired thermal

plants. Even if Bulgaria has pursued plans to build

newnuclearplantsforyears,itisunlikelythatthese

projectswillfinallybeaccomplished.

Depending on the available water supply hydro-

powerproductioncanvarysignificantly.Forexam-

ple the range of the capacity factor in the years

2011-2017 was between 13% (2017) and 20%

(2015),whichequalstofullloadhoursof1,200h/a

and2,400h/a,respectively.However,sincethecon-

tributionofhydropowertothetotalannualelectrici-

tygenerationisrelativelysmall–onaverage11%in

theyears2011-2017–andthegenerationportfoliois

well diversified security of supply is generally not

affected from theavailabilityofhydropowercapaci-

ties.

In 2017 Bulgaria’s annual electricity consumption

was about 35.4TWh and peak load demand was

7.7GW.Hence,Bulgariaiswell-suppliedwithpower

compared with demand and is a strong regional

powerexporter.

Fig.6:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandBulgaria2011–2017

Source:ENTSO-E

2.8 3.1 3.9 4.2 5.6 3.9 2.70.31.51.4

15.2 14.7 13.2 14.714.5

14.9 14.7

25.9 22.1 19.1 19.620.6 18.6 19.5

0.80.7

0.70.5

0.50.7 0.7

34.4 33.6 33.332.0

33.8 34.6 35.4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]


2.3GW

0.7GW

1.0GW

0.1GW

5.0GW

2.0GW

0.9GW


hydro wind solar biomass fossil nuclear pumpedstorage demand


-10-

2.2.4 The former Yugoslav Republic ofMacedonia

The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia

(FYROM)hasa total installedgenerationcapacityof

1.9GW(2017),ofwhich0.7GWlignite,0.4GWnatu-

ralgasandoil,0.7GWhydropowerand0.1GWwind

and solar.Whereas lignite capacities have been sig-

nificantlydecommissionedinthepastyears,gasfired

CHP (combined heat and power) capacities have

been added to the generation system. Also the in-

stalled generation capacity of hydropower has in-

creasedbysome170MWin last6years.Hence, the

share of renewables in total electricity generation

went up to 34% in 2016 from about 20% at the

beginning of the decade. However, in 2017 the

share of renewables dropped to 22% due to the

exceptional drought and low electricity generation

fromhydropower.

Based on ENTSO-E statistics total power consump-

tionhassignificantlyandconstantlydecreasedinlast

few years and was at 7.2TWhwith a peak load of

some1.5GWin2017.Besidethecollapseoftheen-

ergy-intensive industryamajor reason for suchan

extraordinary reduction of the electricity demand

wasprobably the reductionofnon-technical losses

frompowertheftsandnon-collectionsinthedistri-

bution grid. Hence, the constantly decreasing na-

tionalelectricityconsumptionofthepastfewyears

will probablybe turned into a growth trend in the

future.

Despite the strong reduction of the national con-

sumptionFYROMisstillhighlydependonelectricity

imports. In 2017 about 27% of the consumed elec-

tricitywasimportedfromneighbouringcountries.In

drought years import dependency has even been

higher–hydropowerproductionshowedacapacity

factorbetween15%(2017)and35%(2013),which

equals to full load hours of 1,300 and 3,100h/a,

respectively.

Fig.7:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandFYRMacedonia2011-2017

Source:ENTSO-E

1.5 1.1 1.6 1.1 1.5 1.60.9

0.1 0.10.2

4.94.8 4.1

3.7 3.3 3.3 4.1

9.08.5

8.0 7.97.4

7.1 7.2

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]


0.7GW

0.1GW

1.2GW


hydro wind,solarandbiomass fossil demand


-11-

2.2.5 GreeceAccording to ENTSO-E data Greece had a total in-

stalledcapacityof16.4GWattheendof2017includ-

ing3.9GWlignite,4.3GWnaturalgas,3.4GWhydro-

power incl. pumped storage and 4.8GW other re-

newables. Additionally, about 2.2GW of generation

capacity is installed at the non-interconnected is-

lands(NIIs),whicharemainlysuppliedfromdiesel-

driven generators’. Besides Bulgaria, Greece is the

onlySEEcountrycovered in this studywithasub-

stantial portfolio of “new” renewable energies.

Wind, solar and biomass represent a generation

capacity of 5.1GW (incl. NIIs) at the end of 2017

andhave already exceededhydropower capacities.

However,in2017thegrowthrateof“new”renewa-

bles significantly sloweddownmainlydue toade-

lay in the adoption of the new support policy. In

contrasttothestronggrowthratesof“new”renew-

ables hydropower capacity additions in the past 6

yearsamounttoonlysome170MW.

PeakdemandintheinterconnectedGreekelectrici-

tysystemwas9.6GWin2017andthetotalelectric-

ity generation amounted to45.8TWhwith a share

of renewablesof about30%. Incomparison the re-

newable energy share in the electricitymix of the

NIIswasabout22%,correspondingtoaproduction

of 1.0TWh and an installed capacity of about

500MW.

As in other SEE countries the contribution of hy-

dropower to the national generation mix varies

significantly over the years. The bandwidth of the

hydropower capacity factor was between 17%

(2017) and 27% (2015) and of the full load hours

between1,500h/aand2,400h/a,respectively.

Greece has been a net importer of electricity for

severalyearsbutin2014importssharplyincreased

toabout18%ofannualconsumptionduetoasignif-

icant decrease of electricity production from do-

mestic lignite. However, despite environmental

concerns and a relatively cost-intensive mining

industry Greece decided to invest in new lignite

power stations, i.e. the negative exchange balance

willlikelybereducedintheupcomingyears.

Fig.8:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandGreece2011-2017

Source:ENTSO-E,HEDNO(*withoutnon-interconnectedislands)

4.0 4.4 5.1 4.5 6.1 5.5 4.00.3 0.2 0.2 0.2

1.5 1.6 1.52.6 3.2 3.4 3.03.9 4.3 4.80.4 1.2

3.4 3.93.6 3.7 3.7

42.4 41.8 35.429.1

26.7 27.4 31.8

53.3 52.349.6 49.4

51.4 51.3 52.0

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]

Generationanddemand2011-2017*

2.7GW

2.2GW

2.6GW

0.3GW

10,0GW

0.7GW


hydro wind solar biomass fossil pumpedstorage demand


-12-

2.2.6 MontenegroMontenegrohasatotalinstalledgenerationcapacity

of 1.0GW (2017), of which 0.2GW lignite, 0.7GW

hydropowerand0.1GWwind. In the last fewyears

no major fossil and hydropower capacity additions

have taken place. However, in 2017 the country’s

first wind farm with 26 turbines and an installed

capacityof72MWwascommissionedinKrnovoand

in2018a1GWunderseacablebetweenMontenegro

and Italywillbecompleted thatwillprobablyaffect

theutilizationofMontenegro’sthermalpowerplants.

Based on ENTSO-E statistics total power consump-

tionwasat3.4TWhwithapeakloadofsome0.7GW

in 2017. Similar to otherWestern Balkan countries

thecollapseoftheenergy-intensiveindustryaswell

asthereductionofnon-technicallossesfrompower

thefts and non-collections in the distribution grid

has considerably decreased electricity consumption

in last few years. However, it can be expected that

this trendwillprobablybeturned intoagrowthof

demand in the future.Parallel tothedecreasingde-

mand the share of renewables in total electricity

generationhas increased in the last years andwas

59% in 2016. However, in 2017 the renewables

sharedroppedto43%duetotheextraordinarylow

precipitationintheBalkanregion.

Despite the reduction of the national consumption

Montenegroisstilldependingonelectricityimports.

In2017about33%of theconsumedelectricitywas

importedfromneighbouringcountries.Onlyinyears

withaveryhighproductionfromhydropowerMon-

tenegrohasbeenanetexporterofelectricity,e.g. in

2013. Generally, hydropower production had a ca-

pacity factor in theyears2011-2017between17%

(2017) and 47% (2013) that equals to full load

hoursof1,500and4,200h/a,respectively.

Fig.9:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandMontenegro2011-2017

Source:ENTSO-E(demand2013basedonCGES)

1.21.5

2.7

1.71.4

1.7

1.0

0.1

1.41.2

1.3

1.31.4

1.2

1.3

4.23.9

3.43.3

3.43.2

3.4

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]


0.7GW

0.1GW

0.2GW


hydro wind fossil demand


-13-

2.2.7 SerbiaSerbia has a total installed generation capacity of

8.5GW(2017),including5.3GWlignite,0.2GWnat-

uralgasand3.0GWhydropower incl.pumpedstor-

age.Sofarnonotablewind,solarandbiomasscapac-

itieshavebeeninstalled.Hence,theshareofrenew-

ables in total electricity generation is still solely

determinedbyhydropowerandreachedabout23%

in2017.However,in2018theconstructionofanum-

berofwindfarmswithatotalcapacityof266MWhas

been announced (Alibunar with 42MW, Čibuk 1

with158MWandKostolacwith66MW)[9],[10].

Hydropowerhasshownarelativelyslowgrowthrate

in the past 6 years with a net addition of some

130MW. Despite growing concerns about environ-

mental aspects and climate change capacity growth

intheupcomingyearsisexpectedtocomefromdo-

mestic lignite. However, old and inefficient lignite

powerplantswillbedecommissionedinparalleland

alsotheconstructionof“new”renewablesisplanned

fortheupcomingyears.

Since run-of river plants at large rivers with com-

paratively smaller annual fluctuations of thewater

supply(e.g.Danube)dominateSerbia’shydropower

production the contribution of hydropower to the

national generation mix shows a significant lower

annual variation compared to other SEE countries.

Therangeofthecapacityfactorintheyears2011to

2017 was between 43% (2017) and 52% (2014),

which equals to full load hours of 3,700h/a and

4,600h/a,respectively.

In2017Serbia’sannualelectricityconsumptionwas

about40.5TWhandpeakloaddemandwas7.4GW.

Besides Bulgaria and Bosnia andHerzegovina Ser-

bia is the only SEE country covered in this study,

which has had a balanced or positive power ex-

changewith neighbours in the past. Only in 2014,

when heavy floods negatively impacted lignite gen-

erationSerbiawasanetimporterofelectricity.

