Modeling the water-energy-food nexus in the Indus River
of Pakistan
Y. C. Ethan Yang, Casey Brown, Claudia Ringler and Ghazi Alam
GWSP Conference May 2013
This study is supported by the Pakistan Strategy Support Program (PSSP)funded by USAID (pssp.ifpri.info)
www.ifpri.org
Background
The annual energy deficit is about 4,500 MW in Pakistan (MoWP, 2011)
The feasible 800 sites on the Indus River have a potential of 59,794 MW for hydropower generation. However, only 6,720 MW (11% of the total) has been developed (Siddiqi et al, 2012)
In order to understand the impact of increased hydropower generation on agricultural water use and food production, a modeling approach has been used in this study
www.ifpri.org
Daily Power Outages
9
10
10
38
27
72
42
35
39
16
49
18
24
3
9
0 20 40 60 80 100
Overall
Punjab
Sindh
KPK
Percentage of Households
0-6 Hours
7-12 Hours
13-18 Hours
18+ Hours
Source: IFPRI-IDS Household survey
www.ifpri.org
Model The Indus Basin Model Revised (IBMR), a flow-
network model coded in GAMS-- has been modified into a multi-year version–Indus Basin Model Multi-Year (IBMY) to evaluate the Water-Food-Energy Nexus in the Indus Basin of Pakistan
The basin irrigates approximately 18 million ha in four provinces; most irrigation is d/s of HP in the basin; officially irrigation has precedence over energy use
The model includes the 3 major hydropower reservoirs: Mangla (1000 MW), Tarbela (3478 MW) and Chashma (184 MW); and one major run-of-the-river station: Ghazi-Barotha (1450 MW)
www.ifpri.org
Model
The node-link river basin model
6/13Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
IBMR - Modeling structureTarbela
Mangla
Ghazi-Barotha
Chashma
Potential reservoir
Potential reservoir
www.ifpri.org
Model
Objective function
Newly added
www.ifpri.org
Model--Hydropower Baseline Setting:
• Inflow: 1961-2010 monthly flow from 9 tributaries• Reservoir storage and groundwater tables are carried on
to the next year• Crop price: 2008-09 average price• Electricity price: 10 Rs. per KWH
www.ifpri.org
Model--Irrigation
Agriculture partCrop production in Punjab Crop production in Sindh
www.ifpri.org
Alternative Scenarios• Alternative energy and irrigation policies
– Baseline run– Maximum agricultural production– Maximum hydropower generation
• Investment in New HP Storage/Production– Current storage – New storage (~12 MAF, 7,300 MW)
www.ifpri.org
Results Tradeoffs between irrigation and hydropower
exist
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000200
250
300
350
400
450
500
550
Current system With new storage
Agricultural profit (billion Rs.)
Hydro
pow
er
pro
fit
(billion R
s.)
500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000470
480
490
500
510
520
530With new storage
Agricultural profit (billion Rs.)
Hyd
rop
ow
er
pro
fit
(billion
R
s.)
2400 2450 2500 2550 2600 2650240
250
260
270
280
290
300
310Current system
Agricultural profit (billion Rs.)
Hyd
rop
ow
er
pro
fit
(billion
Rs.)
www.ifpri.org
Results
Maximum agricultural profit
KPK PUNJAB SIND BLCH INDUS0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Current New storage
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral p
rofi
t (b
illion
Rs.)
MAN
GLA-R
BASHA-R
TARBEL
A-R
GHAZI-R
KALABA...
CHASM
A-R
INDUS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Current New storage
Hyd
roele
cti
rc p
rofi
t (b
illion
Rs.)
Agricultural profit Hydroelectric profit
www.ifpri.org
Results
Maximum hydroelectric profit
KPK PUNJAB SIND BLCH INDUS0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
Current New storage
Ag
ricu
ltu
ral
pro
fit
(bil
lio
n R
s.)
MAN
GLA-R
BASHA-R
TARBEL
A-R
GHAZI
-R
KALABAGH
-R
CHASM
A-R
INDUS
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Current New storage
Hyd
roele
ctir
c p
rofi
t (b
illi
on
Rs.
)
Agricultural profit Hydroelectric profit
www.ifpri.org
Conclusion
Baseline result is close to maximum agricultural profit which reflects the water allocation rules in the basin
Even under current relatively low storage/HP development and u/s location of HP & d/s location of irrigation, tradeoffs exist; new storage could significantly increase tradeoffs
To increase hydropower production without jeopardizing irrigation, adding new storage under the current water allocation scheme is the most recommended approach
www.ifpri.org
Conclusion
Model limitations• We did not model the entire energy market• We maximized annual hydropower production;
maximizing winter production, where the deficit is largest, would result in a larger tradeoffs
• While we maximized HP or IRR, we left the rule curve unchanged. Changes in the rule curve in favor of HP would change final outcomes
Future studies• Changes in HP rule curves• Climate change impact• Impact of change in water sharing policies