Table 2. Comparison of hydroelectric product water footprints (PWF) estimated in the present study with previous values of Bakken et al.17.
| Study area | Hydroelectric PWF [m3 GJ−1] | Hydroelectric PWF [m3 MWh−1] |
|---|---|---|
| United States average40 | 4.7 | 17 |
| United States average −120 largest plants25 | 19 | 68 |
| Arizona, United States26 | 31.6 | 113.9 |
| California, United States41,42 | Min: 0.01 Median: 1.5 Max.: 58 | Min: 0.04 Median: 5.4 Max.: 209 |
| California29 | Mean: 1.5 | Mean: 5.4 |
| Median: 7.2 | Median: 26 | |
| “All plants” in Northern New Zealand7 | 6.1 | 21.8 |
| Norway43 | 1–1.2 | 3.8–4.4 |
| Ethiopia Omo-Ghibe River44 | Min.: 9.4 | Min.: 34 |
| Max: 22.7 | Max: 82 | |
| Ethiopia (Blue Nile)45 | Min: 3.1 | Min: 11 |
| Mean: 27.5 | ||
| Max.: 38 | ||
| Sudan Roseires and Sennar irrigation reservoirs46 | Min.: 381 Mean: 411 Max.: 978 | Min.: 1371 Max.: 3521 |
| Austria, Ethiopia, Turkey, Ghana, Egypt and PDR Laos46 | Max.:1736 | Max.: 6250 |
| Global average4 | 22 | 80 |
| Worldwide, 35 plants5 | Min.: 0.3 | Min.: 1.08 |
| Mean: 68 | Mean: 244.8 | |
| Max.: 846 | Max.: 3045.6 | |
| China from this study | Min.: 0.001 | Min.: 0.0036 |
| Mean: 3.6 | Mean: 13 | |
| Max.: 4234 | Max.: 15244 |
Note: In this table, the hydroelectric PWF is presented based on the same definition (i.e., the evaporative water consumption for each unit of hydropower generation). Values in m3 MWh−1 were calculated by multiplying the values in m3 GJ−1 by 3.6 (the conversion factor).