Fig.10:KeyfigureselectricitygenerationanddemandSerbia2011–2017

Source:ENTSO-E

8.6 9.2 10.4 10.9 9.9 10.6 8.9

32.1 30.032.1

25.430.5 30.8

29.7

0.60.6

0.7

0.6

0.7 0.70.6

41.0 40.5

40.539.1 40.4

39.8

40.5

2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

[TWh/a]


2.4GW

5.5GW

0.6GW


hydro fossil pumpedstorage demand


-14-

3 Perspectivesforfurtherdevelopmentofhydropower

With an installed capacity of about 12.5GW and a

standard capacity of about 34TWh/a hydropower

representstodayabout25%ofthecapacityandgen-

eration mix of the seven SEE countries covered in

thisstudy.Allsevencountriesstillhaveconsiderable

potentials formajorhydropowercapacityadditions,

whichareconsequentlyalsoreflectedinthecountry

specific renewables targets. However, except the

2020 renewable energy targets as included in the

countries’ National Renewable Energy Action Plans

(NREAP) no consistent long-term targets for the

expansion of different renewable energy technolo-

gies and therefore also hydropower in SEE have

beencommunicatedsofar.Hence,besideaquantita-

tive summary of the hydropower potentials in the

sevenSEEcountriesinthischapterthenationalme-

dium-term targets for theexpansionofhydropower

canonlybeprovidedbasedonnationalNREAP tar-

gets.

3.1 Technical and economic hydro-powerpotentials

Asalreadymentioned,itisestimatedthatonlyabout

one third of the technical hydropower potential of

the SEE region has already been exploited so far.

However, due to e.g. economic and environmental

restrictionstypicallyonlyacertainshareofthetech-

nicalhydropowerpotentialcanfinallybeutilized,i.e.

thetechnicalpotentialcanonlygiveafirstindication

about the remaining hydropower potentials in the

SEEregion.Generally,besidesthetechnicalpotential

it can additionally be differentiated between the

theoretical, economic and utilizable potential of re-

newableenergiesasforexampleshowninFig.11(cf.

e.g.[12],[13]).

§ Theoreticalpotential:Fromaphysicalperspec-

tivetheoreticallyuseableamountofenergywith-

inalimitedregionandoveraspecifictimeperiod

(e.g.potentialenergyofdrainageinriverstretch-

esofacertaincountry).Thetheoreticalpotential

hasnopracticalrelevancebutistypicallyusedto

calculateotherpotentials.

§ Technical potential: Defined as the part of the

theoretical potential that is available if technical

restrictions are taken into account, such as effi-

ciencies and conversion losses. Other technical

restrictions can be e.g. the availability of a grid

connection,theaccessibilityofalocationtobuild

a power plant or the daily/seasonal demand for

energy.

Fig. 11: Definition of different renewable po-tentialsandappliedrestrictions

Source:Hermann[13]

§ Economic potential: Is thepartof the technical

potentialthatcanbeeconomicallyutilizedunder

thecurrentortheexpectedfuturemarketframe-

work.Theeconomicpotentialofrenewabletech-

nologiesisstronglydeterminedbythecoststruc-

ture of conventional technologies that are used

for thecomparisonwiththecoststructureofre-

newables.Hence,theeconomicpotentialisafunc-

tionoftheunderlyingassumptionsofe.g.fueland


-15-

carbon emission costs, investment and mainte-

nancecostsandcostsoffinancing.

§ Utilisablepotential:Istheshareoftheeconomic

potential that is accessible if not only technical

andeconomicbutalsootherrestrictionsaretak-

enintoaccount(e.g.legalandregulatorybarriers,

environmentalrestrictions).Theutilisablepoten-

tialisnormallysmallerthantheeconomicpoten-

tial but subsidies for renewable energies can

boost the utilisable potential even beyond the

economicpotential.

For its recently issued report “Cost-CompetitiveRe-

newable Power Generation: Potential across South-

EastEurope”[11]theInternationalRenewableEner-

gyAgency(IRENA)collectedandpublishedthelatest

publiclyavailableinformationonhydropowerpoten-

tials inSEEonacountry level.Besidesthetechnical

potentialtheIRENAreportalsoincludestheso-called

cost-competitive(i.e.economic)potentialtoconsider

thefactthatonlyaportionofthetechnicalpotential

can–fromaneconomicpointofview–effectivelybe

implemented. IRENA defines the cost-competitive

renewable energy potential as the potential that is

cost-competitivewithnewhardcoal,naturalgasand

lignite fired power plants. However, the IRENA re-

port explicitlymentions that environmental aspects

were not taken into account to derive the cost-

competitive hydropower potentials and stated “the

real implementable renewable potentials might be

lower, due to increasing environmental protection

requirements”.

The IRENA report includes all seven SEE countries

covered in this study except Greece. Hence, for

Greece the technical and economic hydropower po-

tential is derived from other publications (cf. [17]

and [18]). Additionally, the technical hydropower

potentialsasincludedintheIRENAreportareveri-

fied with other publications and – if justifiable –

adopted.2Fig.12depictsthetechnicalandaddition-2 NotethathydropowerpotentialsasincludedinpublicationsoftheEU-fundedprojectRegionalStrategyforSustainableHydro-

al economic potentials of hydropower capacities

(left)andgeneration(right)inthesevenSEEcoun-

triesaswellastherespectivenumbersfortheyear

2017.The countries represent a hydropowerport-

folioof12.5GWinstalledcapacitieswithanaverage

annualgenerationofabout33.6TWh/a3.Intotalthe

technical potential amounts to some 36GW and

99TWh/a,respectively, i.e. thetechnicalpotential is

about three times above the actual usage. The total

economic potential is estimated to be 25GW and

71.0TWh/a,respectively, i.e.onethird less thanthe

technicalpotentialbut still100%above the current

usage.Hence, theadditionalcost-competitivepoten-

tial is about 13GW and 37.4TWh/a. However, the

individualcountrieshavedifferentdeploymentrates

oftheirhydropowerpotentials,whichisdiscussedin

thefollowinginmoredetails.

§ Albaniahasatechnicalhydropowerpotentialof

4.8GW(15.6TWh/a)andaneconomicpotential

of 3.9GW (13.2TWh/a). Based on the installed

hydropower capacity of 2.0GW (6.2TWh/a) in

2017anadditionalcost-competitivepotentialof

1.9GW (7.0TWh/a) can be derived. Hence, Al-

baniahasyetexploitedabout40%ofitstechnical

and50%ofitseconomicpotential,respectively.

§ BosniaandHerzegovinahasatechnicalhydro-

powerpotentialof6.1GW(24.5TWh/a)andan

economic potential of 4.2GW (14.6TWh/a).

Based on the installed hydropower capacity of

1.7GW(5.2TWh/a) in2017anadditional cost-

competitivepotentialof2.5GW(9.4TWh/a)can

be derived. Hence, Bosnia and Herzegovina has

yetexploitedabout25%ofitstechnicaland40%

ofitseconomicpotential,respectively.

powerintheWesternBalkans(cf.[14])onlyconsiderpotentialsof largehydropower (except for FYROMandpartiallyMonte-negro).I.e.besidespossiblegeneraldifferenceinthedefinitionof the technicalhydropowerpotential thepublishednumberscannotdirectlybecompared.

3 Calculatedonthebasisofinstalledcapacities2017andaveragefull load hours of the years 2011 to 2017, i.e. numbers differfromactualgenerationintheyear2017.


-16-

Fig.12:Hydropowercapacityandgenerationin2017aswellasadditionaleconomicandtechnicalhy-dropowerpotential

Source:Source:ENTSO-E;AEA,IRENA,IHA,GovernmentofMacedonia

§ Bulgaria has a technical hydropower potential

of9.0GW(13.4TWh/a)andaneconomicpoten-

tial of 4.0GW (8.6TWh/a). Based on the in-

stalled hydropower capacity of 2.3GW

(3.8TWh/a) in 2017 an additional cost-


be derived. Hence, Bulgaria has yet exploited

about25%ofitstechnicaland60%ofitseconom-

icpotential,respectively.

§ FYR Macedonia has a technical hydropower

potentialof1.6GW(4.0TWh/a)andaneconom-

icpotentialof1.3GW(3.7TWh/a)according to

the IRENA report “Cost-Competitive Renewable

Power Generation: Potential across South-East

Europe” [11].However, in itsbackgroundreport

No. 1 “Past, present and future role of hydro-

power”theprojectRegionalStrategyforSustain-

able Hydropower in the Western Balkans [14]

showedatechnicalpotentialofabout9.8TWh/a

andalsotheofficiallystatedtechnicalpotentialof

5.5TWh/a[15],[16]isabovethenumberinthe

IRENAreport.Hence,inthefollowingatechnical

potentialof5.5TWh/aand2.3GW,respectively,

isassumedforFYRMacedonia.Basedonthein-

stalled hydropower capacity of 0.7GW

(1.6TWh/a) in 2017 the additional cost-

competitive potential amounts to 0.6GW

(2.1TWh/a). Hence, FYRMacedonia has yet ex-

ploitedabout30%ofitstechnicalandabout50%

ofitseconomicpotential,respectively.

§ Greecehasa technicalhydropowerpotentialof

8.0GW(15.0TWh/a) [17]andaneconomicpo-

tential of 6.3GW (12.0TWh/a) [18]. Based on

the installed hydropower capacity of 2.7GW

(5.2TWh/a) in 2017 an additional cost-


bederived.Hence,Greecehasyetexploitedabout

35%ofitstechnicaland45%ofitseconomicpo-

tential,respectively.

§ Montenegrohasatechnicalhydropowerpoten-

tialof2.04GW(5.0TWh/a)andaneconomicpo-

tentialof1.96GW(4.5TWh/a)accordingto the

2.0

1.7 2.3

0.7

2.7

0.7

2.4

1.9

2.5 1.7

0.6

3.5

1.3

1.2

4.8

6.1

9.0

2.3

8.0

2.7

4.7

[GW]

Installedcapacity

6.2

5.2

3.8

1.6

5.2

1.6

10.0

7.0 9.4

4.8

2.1

6.8

2.9

4.5

15.6

24.5

13.4

5.5

15.0

6.6

18.0

[TWh/a]

Annualgeneration

capacity/generation2017 additionalcost-competitivepotential technicalpotential


-17-

IRENA report “Cost-Competitive Renewable

Power Generation: Potential across South-East

Europe” [11]. However, even without having

considered small hydropower to a full extend

theRegionalStrategy forSustainableHydropow-

erintheWesternBalkans[14]showedaconsid-

erable higher technical potential of about

6.6TWh/a.Hence,inthefollowingatechnicalpo-

tential of 6.6TWh/a (2.7GW) is considered for

Montenegro.Basedonthe installedhydropower

capacityof0.7GW(1.6TWh/a)in2017anaddi-

tional cost-competitive potential of 1.3GW

(2.9TWh/a)canbederived.Hence,Montenegro

hasyet exploitedabout25%of its technical and

35%ofitseconomicpotential,respectively.

