Fig. 2 | Nature Communications

Fig. 2

From: Solar and wind energy enhances drought resilience and groundwater sustainability

Fig. 2

Impact of regulation policy on groundwater–hydropower trade-offs. a Schematic illustration of how groundwater abstraction cap (\({g}_{{{{w}}}}^{{\rm{Cap}}}\)) shifts the trade-offs optimal point. \({O}_{{{{C}}}}/{O}_{{{{C}}}}^{^{\prime} }\) and \({O}_{{{{F}}}}/{O}_{{{{F}}}}^{^{\prime} }\) represent the optimal point given current (17%) and future (40%) penetration of SWE in the normal/wet year without \({g}_{{{{w}}}}^{{\rm{Cap}}}\). The vertical dashed line sets the limit of groundwater abstraction to meet certain regulations. With such a water constraint, the optimal point can only fall into the hatched area. When surface water is not abundant (e.g., during a normal year), the optimal point \({O}_{{{{C}}}}/{O}_{{{{F}}}}\) will not be attainable, and therefore \(A\) becomes the new optimal under the regulation. However, such regulation does not affect the optimal point (\({O}_{{{{F}}}}^{^{\prime} }\)) when water is abundant (e.g., during wet year) and when SWE penetration is high, as \({O}_{{{{F}}}}^{^{\prime} }\) is still in the hatched area. b Relative revenue loss (\(\delta\)) as a function of groundwater pumping lift (\(\Delta h\)) and \({g}_{{{{w}}}}^{{\rm{Cap}}}\) under the influence of different penetration ratios of SWE (17% and 40%). Revenue loss zones are represented by the wedge-shaped area enclosed by the orange lines (current: \({P}_{{{{C}}}}^{1}{P}_{{{{C}}}}^{2}{P}_{{{{C}}}}^{3}{P}_{{{{C}}}}^{4}\); future: \({P}_{{{{F}}}}^{1}{P}_{{{{F}}}}^{2}{P}_{{{{F}}}}^{3}{P}_{{{{F}}}}^{4}\)). Dashed orange lines represent extremely strict regulation policy (e.g., zero allowance of groundwater abstraction), which is unlikely to occur in reality. The black dot represents the ideal situation, where groundwater could be recovered and revenue loss is reduced

Back to article page