§ Serbia has a technical hydropower potential of

4.7GW(18.0TWh/a)andaneconomicpotential

of 3.6GW (14.5TWh/a). Based on the installed

hydropowercapacityof2.4GW(10.0TWh/a)in

2017anadditionalcost-competitivepotentialof

1.2GW(4.5TWh/a)canbederived.Hence,Ser-

bia has yet exploited about 50% of its technical

and70%ofitseconomicpotential,respectively.

3.2 2020NREAPtargetsIn 2006, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, FYR

Macedonia, Montenegro and Serbia ratified the

Treaty on establishing the Energy Community

(EnC).AspartoftheirobligationsundertheEnCthe

Western Balkan countries have committed them-

selves to increase the overall share of renewable

energies – from country to country between 25%

and40%by2020.In2012theWesternBalkancoun-

tries also adopted the EU Renewable Energy Di-

rective with binding renewable energy targets for

2020andtheobligationtosubmitaNREAPtofurther

detail renewable energy targets. However, no long-

term targets for renewable energies in general

and/orhydropower inparticularhavebeendefined

yet, i.e. theNREAPsprovide theonly consistent tar-

gets for the expansion of hydropower in the seven

SEE countries covered in this study. Table 1 shows

for each country (a) theNREAP targets for the ex-

pansionofhydropower(excl.pumpedstorage),(b)

the installed hydropower capacity 2010, (c) the

installedhydropowercapacity2017,(d)thecapaci-

tyadditionsfrom2010to2017and(e)theremain-

ingcapacitygaptoachieveNREAPtargetsfor2020.

Table1:NREAP2020targets forhydropowerandinstalledhydropowercapacityinMW

NREAPtarget

2020

Installedcapacity

2010

Installedcapacity

2017

Capacityadditions

2010-2017

Rem

ainingcapacity

gapNREAPtargets

Albania 2,320 1,500 2,020 520 300

BiH 2,210 1,530 1,660 130 550

Bulgaria 2,420 2,120 2,340 220 80

FYROM 750 500 680 180 70

Greece 2,950 2,520 2,700 180 250

Montenegro 830 640 660 20 170

Serbia 2,660 2,220 2,380 160 280

Total 14,140 11,030 12,440 1,410 1,700

Source:ENTSO-E,AEA,NREAPsofcountries

In addition, Fig. 13 provides an overview of the

installed hydropower development between 2010

and2017andtheadditionalcapacitythatwouldbe

requiredtoachievethe2020NREAPtargets.Fig.13

also includes theremainingcost-competitivepoten-

tials.

All seven NREAPs sum up to an envisaged hydro-

power net capacity addition of about 3.1GW be-

tween2010and2020,whichcorrespondstoacapac-

ityincreaseof28%comparedto2010.Intotalsome

1.4GWhavealreadybeenimplemented,i.e.anaddi-

tional 1.7GW of hydropower capacities would be

required to meet overall NREAP targets. However,

there are large differences between the individual

countriesintheprogressofhydropowerdeployment.


-18-

Ifgrowthratesoftheyears2010-2017aretakeninto

account Albania, Bulgaria and FYR Macedonia will

likelymeettheirhydropowertargetsfor2020,while

GreeceandSerbiawillneedadditionaleffortsifthey

want to reach theirhydrospecific2020NREAP tar-

gets. In contrast Bosnia andHerzegovina aswell as

MontenegrowillhardlybeabletomeettheirNREAP

targetsforhydropower.Inthefollowingabriefcoun-

try specific summary about the extent towhich ob-

jectivesarebeingachievedisprovided.

§ Albania’s NREAP defines a capacity target for

hydropowerof2.32GWby2020oran increase

of55%(0.82GW)comparedto2010.Twothird

ofthetargethasalreadybeenachievedby2017,

henceAlbaniaisonapromisingwaytomeetits

2020targetsforhydropower.

§ Bosnia and Herzegovina has a 2020 NREAP

target for hydropower excl. pump storage of

2.21GW, i.e. an increaseof44%(0.68GW)com-

paredto2010wouldberequired.However,only

0.13GW of new hydropower capacity has been

addedinthepastfewyears,whichmakesitvery

unlikely that Bosnia and Herzegovina will ac-

complishits2020objectives.

§ Bulgaria defined a 2.42GW NREAP target for

hydropowerin2020,whichcorrespondstoanin-

crease of 14 (0.30GW) compared to 2010. Be-

tween 2010 and 2017 already some 0.22GW of

newhydropowercapacitieswerebuilt,i.e.Bulgar-

iawillprobablymeetitshydropowertargets.

§ FYRMacedoniaincludedahydropowertargetof

709MW for 2020 in its NREAP. However, it

seems that theNREAP confused 2019 and 2020

targetsforhydropower>10MW,sincetheofficial

numbers for 2020 would lead to a decline of

about20MWhydropowercapacityfrom2019to

2020. Therefore, it can be assumed that the

NREAP numbers for large hydropower in the

years 2019 and 2020 are interchanged, i.e. the

correct 2020 NREAP target for hydropower

shouldprobablybe750andnot709MW.Hence,

compared to 2010 FYRMacedonia targets a hy-

dropowercapacityadditionof50%(0.25GW)un-

til2020ofwhich0.18GWhavealreadybeenim-

plemented.

§ Greece aims to achieve2.95GWof installedhy-

dropower capacity by 2020, which corresponds

toanincreaseof17(0.43GW)comparedto2010.

However, hydropower expansion has been im-

plemented too slow so far (+0.18GW between

2010 and 2017),whichwillmake it difficult for

GreecetomeetitsNREAP2020hydropowertar-

gets.

§ Montenegrohasa2020hydropowertargetinits

NREAPof0.83GW.Thisrepresentsanincreaseof

30%(0.19GW)comparedto2010.However,be-

tween2010and2017onlysome0.02GWofnew

hydropower capacity was commissioned, i.e.

Montenegro will likely miss its 2020 target for

hydropower.

§ Serbiadefinedahydropowertargetof2.66GWin

itsNREAPfor2020,whichcorrespondstoanin-

crease of 20% (0.44GW) compared to 2010.

However,hydropowerexpansionatalevelofthe

past growth rate of the past years (0.16GW be-

tween2010and2017)wouldnotbesufficientto

meet Serbia’s NREAP targets for hydropower in

2020.


-19-

Fig.13:Hydropowercapacitydevelopment2010-2017,NREAP2020targetandeconomicpotential

Source:IRENA,ENTSO-E,NREAPsofcountries

1.50

1.54

1.60

1.65

1.73

1.80

1.91

2.02

1.9

0.30

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

Albania

1.53

1.53

1.53

1.59

1.62

1.62

1.66

1.66

2.5

0.55

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

BosniaandHerzegovina

2.12

2.29

2.30

2.30

2.33

2.33

2.34

2.34

1.7

0.08

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

Bulgaria

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.50

0.54

0.54

0.68

0.68

0.6

0.07

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

FYRMacedonia

2.52

2.52

2.53

2.54

2.54

2.54

2.69

2.70

3.5

0.25

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

Greece

0.64

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

0.66

1.3

0.17

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

Montenegro

2.22

2.27

2.27

2.34

2.37

2.39

2.40

2.40

1.2

0.27

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

pot.

[GW]

Serbia

remainingeconomicpotential

installedcapacity

capacitygaptoachieveNREAPtarget


-20-

3.3 HydropowerprojectpipelineSouth-Eastern European countries and especially

the Western Balkans still represent a significant

portionofuntappedhydropowerpotentials.Efforts

to further exploit these potentials have been

strengthenedinrecentyearsandhence,afewthou-

sand new hydropower plants are in the project

pipeline in the SEE region. EuroNatur and River-

Watchhavebeen closelymonitoring and reporting

hydropower expansion activities in SEE countries4

and provided an updated list of hydropower pro-

jects for the seven SEE countries covered in this

study[19].

TheEuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlistincludesthe

nameof theproject, theaffectedriver, theplanned

installed capacity (allocated to one of the four size

categories 0.1-1MW, 1-10MW, 10-50MW and

>50MW) and the project feasibility as result of an

ecological classification by EuroNatur/RiverWatch

(i.e.locatedinexclusionornonexclusionzonesfrom

EuroNatur/RiverWatch perspective). The Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch list considers in total 2,354

hydropower projects for the seven SEE countries.

However,sincesolepumpedstorageprojectsarenot

considered in this study threepumpedstoragepro-

jects are excluded for the further analysis. Hence,

2,351 projects from the EuroNatur/RiverWatch list

remainrelevant.Table2providesacountryspecific

overviewaboutthenumberofprojectsallocatedto

eachsizecategory.

With842projectsmore thanone thirdof the con-

sidered projects are located in Serbia. Greece, Bul-

gariaandBosniaandHerzegovinawithapipelineof

each between 300 and 400 projects are already

lagging behind Serbia but still have a considerable

number of projects. Albania follows this group of

countries with 252 projects. FYR Macedonia with

154 projects and Montenegro with 92 projects

completethesevenSEEcountries.

4 e.g..https://riverwatch.eu/de/balkanrivers/map

Table 2: Hydropower projects covered byEuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlist

0.1MW-1MW

1MW-10MW

10MW-50MW

>50MW

allprojects

Albania 112 106 24 10 252

BiH 84 159 49 13 305

Bulgaria 212 112 2 6 332

FYROM 88 48 13 5 154

Greece 226 142 6 0 374

Montenegro 13 58 11 10 92

Serbia 703 110 18 11 842

Total 1,438 735 123 55 2,351

Source:EuroNatur/RiverWatch

About92%ofall consideredprojectsaresmallhy-

dropower plants below 10MW and two third are

even below 1MW. Therefore large hydropower

plants (i.e. above 10MW) only contribute 8% or

173projectstotheoverallprojectlist.Fig.14shows

thenumberofhydropowerprojectsallocatedtothe

foursizecategoriesforallsevenSEEcountries.

Fig.14:Hydropowerprojectspersizecatego-ryEuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlist


1,43861%

73531%

1235%

553%

0.1-1MW 1-10MW 10-50MW >50MW


-21-

However,evenifthenumberofsmallandespecially

verysmallhydropowerplantsisveryhightheymay

only have a limited contribution to the overall in-

stalledcapacityandannualgeneration,respectively.

Since theEuroNatur/RiverWatch listdoesonlypro-

videthesizecategorybutnospecificdataaboutthe

installed capacity and annual generation (so called

standard capacity) of the projects these data are

estimatedaccordingtothefollowingapproach:

− The installed hydropower capacity is assumed

tobe0.5MWforprojectsallocatedtothecate-

gory0.1-1MW,5MWforprojectsofthecatego-

ry1-10MW,30MWforprojectsofthecategory

10-50MWand75MW forprojectsof the cate-

goryabove50MW.

− The annual generation is calculated from the

estimated capacity and the average country

specificfullloadhoursofhydropowerplantsof

theyears2011-2017.

For an individual project this approach potentially

delivers a deviation from the actual capacity and

generation,respectively.However, thisstudyisnot

focusedontheevaluationofindividualprojectsbut

ratherontheassessmentofcountryspecificproject

portfolios, for which this approach certainly pro-

videssufficientaccuracy.

In total the EuroNatur/RiverWatch list comprises

hydropower projects with some 12.2GW of in-

stalled capacity and 35.9TWh/a of annual genera-

tion.Fig.15providesamoredetailedbreakdownof

projectcapacitiesandgenerationbetweencountries

as well as size categories. Projects in Bosnia and

Herzegovina,SerbiaandAlbaniacontribute togeth-

er62%of the capacityand73%of thegeneration,

respectively. The reason for the noticeable higher

share in the projects’ total generation is because

average full loadhours in the three countrieshave

beensignificantlyabovefull loadhoursinBulgaria,

Greece, FYR Macedonia and Montenegro, i.e. one

MWofnewly installedhydropowercapacitywould

potentially produce more MWh per year in this

threecountries.

Fig. 15: Capacity (left) and annual generation (right) of hydropower project portfolios Eu-roNatur/RiverWatchprojectlist


750

975

450

375

-

750

825

720

1,470

60

390

180

330 540

530

795

560

240

710

290

550

56

42

106

44

113

7

352∑2,056

∑3,282

∑1,176∑1,049∑1,003

∑1,377

∑2,267

AL BiH BG FYROM GR ME RS

[MW]

2.3 3.1

0.7

0.9 1.8

3.4

2.2

4.7

0.1 0.9

0.3

0.8

2.3

1.6

2.5

0.9

0.6

1.4

0.7

2.3

0.2

0.1

0.2 0.1

0.2

1.5

∑6.3

∑10.4

∑1.9∑2.5

∑1.9∑3.4

∑9.4

AL BiH BG FYROM GR ME RS

[TWh/a]

>50MW 10MW-50MW 1MW-10MW 0.1MW-1MW


-22-

Withregardtosizecategoriesitisespeciallynotice-

able that large hydropower plants provide 2/3 of

the capacity and generation, respectively. Small

hydropower,whichrepresents92%oftheprojects,

delivers1/3of thecapacityandgeneration, i.e. the

numberofplant and contribution to the electricity

system of large and small hydropower are exactly

oppositetoeachother.

Compared to the already installed capacity of

12.5GW (excl. pumped storage) and the average

generationof about34TWh/a the announcedpro-

jects would double the use of hydropower in the

seven SEE countries. However, the ratio between

thealreadyinstalledcapacitiesandcapacitiesbased

onEuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlistdifferswidely

among countries and inmost countries the cumu-

latedcapacityofallprojectsevenexceedseconomic

hydropowerpotentials.ThisisshowninFig.16that

compares on a country-by-country level the total

capacityof theprojects to thealready installed ca-

pacityaswellas theadditionalcost-competitiveor

economicandthetechnicalpotential.

§ Albania:Projectssumuptoaninstalledcapacity

of 2.1GW and an annual generation of

6.3TWh/a, respectively, i.e. they would double

today’s hydropower capacities. Even if this

number is slightly above the additional cost-

competitive potential of 1.9GW, the project

pipeline plausibly reflects from an energy eco-

nomicpointofviewAlbania’soptionsfortheex-

pansionofhydropower.

§ BosniaandHerzegovina:Theprojectpipelineof

3.3GW (10.4TWh/a) would triple the country’s

actual hydropower generation.However, the cu-

mulated capacityof all projects exceeds the eco-

nomic potential by about 30%. Hence, it seems

that economic aspectshavenotbeen sufficiently

considered in all projects yet, i.e. it can be ex-

pectedthatanumberofprojectswillnotbepur-

suedunless e.g. additional subsidies compensate

theeconomicunattractivenessoftheseprojects.

Fig. 16: Capacity of hydropower projects EuroNatur/RiverWatch list compared to installed capacity2017,additionalcost-competitiveandtechnicalpotential

Source:EuroNatur/RiverWatch,IRENA,IHA

2.0

1.7 2.3

0.7 2.7

0.7 2.4

2.1 3.3

1.2

1.0

1.0

1.4

2.3

1.9

2.5 1.7

0.6

3.5

1.3

1.2

4.8

6.2

9.0

2.3

8.0

2.7

4.7


[GW]

technicalpotential additionalcost-competitivepotentialEuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlist installedcapacity2017(excl.pumpedstorage)


-23-

§ Bulgaria: Projects considered by EuroNa-

tur/RiverWatchaccount foracapacityof1.2GW

and an annual generation of 1.9TWh/a, respec-

tively, i.e. theywould increase the use of hydro-

powerbyabout50%.Takingtheeconomicpoten-

tial of 1.7GW into account the project pipeline

plausiblyreflectsBulgaria’soptionstofurtherex-

pandtheuseofhydropower.

§ FYRMacedonia: The project pipeline of 1.0GW

(2.5TWh/a) would not only increase the coun-

try’s use of hydropower by about 140% but

wouldalsoexceedtheeconomicpotential,which

isabout0.6GW.However,thecountryhasanad-

ditionalavailabletechnicalpotentialof1.6GW,i.e.

the site conditions would in principle allow the

implementationoftheannouncedprojectsifeco-

nomicboundaryconditionswerereasonable.

§ Greece:Theprojectswoulddeliveracapacityof

1.0GW(1.9TWh/a)andcorrespondtoaboutone

thirdofthecurrentlyinstalledcapacity.Sincethe

projectpipeline iswellbelowtheadditionaleco-

nomic potential of 3.5GW, the pipeline is inline

with the fundamental possibilities to expand the

useofhydropowerinGreecefromanenergyeco-

nomicperspective.

§ Montenegro: The country’s project pipeline of

1.4GW (3.4TWh/a) would not only double the

use of hydropower but also slightly exceed the

economic potential of 1.3GW. However, with a

remainingtechnicalpotentialofsome2.0GWthe

implementation of the already announces pro-

jects would in principle be possible even if the

projectpipelineseemstobequiteambitious.

§ Serbia: With a project pipeline of 2.3GW

(9.4TWh/a) Serbiawould almost double its use

ofhydropower.However,theannouncedprojects

wouldnotonlyexceedtheeconomicpotentialof

1.2GWby farbutwouldalsorequire the fullex-

ploitationofthetechnicalpotential.Thisseemsto

beratherambitious.

3.4 AglanceatsmallhydropowerWhilelargehydropower(i.e.installedcapacityabove

10MW) is awell-established technology in the SEE

region, small hydropower (<10MW) has emerged

only in the last fewyears.Hence, largehydropower

still represents 95% of the installed hydropower

capacities in the seven SEE countries that are cov-

ered in this study. In contrast, small hydropower

represents 92% of the number of projects of the

EuroNatur/RiverWatch listand1/3of thecapacity

andannualgeneration,respectively.Thismismatch

between thenumberandquantitative contribution

of projects is even larger for (very) small hydro-

powerprojectsbelow1MW,which represent61%

ofthenumberofprojectsinthesevenSEEcountries

but only provide 6% of the capacity and annual

generation.

Fig.17givesanoverviewof theshareofsmalland

largehydropowerforallsevenSEEcountriesfor(a)

the existing hydropower plants, (b) the capacity

additions between 2010 and 2015, (c) the NREAP

targets, (d) the EuroNatur/RiverWatch (EN/RW)

projectlistand(e)theadditionaleconomicorcost-

competitivepotential–acountryspecificanalysisis

providedinFig.18.

Fig.17: Shareof small and largehydropowerininstalledcapacityinallsevenSEEcountries

Source:IRENA,ENTSO-E,NREAPsofcountries,EuroNatur/Ri-verWatch

5%

36%

38%

36%

20%

95%

64%

62%

64%

80%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

smallhydropower(<10MW) largehydropower(>10MW)


-24-

Fig.18:Shareofsmallandlargehydropowerininstalledcapacity

Source:IRENA,ENTSO-E,NREAPsofcountries,EuroNatur/RiverWatch

10%

46%

55%

29%

35%

90%

54%

45%

71%

65%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

Albania

4%

47%

32%

26%

30%

96%

53%

68%

74%

70%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential


15%

75%

19%

57%

5%

85%

25%

81%

43%

95%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

Bulgaria

14%

39%

52%

27%

12%

86%

61%

48%

73%

88%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

FYRMacedonia

8%

10%

17%

82%

92%

90%

83%

18%

N/A

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

Greece

3%

31%

47%

22%

7%

97%

69%

53%

78%

93%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

Montenegro

3%

63%

39%

40%

9%

97%

37%

61%

60%

91%

status2015

additions2010-2015

NREAPtarget

EN/RWprojectlist

add.econ.potential

Serbia

smallhydropower(<10MW)

largehydropower(>10MW)


-25-

In2015only5%oftheinstalledhydropowercapac-

ity in the seven SEE countries was provided by

small hydropower.However, theNREAP targets of

all sevenSEE countrieshaveput a strong focuson

smallhydropower,38%of the total3.1GWhydro-

power targetsbetween2010and2020 isallocated

to small hydropower. The NREAP targets are al-

ready reflected in the capacity additions between

2010 and 2015, where small hydropower contrib-

utedabout36%tothetotalnewhydropowercapac-

itiesof1.1GW.Bychance,thisisthesamepercent-

age of the share of small hydropower as it can be

derived for the actual project portfolio from the

EuroNatur/RiverWatch list. Though, on country

level significant differences can be identified with

regardtothedevelopmentofsmallhydropower:

− NREAP2020 targets for smallhydropowerare

between 17% (Greece) and 55% (Albania) of

thetotalnationalhydropowercapacitytargets.

− In the EuroNatur/RiverWatch project list the

share of small hydropower ranges between

22%inMontenegroand82%inGreece.

− Theshareof smallhydropower in capacityad-

ditionsof theyears2010-2015variesbetween

10%inGreeceand75%inBulgaria.

However, the relatively strong focus of the coun-

tries’ hydropower strategies on small hydropower

is not necessarily reflected in the economic poten-

tials. For example, the IRENA report about cost-

competitive renewables potential across South-East

Europe showsonaveragea20%shareof smallhy-

dropower in the total economichydropowerpoten-

tials [11]5. On a country level this share ranges be-

tween5% inBulgaria and35% inAlbania, i.e. from

aneconomicperspectivesmallhydropowerseemsto

be overrepresented inmost of the seven SEE coun-

try’srenewablesstrategies.

5 W/oGreece,whichisnotconsideredintheIRENAreport.

The comparatively low share of small hydropower

in the economic potentials is quite comprehensible

because specific investment costs of small hydro-

power plants are in general higher than specific in-

vestmentcostsoflarge(er)hydropowerplants.Since

therearenoconsistentnumbers for the investment

costsofhydropowerplantsinSEEcountriesavailable

thefollowingFig.19showsasanexampletheresults

ofaneconomicanalysis thatwasconducted for159

Austrian run-of river power plants and projects,

respectively,intheyear2016[20].

Fig. 19: Specific investment costs of run-ofriverpowerplantsinAustria

Source:e3consult

The159hydropowerplantsconsideredintheanaly-

sis had been either put in operation since 2009 or

were under construction and in an advanced plan-

ning stage, respectively. The study showed that the

capacity weighted average of the investment costs

was4.0MillionEurosperMW.Although the results

didn’t show a clear correlation between installed

capacityandspecific investmentcost thestudycon-

cluded that small hydropower plants below 2MW

typically have the highest specific investment costs,

whereas the most attractive hydropower plants in

Austria were in the range between about 5 and

-

2

4

6

8

10

0.1 1.0 10.0 100.0

spec.investmentcostin[M€ 2

016/MW]

bottleneckcapacityin[MW]


-26-

10MW.Eveniftheseresultscannotbedirectlytrans-

ferred to the seven SEE countries, they provide at

leastastrongindicationthatverysmallhydropower

plants are from an economic perspective the least

favourable hydropower option. Hence, very small

hydropower plants would require more subsidies

perMWandMWh,respectively,toprovidepotential

investorsaviablebusinesscase.

However, beside possible economic issues small

hydropower plantsmay also have disadvantages in

terms of grid connection compared to large hydro-

power. For example, the final report of the study

Regional Strategy for SustainableHydropower in the

WesternBalkans [21]stated“[…] thecapacityof the

distributionnetworks in theregion is insufficient to

facilitate growing demand for connection of new

small HPPs and distributed generation in general”.

On the other hand the study also concluded: “The

capacity of the transmission grid, if observed from

theregional level, seemstobesufficient to facilitate

any additional major planned HPP development

projects.” Hence, at least for the foreseeable future

the grid connection of additional large hydropower

capacities seem easier to implement than the grid

connectionofthesamecapacitiesfromsmallhydro-

power.


-27-

4 FeasibilityofhydropowerprojectsaccordingtoEuroNatur/River-Watchcriteria

Theeffortsofmostcountries to furtherexploit the

remaining hydropower potentials is impressively

shown in the EuroNatur/RiverWatch project list

with a total number of 2,351 projects (excl.

pumped-storage) for the seven SEE countries con-

sidered in this study. However, the expansion of

hydropowerhasalsocausedincreasingenvironmen-

talconcernsbecausenewhydropowerplantsprimar-

ilyaffectriverstretcheswithahighecologicalvalue.

Hence,EuroNatur/RiverWatchappliedanecological

evaluation to 2,351 hydropower projects to classify

the feasibility of the projects from Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatchperspectivelocatedinexclusion

or non-exclusion zones. Based on the ecological

classification of projects this chapter assesses the

effectsoftheEuroNatur/RiverWatchclassificationon

thefurtherdevelopmentofhydropowerintheseven

SEE countries. Additionally, it is evaluated if other

renewable energy sources, such aswind and solar

PV,wouldbeabletosubstitute“exclusion”projects.

4.1 Ecological classification of hy-dropowerprojects

EuroNatur/RiverWatch provided a classification of

all projects considered in its project list either as

located in an exclusion zone or in a non-exclusion

zone [19], i.e. the assessment reflects EuroNa-

tur/RiverWatch’sperspectiveof theecological feasi-

bility of a project. Table 3 provides this differentia-

tionbetweenprojectsin“non-exclusion”and“exclu-

sion”zonesoftheEuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlist.

In total198or8.5%of theprojectsareclassifiedas

“non-excluded”, i.e. could be ecologically feasible

according to the criteria applied by Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch. However, since only 7 large

hydropower projects are classified as ecologically

feasible a mere of 4% or 531MW of the installed

capacity of all projects (12,210MW) is allocated to

projectsinnon-exclusionzones.Thisisalsoshownin

Fig. 20 that presents the share of “exclusion” and

“non-exclusion”projectsinthetotalinstalledcapaci-

tyoftheprojectsonacountryaswellasanoverall

regionlevel.Asaresultthecapacityofprojectsthat

are located in non-exclusion zones range between

almost 0% in Montenegro, where only two small

hydropower projects are classified as feasible, and

11%inFYRMacedonia.

Table3:Numberofhydropowerprojectsclas-sified in “exclusion” and “non-exclusion” byEuroNatur/RiverWatch

Country

EuroNatur

classification

0.1MW-1MW

1MW-10MW

10MW-50MW

>50MW

allprojects

[-] [-] [-] [-] [-] [MW] [TWh/a]

ALnon-excl. 9 0 2 0 11 65 0.2excl. 103 106 22 10 241 1,992 6.1

BiHnon-excl. 8 2 2 0 12 74 0.2excl. 76 157 47 13 293 3,208 1.2

BGnon-excl. 30 18 0 0 48 105 0.2excl. 182 94 2 6 284 1,071 1.7

FYROMnon-excl. 12 0 1 1 14 111 0.3excl. 76 48 12 4 140 938 2.2

GRnon-excl. 15 9 0 0 24 53 0.1excl. 211 133 6 0 350 951 1.8

MEnon-excl. 1 1 0 0 2 6 0.0excl. 12 57 11 10 90 1,371 3.3

RSnon-excl. 76 10 1 0 87 118 0.5excl. 627 100 17 11 755 2,149 9.0

Totalnon-excl. 151 40 6 1 198 531 1.5excl. 1,287 695 117 54 2,153 11,679 34.4



-28-

Fig.20:Shareofprojectsinexclusionandnon-exclusion zones in total capacity of EuroNa-tur/RiverWatchprojectlist


4.2 Effects on overall hydropowerdevelopment

Potentially feasible projects in EuroNatur/River-

Watch non-exclusion zones represent in total a ca-

pacity of 531MW and an annual generation of

1.5TWh/a forall sevenSEEcountries.Comparedto

theoutputoftheexistingfleetofhydropowerplants

thiswouldcorrespondtoanincreaseincapacityand

generation,respectively,ofabout4%.Hence,without

consideringanyrefurbishmentmeasuresorcapacity

increases in existing hydropower plants the Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch assessment of the ecological

feasibility of hydropower projects would de facto

stopany furtherdevelopmentofhydropower in the

sevenSEEcountries.

Asaconsequence,mostofthesevencountrieswould

notbeabletomeettheirNREAPhydropowertargets

– not to mention any hydropower target beyond

2020.OnlyinBulgariaandFYRMacedoniasufficient

projects in non-exclusion zones would be available

that2020NREAPtargetsforhydropowercouldtheo-

reticallybemet.ThisisshowninFig.21thatdepicts

the installedhydropowercapacity in theyear2017,

the capacity of “non-exclusion”projects and thehy-

dropower targets for 2020 as derived from the na-

tionalNREAPs.Onecanclearlyseethatfeasiblepro-

jects would only provide very limited new hydro-

powercapacitiestothealreadyinstalledcapacitiesin

the seven SEE countries and for most countries a

significantgapbetweenNREAPtargetandthefeasi-

bleprojectpipelinewouldremain.

Fig. 21: Installed hydropower capacity 2017,capacity additions EuroNatur/RiverWatchprojectlistandNREAPtargets

Source:ENTSO-E,EuroNatur/RiverWatch,NREAPsofcountries

However, even if hydropower plays the most im-

portant role in the short-term renewable energy

targets in all of the seven countries exceptBulgaria

andGreecehydropowerwillnotbeenoughtoputthe

SEEregionontracktowardsalow-carbonelectricity

system. In the last seven years the share of hydro-

power in the total electricity consumption of the

seven SEE countries was in a range between 16%

and 25%. Even if an implementation of all projects

from the EuroNatur/RiverWatch list would double

theshareofhydropowerinthesevenSEEcountries

other renewable energy sourceswould still need to

provide themajority of green electricity if the elec-

3% 2%9% 11% 5% 0% 5% 4%

97% 98%91% 89% 95% 100% 95% 96%

AL BA BG FYRM GR ME RS allexclusionzones non-exclusionzones

2,0201,656

2,340

676

2,700

660

2,395

65

74

105

111

53

6

1182,3242,208

2,424

750

2,951

826

2,662

AL BiH BG FYRM GR ME RS

[MW]

"non-exclusion"projectsEuroNatur/RiverWatchinstalledcapacity2017(excl.pumpedstorage)NREAP2020target(excl.pumpedstorage)


-29-

tricity sector were decarbonized. At national level

there are certainly some differences, i.e. in Albania,

BosniaandHerzegovinaandMontenegrothepoten-

tialadditionalgenerationoftheprojectswouldallow

atleastonanaverageannualbasisa100%supplyof

thecountrieswithelectricityfromhydropower.

Incontrast,forBulgaria,FYRMacedonia,Greeceand

Serbia the listedprojectswouldonlyprovide a lim-

ited contribution to close the gapbetweena supply

withelectricityfrommainlyrenewableenergiesand

the consumption. In Fig. 22 this situation is shown

forthesevenSEEcountriesbymeansofthegenera-

tion from renewable energies and the electricity

consumption in 2017. Additionally, the potential

generation from “non-exclusion” and “exclusion”

projects according to the EuroNatur/RiverWatch

projectlistisrepresentedinFig.22(notethatthebar

ofprojectslocatedinnon-exclusionzonesiscompar-

ativelynarrowformostcountriesandthereforediffi-

cult to see). However, it should be noted that the

seasonal and yearly fluctuations of electricity gen-

eration from hydropowerwould inmost cases re-

quire other technologies and/or a strongly inter-

connected power system to provide sufficient re-

serve capacity and complementary generation, re-

spectively, in case of lowwater levels. Thismeans

thatagenerationportfoliothatonlyreliesonasin-

gletechnology(i.e.hydropowerwithoutmajorsea-

sonal storageas for example inNorway)couldnot

beconsideredasarobustgenerationportfoliofrom

a security of supply perspective. Therefore the ex-

pansion of wind, solar PV and biomass in the SEE

region may not only be considered as “the second

bestrenewableoption”inthecaseoflimitedremain-

inghydropowerpotentials but as a reasonable con-

tributiontoarobustlow-carbongenerationportfolio.

Consequently, a smaller than generally anticipated

expansionofhydropowerwouldnotnecessarilyhave

a negative impact on the development of a genera-

tionportfoliobasedonrenewableenergies.However,

the development of a robust low-carbon portfolio

thatequallyconsidersenvironmental,economicand

security of supply aspects would require a more

detailed analysis. The existing stock of hydropower

plants intheSEEregionprovides inanycaseavery

goodstartingpositionforsuchadiversifiedportfolio.

Fig. 22: Electricity generation from renewables and share of renewable energies in total electricityconsumption2017aswellasannualgenerationofprojectsinexclusionandnon-exclusionzones

Source:ENTSO-E;EIA,AKOBandAEAforAlbania,EuroNatur/RiverWatch

7.1

12.6

34.4

7.2

51.9

3.4

39.6

0

10

20

30

40

50


[TWh/a]

hydropower* wind solar biomass&other projects"non-exclusionzones"* projects"exclusionzones"* consumption*calculationbasedonaverageutilization2011-2017


-30-

4.3 Alternative renewable energysources

The EuroNatur/RiverWatch classification of hydro-

powerprojectswoulddefactomeantheendforthe

further expansion of the use of hydropower in the

SEEregion.Hence,otheralternativerenewableener-

gy sources, namely wind, solar PV and biomass,

wouldneedtosubstitutethenotrealizedhydropow-

er generation if renewable targets remained un-

changed.However,forsuchashiftfromhydropower

to other renewable energy sources their potentials

wouldneedtobeenoughtoprovidetheadditionally

requiredcapacities.

InthiscontextitcanagainbereferredtotheIRENA

report on cost-competitive renewables potential

acrossSouth-EastEurope.Evenifrenewablespoten-

tialsmay differ between individual publications the

IRENA report provides at least a consistent set of

economic and technical potentials of hydropower,

wind,solarPV,biomassandgeothermalforallcoun-

triescoveredinthisstudyexceptGreece[11].Corre-

spondingly,economicoradditionalcost-competitive

potentials of wind, solar and biomass for Greece

were derived from other sources ([22] and [23]).

FurthermoretheIRENAreportdefinesdifferentsce-

narios to assess the cost-competitive or economic

potentials to consider uncertainties about today’s

and future capital costs as well as expected invest-

ment cost reduction of renewables in the future.

Except forhydropower, thereportprovidesaband-

width of economic potentials for the years 2016,

2030and2050.However, for simplicityaconserva-

tive approachwas applied, i.e. in the followingonly

theaverageofthebandwidthofthecost-competitive

potentials in the year 2030 is taken into account.

Hence,itcanbeexpectedthatinalong-termperspec-

tive (>2030) the economic potentials of especially

windandsolarPVwillbehigher.6

6 Forageneraldefinitionofrenewablepotentialspleaserefertosection3.1Technicalandeconomichydropowerpotentials.

Fig. 23 depicts the additional cost-competitive and

technical potential for hydropower, wind, solar PV

and biomass for all seven SEE countries – Fig. 24

provides the same information on a country level.

Additionally, the electricity generation and demand

in 2017 as well as the projected demand in 2020

(“efficiencyscenario”fromthecountry’sNREAP7)are

shown in both figures as a benchmark. Please note

that forGreecenoup-to-date technicalpotentialsof

wind, solar and biomass are available. Hence, for a

completepicture of all seven countries as shown in

Fig.23 it isassumedthat the technicalpotentialsof

wind, solar and biomass approximately correspond

totheeconomicpotentials.

Fig.23:Generationfromrenewables,electrici-tydemandandpotentialsof renewableener-gysourcesforallsevenSEEcountries

Source:IRENA,ENTSO-E,Dii,NREAPsofcountries

7 TheNREAPsconsidertwoscenariosforthedevelopmentoftheenergydemand - the “referencescenario”and “efficiencysce-nario”.The“referencescenario”takestheenergyefficiencyandenergy savingmeasures into account that have already beenimplementedbefore2009(i.e.businessasusual). Incontrast,the “efficiency scenario” considers additionalmeasures to beadoptedafter2009inordertoimprovetheenergyefficiency.

33.6

5.1

6.6

37.4

60.9

163.1

13.9

98.5

67.4

179.9

36.0

162.1178.3

Hydro* Solar Wind Biomass

[TWh/a]

AllsevenSEEcountries

additionalcost-competitivepotential

generation2017

technicalpotential

electricitydemand2017

electricitydemand"EfwiciencyScenario"NREAP2020*calculationbasedonaverageutilization2011-2017


-31-

Fig.24:Countryspecificgeneration fromrenewables,electricitydemandandpotentialsofrenewableenergysources

Source:IRENA,ENTSO-E,Dii,NREAPsofcountries

6.2

7.0

3.7

11.9

2.7

15.6

3.7

13.7

11.27.1

8.1


[TWh/a]

Albania

5.2

9.4

4.1

24.4

2.8

24.5

4.1

26.3

6.2

12.614.5


[TWh/a]


3.8

1.4

1.5

0.3

4.8 8.9

46.4

3.1

13.4

10.1

52.9

6.3

34.436.6


[TWh/a]

Bulgaria

1.6

0.2 0.0

2.1

2.2

5.5

5.5

2.2

7.7

0.3

7.2

9.1


[TWh/a]

FYRMacedonia

5.2

3.7

4.8

0.3

6.8

31.7

20.6

0.9

15.0

57.8

68.5


[TWh/a]

Greece

1.6

0.1

2.9

1.1

6.1

0.2

6.6

1.1

6.5

0.7

3.4

4.9


[TWh/a]

Montenegro

10.04.5

9.2

48.2

4.1

18.0

9.3

52.4

10.4

39.636.6


[TWh/a]

Serbia

generation2017

additionalcost-competitivepotential

technicalpotential

electricitydemand2017

electricitydemand"EfwiciencyScenario"NREAP2020

*calculationbasedonaverageutilization2011-2017andexcl.pumpedstorage


-32-

§ Albania: The already installed hydropower ca-

pacities with an average output of 6.2 TWh/a

canserveabout90%ofthecountry’sactualelec-

tricity demand, i.e. the remaining economic hy-

dropowerpotentialsof7.0TWh/awouldnoton-

lyallowAlbaniatoserveitsdemandgrowthwith

additionalhydropowercapacitiesbutalsotobe-

comeanetexporterofelectricity.However, the

strong fluctuations of annual hydropower gen-

eration in the past years have proven the vul-

nerabilityofapowersystemthatonlyrelieson

onetechnology.Hence,evenwithoutaconsider-

ation of ecological aspects for an expansion of

hydropower – as for example proposed by Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch–amuchstrongerfocuson

othertechnologies ishighlyrecommendedfrom

anenergyeconomicpointofviewinordertodi-

versify Albania’s generation portfolio. Since the

country has considerable solar, wind and bio-

masspotentialsof in totalalmost20TWh/aAl-

bania could perfectly diversify its existing hy-

dropower portfolio with other renewable tech-

nologiesandhence,maintain itspositionas the

only countrywith a carbon free power genera-

tionfleetintheSEEregion.However,theattrac-

tive potentials of other renewable energy

sourceshaveyetneitherbeenreflectedinthein-

stalled generation capacity nor in the country’s

renewable targets. Albania’s NREAP only con-

siders40MWofnon-hydrorenewablesofwhich

nonehasbeen implementedso far.Though, the

Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy recently

launched the selection process for the develop-

ment and construction of the largest solar PV

plant in the regionwithan installed capacityof

50MW[6].

§ Bosnia and Herzegovina: Hydropower covers

currently about 40% of the country’s electricity

demandof12.6TWh/aandtheeconomichydro-

powerpotentialof9.4TWh/awould inprinciple

providetheremaining60%oftheactualelectrici-

ty demandplus an additional potential for a de-

mandgrowthofabout15%.However,duetothe

unavoidableseasonalandyearlyfluctuationssuch

a “full supply”with electricity from hydropower

wouldonlybepossibleonanannualbasis ifwa-

tersupplywereonoraboveaverage.Hence,from

a portfolio perspective additional hydropower

capacities without storage options (i.e. reser-

voirs)mayonlydelivera limitedcontribution to

thecountry’ssecurityofsupply.SinceBosniaand

Herzegovina has not only considerable hydro-

powerbutalsoacombinedsolar,windandbio-

mass potential of about 30TWh/a the power

generationofprojects thatare located inexclu-

sionzonesasdefinedbyEuroNatur/RiverWatch

(1.2TWh/a)couldinprinciplebesubstitutedby

other renewable technologies. This would not

onlyallowthattheoverallrenewabletargetsare

met evenwithout anymajor hydropower addi-

tionsbutwouldalso furtherdiversify the exist-

inggenerationportfolio.However,eveniftheat-

tractive potentials of other renewable energy

sourcesaretosomeextendincludedinthecoun-

try’s NREAP targets the actual expansion of re-

newableenergies in theelectricitysector isstill

solelyfocusedonhydropower,sinceonlyasmall

portion of no non-hydro renewables has been

implementedsofar.

§ Bulgaria:With an average annual generation of

3.8TWh/a hydropower provides about 10% of

theelectricitydemandof34.4TWh/a.Evenifthe

country still has a considerable remaining eco-

nomicpotential of 4.8TWh/ahydropower alone

wouldbyfarnotbeabletoaccomplishanenergy

transition inBulgaria.Hence, the countryhasal-

readyexperiencedanemergingtrendtowardsso-

larPV,windandbiomasswithacombinedgener-

ation of 3.2TWh/a in 2017. Furthermore, the

available additional potentials of these technolo-

gies are very promising (>50 TWh/a), i.e. the

country’srenewabletargetscouldinprinciplebe


-33-

achievedifhydropowerprojectsthataresituated

in EuroNatur/RiverWatch exclusion zones

(1.7TWh/a)werenotimplemented.

§ FYR Macedonia: With an average output of

1.6TWhtheinstalledhydropowercapacitiespro-

vide about 20%of the actual electricity demand

of7.2TWh/a.Eveniftheremainingeconomicpo-

tential of 2.1TWh/awould in principle increase

theshareofhydropowerinthedomesticdemand

toabout50%asignificantexpansionofotherre-

newableenergysourceswouldberequiredinthe

long run to further decarbonize the country’s

generation system. The economic potential of

wind and solar of together about 8TWh/a is in

principle sufficient to deliver the required addi-

tionalrenewablegenerationforafossilfreeelec-

tricity system in FYR Macedonia. However, it

wouldbechallengingifwindandsolaradditional-

lyhadtosubstituteEuroNatur/RiverWatch’s“ex-

clusion”projectsof2.2TWh/a.Thiswouldespe-

ciallybethecaseifdemandincreasedasassumed

in the FYR Macedonia’s NREAP scenarios. How-

ever, thecountry’sexpectation forelectricityde-

mand growth seems to be quite progressive, i.e.

thecountryshouldinprinciplebeabletoachieve

a carbon free generation based on domestic re-

newableenergysources.

§ Greece: Hydropower provides currently

5.2TWh/a or about 10% of the overall Greek

electricity demandof some58TWh/a (intercon-

nected system and NIIs )8. Even if Greece has a

considerable additional economic hydropower

potentialof6.8TWh/a, the countrywill strongly

depend on other renewable sources to provide

the required contribution to the EU energy and

climatetargets.Though,Greecehasalreadyexpe-

rienced a remarkable trend towards solar PV,

8 ENTSO-EpublishesdatafortheinterconnectedGreekelectrici-ty system but does not cover the non-interconnected islands(NIIs).Theelectricitydemandoftheinterconnectedsystemin2017 was about 52TWh/a [5] and of NIIs in 2016 about5,6TWh/a[24].

windand tosomeextendbiomass.Theso-called

newrenewablescurrentlydeliveranannualgen-

erationofabout8.8TWh/aandthusalreadysig-

nificantly more than hydropower. However, the

remaining potentials of domestic renewable en-

ergysourcesofabout50TWh/awouldonlyallow

acompletesubstitutionoffossilgenerationifthe

further demand growth can be limited. In this

context thepossible contributionofhydropower

projects that are located in EuroNatur/River-

Watchexclusionzones(1.8TWh/a)wouldbera-

therlimited.

§ Montenegro: Hydropower covers currently

about50%ofthecountry’selectricitydemandof

3.4TWh/a.Montenegrohasaremainingeconom-

ichydropowerpotentialof2.9TWh/athatwould

allow in principle the full coverage of the actual

demand and in addition a demand growth of

about30%.However,asalreadydiscussedforAl-

baniaandBosniaandHerzegovinatheunavoida-

bleseasonalandyearlyfluctuationsofwaterlev-

els in the rivers would only allow a full supply

based hydropower on an annual basis and not

throughoutthewholeyear.Hence,fromaportfo-

lio perspective additional hydropower capacities

withoutstorageoptions(i.e.reservoirs)mayonly

deliveralimitedcontributiontothecountry’sse-

curityofsupply.SinceMontenegrohasnotonlya

considerable hydropower but also a combined

solar, wind and biomass potential of about

7TWh/a sufficient non-hydro resources are in

principle available to significantly increase the

shareofrenewableenergiesintheMontenegrin

electricity system and hence, to diversify the

generationportfolio. Furthermorewindand so-

lar potentialswould in principle allow the sub-

stitutionofhydropowerprojectsthatarelocated

in EuroNatur/RiverWatch exclusion zones

(3.3TWh/a).Montenegrohasalreadystartedto

exploit its wind potentials but will likely not

meet its NREAP targets for non-hydro renewa-


-34-

bles of about 0.5TWh/a (90MW) in 2020.

Hence, theattractivepotentialsofwindand so-

lar could be put evenmore in the focus of the

country’senergypolicy.

§ Serbia: With an average annual generation of

10.0TWh/a hydropower provides about 25%of

theelectricitydemandof39.6TWh/a.Evenifthe

countrystillhassomeattractiveeconomicpoten-

tialsof4.5TWh/a,hydropowerwouldbyfarnot

beabletoaccomplishanenergytransitioninSer-

bia.However,wind,solarandbiomasshaveinto-

tal an economic potential of 60TWh/a, i.e. in

principleitwouldbepossibletofullydecarbonize

thecountry’spowersectorwithdomesticrenew-

able energy sources. In this context wind, solar

andbiomasspotentialswouldalsobesufficientto

compensate the potential generation of

2.1TWh/aofthosehydropowerprojectsthatare

located in exclusion zones as defined by Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch. However, the required de-

velopmentofnon-hydrorenewableshasjustbeen

started, even if Serbia’s NREAP targets would

foreseeanexpansionofwind, solarandbiomass

toalmost2.0TWh/a(650MW)by2020.

In total, the seven countries covered in this study

haveatechnicalpotentialofwind,solarPVandbio-

massof almost300TWh/aandaneconomicpoten-

tialofabout240TWh/a.Thispotentialdoesnotonly

significantly exceed the remaining economic hydro-

power potential of 37TWh/a but also exceeds the

currentelectricitydemandofallcountriesthatisnot

yetcoveredbyrenewablebyafactorof2.Hence,the

regionwould in principle have sufficient non-hydro

renewable potentials for a sustainable transfor-

mation of the electricity sector. Though, non-hydro

renewables have only been playing in Bulgaria and

Greecearelevantrolesofar.TheotherfiveSEEcoun-

tries are either not on track with their non-hydro

NREAP targetsorhave evennot adequately consid-

eredwind,solarandbiomassintheirenergypolicies

sofar.

It is notable that the power sector in the Western

Balkan countries has been suffering not only from

comparativelyhighgridlossesduetoaninefficient

transmission and distribution grid but mainly due

tonon-technical lossesfrompowertheftsandnon-

collections(e.g.[25]).Hence,toaddresstheseissues

the governments has launched energy sector re-

forms, which have already significantly reduced

technicalandcommercialgridlossesintheWestern

Balkan. However, compared to other European

countries losses are still high and additional

measures will need to be implemented to further

increase the sector’s efficiency and hence reduce

the need to exploit the still available but limited

hydropowerpotentials.

However,besidesthequestionofsufficientpotentials

astrongershiftofenergypolicies fromhydropower

to other renewable energy technologies would also

have to be evaluated in terms of its effects on e.g.

security of supply, grid integration and the overall

costs of energy transition. Especially security of

supplycanbecomeamajorissueifseasonalfluctua-

tionsofhydropowerandtherelativelylargeyear-to-

yeardifferencesofhydropower’scapacityfactor(i.e.

full load hours) threaten a 24/7 electricity supply.

Additional hydropower capacities without storage

options (i.e. reservoirs) may only deliver a limited

contributiontothecountry’ssecurityofsupply,ifthe

generationpatterndoesnotsignificantlydiffer from

theexistingpowerplants(which is typicallynotthe

case).Hence,astrongerfocusonalternativerenew-

able technologieswouldnot only relief somepres-

sure from so far untouched river stretches but

wouldalsodiversify theregionsgenerationportfo-

lioandhence,makeitlessvulnerabletoe.g.season-

al and yearly fluctuations of water runoffs. Such

considerations will most likely be of high im-

portanceinthecontextofclimate changeadaption

strategies, since climate change may have a severe

effectontherunoffsandthereforeelectricitygenera-


-35-

tion from hydropower in the Balkan region (cf. e.g.

[26],[27]).

Withregard toeconomicsofhydropowercompared

to alternative renewable technologies the IRENA

report on cost-competitive renewables potential

across South-East Europe concluded that hydro-

powerisstillthemosteconomicallyviablerenewa-

ble energy technology in the region [11], i.e.wind,

solarandbiomasswouldstillhavesomecompetitive

disadvantages. However, non-hydro technologies

haveseenatremendousandpartlyevenunexpected

costreductioninthepastfewyearsandhavealready

achievedorwillprobablyachievesooncostcompeti-

tiveness with hydropower and fossil fuels, respec-

tively. For example, in its report “RenewablePower

Generation Costs in 2017” [28] IRENA provided a

globalperspectiveonthecostdevelopmentofdiffer-

entrenewableenergytechnologiesandshowedthat

especiallywindonshore and solar PVhavehad sig-

nificant cost reductions in the recent years (cf. Fig.

25). Today average LCOEs of wind onshore are al-

readyintherangeofhydropowerandalsoLCOEsof

solar PVwill soon catch upwith hydropower if the

trend continuous. In this context it should bemen-

tionedthatlarge-scalesolarPVplantsthathavebeen

brought to Europeanmarkets in 2018have already

shown cost structures significantly below the aver-

age IRENA numbers forwind and solar PV. For ex-

ampletendersforPVin2018resultedinanaverage

auctionprice of 4.33€ct/kWh inGermany [29] and

5.82ct/kWhinFrance[30],respectively.

Fig.25:Globalweightedaveragelevelizedcostofelectricity(LCOE)2010-2017

Hydropower Windonshore SolarPV Biomass

Source:IRENA[28]


-36-

5 Conclusion

ThesevenSEEcountriescoveredinthisstudyhave

already an installed hydropower capacity of

12.5GW with an average electricity generation of

about34TWh/a.Inaddition,pumpedstoragepow-

er plants with a total capacity of 2.6GW are in-

stalledinBosniaandHerzegovina,Bulgaria,Greece

and Serbia. The remaining available hydropower

potentials add up to total economic potential of

12.8GW(37TWh/a)andatotaltechnicalpotential

of25,2GW(65TWh/a),respectively.Between2010

and 2017 about 1.7GW of additional hydropower

capacitieswereput intooperation,howeveranoth-

er1.4GWwouldberequiredtomeetthecombined

2020NREAPtargetsofthesevencountries.

Though, in all of the countries a large number of

hydropower projects have been announced that

wouldnotonlyeasilydeliverthemissingcapacities

toachieveNREAPtargetsbutwouldalmostdouble

the already installed hydropower capacities. Eu-

roNatur/RiverWatch identified almost 2.400 hy-

dropowerprojectswithanestimatedtotalcapacity

of 12.2GW and an annual generation of some

36TWh/ainthesevenSEEcountries.

The untouched river stretches do not only offer

attractivepotentialsfromenergyeconomicbutalso

from nature conversation perspective. Based on a

set of own criteria EuroNatur/RiverWatch applied

an ecological feasibility assessment of the hydro-

powerprojectsandclassified92%oftheprojectsor

96%ofthetotalprojectcapacityaslocatedinexclu-

sion zones. This means that the further develop-

mentofhydropowerintheSEEcountrieswouldde

facto be limited to the refurbishment and upgrade

ofexistinghydropowerpowerplantsbuthardlyany

newhydropowerstationwouldbebuilt.

Other renewable energy sources, namely wind,

solarPVandbiomass,provideahugetechnicalpo-

tential of almost 300TWh/a, i.e. almost twice as

highasthecurrentelectricitydemandof theseven

countries.Hence,wind,solarPVandbiomasscould

deliver enough opportunities to accomplish the

country’sNREAPtargetsandtotransformthecoun-

try’selectricity sectors intoapost-carbonworld in

the long-term. Wind, solar PV and biomass could

not only close the gap between hydropower and

demandbutalsosubstituteprojectsthatarelocated

in EuroNatur/RiverWatch exclusion zones. Addi-

tionally, a stronger focus on alternative renewable

technologieswouldmake the country’s generation

portfolios less vulnerable to seasonal and yearly

fluctuationsofwaterrunoffs,whichmaysignificant-

lyincreaseinthefutureduetotheimpactofclimate

changeontheprecipitationintheregion.

However, itmust alsobe taken intoaccount that a

completestopofallnewhydropowerprojectsdoes

notonlyseemtoberatherunlikelybutwouldalso

neglects the potential contribution of hydropower

to the management of the electricity system. Hy-

dropower can provide technology immanent ad-

vantages to the electricity system; especially if hy-

dropower plants are combined with a reservoir

they can provide flexible generation and ancillary

services. It is expected that flexibility in a power

system will considerably gain importance in the

future,iftheshareofvolatilegenerationfromwind

and solar increases. In this context hydropower

offersthepossibilitytobalancewindandsolarwith

electricityfromrenewableenergysources,i.e.with-

out any additional flexibility options such as

pumped storage, batteries, power-to-gas or load

management. Hence, amore differentiated classifi-

cationofhydropowerprojectsisrecommendedthat

wouldallowa transparentandequalconsideration

ofenergyeconomicandenvironmentalaspects.


-37-

6 References

[1] International Hydropower Association(2018):Hydropowerstatusreport2018.

[2] RiverWatch (2018): Save the Blue Heart ofEurope (http://balkanrivers.net/en/campaign;accessed17/04/2018).

[3] Schwarz, U. (2017): Hydropower Projects onBalkanRiversDataUpdate2017.Studyonbe-halfofRiverwatchandEuronatur.

[4] Western Balkans Investment Framework(2017): Regional Strategy for Sustainable Hy-dropower in the Western Balkans(https://www.wbif.eu/sectors/energy/sustainable-hydropower).

[5] ENTSO-E (2018): Statistics and Data(https://www.entsoe.eu/publications/statistics-and-data/,accessed20.07.2018).

[6] Invest in Albania (2018): Albania Aims toBuild Balkan’s Largest Solar Power Plant(https://invest-in-albania.org/albania-aims-build-balkans-largest-solar-power-plant/, ac-cessed25/09/2018).

[7] Balkan Green Energy News (2018): Mesi-hovina, the firstwind farm inBosnia&Herze-govina connected to grid(https://balkangreenenergynews.com/mesihovina-first-wind-farm-bosnia-herzegovina-connected-grid/,accessed25/09/2018).

[8] PV Magazine (2018): Balkan update: Croatia,BosniaandHerzegovina ready for theirbiggestPVprojects,Macedoniainauguratesfirstmodulefab (https://www.pv-magazine.com/2018/07/05/balkan-update-croatia-bosnia-and-herzegovina-ready-for-their-biggest-pv-projects-macedonia-inaugurates-first-module-fab/,accessed25/09/2018).

[9] SerbiaEnergy(2018):Serbia:EPSpowerutili-ty builds the first wind farm (https://serbia-energy.eu/serbia-eps-power-utility-builds-first-wind-farm/,accessed25/09/2018).

[10] Windpower Engineering & Development(2018): Green for Growth Fund co-financesSerbia’s first wind farms (https://www.wind-powerengineering.com/projects/green-for-growth-fund-co-finances-serbias-first-wind-farms/,accessed25/09/2018).

[11] IRENA, Joanneum Research and Universityof Ljubljana (2017): Cost-Competitive Re-newable Power Generation: Potential acrossSouth-East Europe, International RenewableEnergyAgency(IRENA),AbuDhabi.

[12] Neubarth, J; Kaltschmitt, M. (2000): Erneu-erbareEnergieninÖsterreich-Systematik,Po-tenziale, Wirtschaftlichkeit, Umweltaspekte.Springer-Verlag,Wien.

[13] Hermann,N. (2011): regionalEnergy2050:Asustainability-orientedstrategicbackcastingmethodology for local utilities. Rainer HamppVerlag,München/Mering.

[14] Mott MacDonald (2017): Regional strategyfor sustainable hydropower in the WesternBalkans, Background report No. 1: Past, pre-sent and future role of hydropower(www.wbif.eu/sectors/energy/sustainable-hydropower;accessed27/07/2018).

[15] MinistryofEnvironmentandPhysicalPlan-ning (2018): Macedonia Small HydropowerProject-Hydropowergen.sectorinMacedonia(http://shpp.moepp.gov.mk/349/energy-sector,accessed13/08/2018).

[16] International Hydropower Association(2016): Country Profiles Western Balkans(https://www.hydropower.org/country-profiles,accessed17/03/2018).

[17] International Journal of Hydropower andDams (2016):World Atlas & Industry Guide2016.

[18] Horlacher, H.-B. (2003): Globale Potentialeder Wasserkraft. Externe Expertise für das


-38-

WBGU-Hauptgutachten2003"WeltimWandel:EnergiewendezurNachhaltigkeit",Berlin.

[19] EuroNatur and RiverWatch (2018): Hydro-power projects in South-East European coun-tries. Excel list provided by RiverWatch on14/07/2018.

[20] Neubarth, J. (2016): Economic challenges fortheexpansionofhydropowerinAustria(Wirt-schaftlicheHerausforderungen fürdenAusbauder Wasserkraft in Österreich, published inGerman). Study by e3 consult on behalf ofWWFAustria,Innsbruck.

[21] Mott MacDonald (2017): Regional strategyfor sustainable hydropower in the WesternBalkans,BackgroundreportNo.6:Gridconnec-tionconsiderations.(www.wbif.eu/sectors/en-ergy/sustainable-hydropower, accessed.27/07/2018).

[22] Energypedia (2018):GreeceEnergySituation(https://energypedia.info/wiki/Greece_Energy_Situation,accessed03/08/2018).

[23] Dii (2012): 2050 Desert Power (http://dii-desertenergy.org/publications/, accessed03/08/2018).

[24] Stavropoulou, E. (2017): RES penetration innon-interconnectedislands(NII).HellenicElec-tricity Distribution Network Operator S.A .(HEDNO).

[25] SEEChangenetFoundation(2016):Sustain-ableenergy:How farhasSEEcome in the lastfive years? South-East Europe Energy Watch-dog Report 2016 (http://seechange-network.org/sustainable-energy-how-far-has-see-come-in-the-last-five-years-south-east-europe-energy-watchdog-report-2016/, ac-cessed24/09/2018).

[26] Globevnik, L., Snoj L., Šubelj, G., Kurnik, B.,(2018):OutlookonWaterandClimateChangeVulnerability in the Western Balkans, ed.Künitzer, A., ETC/ICM Technical Report1/2018,Magdeburg:EuropeanTopicCentreoninland,coastalandmarinewaters.

[27] Hamududu, B.; Killingtveit, Å. (2012): As-sessing of Climate Change Impacts on GlobalHydropower.Energies.vol.5(2).

[28] IRENA (2018): Renewable Power GenerationCostsin2017,InternationalRenewableEnergyAgency,AbuDhabi.

[29] PV magazine (2018): Photovoltaik-Aus-schreibung: Erstmals Zuschlagswerte unter4,00 Cent pro Kilowattstunde(https://www.pv-magazine.de/2018/02/20/-photovoltaik-ausschreibung-erstmals-zuschlagswerte-unter-400-cent-pro-kilowattstunde/,accessed16/08/2018).

[30] PVmagazine (2018): Frankreichvergibt720Megawatt in Ausschreibung für Photovoltaik-Kraftwerke (https://www.pv-magazine.de/-2018/08/07/frankreich-vergibt-720-megawatt-in-ausschreibung-fuer-photovoltaik-kraftwerke/,accessed16/08/2018).


-39-

7 Abbreviations

AEA AlbaniaEnergyAssociation

AL Albania

ANA AlbanianNuclearAgency

BG Bulgaria

BiH BosniaandHerzegovina

CGES CrnogorskiElektrtroprenosniSistemAD

EIA USEnergyInformationAgency

EnC EnergyCommunity

ENTSO-E EuropeanNetworkofTransmissionSystemOperatorsforElectricity

EU EuropeanUnion

FYROM TheformerYugoslavRepublicofMacedonia

GR Greece

GW Gigawatt

GWh Gigawatthour

HEDNO HellenicElectricityDistributionNetworkOperator

HPP Hydropowerplant

IHA InternationalHydropowerAssociation

IRENA InternationalRenewableEnergyAgency

LCOE Levelizedcostofelectricity

ME Montenegro

MWh Megawatthour

NIIs Non-interconnectedislands

NREAP NationalRenewableEnergyActionPlan

PV Photovoltaic

RS Serbia

SEE South-EasternEuropean

TSO Transmissionsystemoperator

TW Terawatt

TWh Terawatthour

USD USDollar

Documents

The role of hydropower in selected South- Eastern European ... · hydropower projects with an estimated total capac-ity of 12.2 GW and an annual generation of some 36 TWh/a in the