Documents
Category:
General or Montana
A guide to calculating the carbon dioxide debt and payback time for wind farms
July, 2006
by Dr M J Hall, FRSC, FIBiol for Renewable Energy Foundation
It is broadly accepted that wind turbines do not emit CO2 at the point of generation. However, in common with all types of power station, it is emitted during their construction and, through damage directly inflicted on the construction site, over a much longer period. The total debt will vary from site to site but will comprise some or all of the following;
• Emissions arising from fabrication (steel smelting, forging of turbine columns, the manufacture of blades and the electrical and mechanical components);
• Emissions arising from construction (transportation of components, quarrying, building foundations, access tracks and hard standings, commissioning);
• The indirect loss of CO2 uptake (fixation) by plants originally on the surface of the site but obliterated by construction activity including the destruction of active bog plants on wet sites and deforestation;
• Emissions due to the indirect, long-term liberation of CO2 from carbon stored in peat due to drying and oxidation processes caused by construction of the site.
It is important to recognise that peat is a major store of carbon accumulated from dead plant remains over many millennia. It is held in perpetuity because the bog’s wetness and acid conditions prevent the access of oxygen and inhibit the growth of bacteria which would otherwise rot the vegetation. Draining peat for construction reverses both these long-term processes: the soil is exposed to the air, the carbon is converted to CO2 and released slowly to the atmosphere.
Several papers from the wind industry in Denmark and the UK have addressed the first two points with estimates of payback time ranging from about six to 30 months.
However, the industry rarely, if ever, considers the last two. This is a fundamental omission as their contribution to the overall CO2 debt, in particular the last, can be far greater than all the others put together. This paper outlines a procedure for quantifying it.
The guide has been prepared to enable anyone with access to the Environmental Statement (ES) that forms part of a Planning Application (PA) for a wind farm to estimate its CO2 debt. (If some of the requisite information proves to be unavailable, this ought to provide grounds for postponing consideration of the application and the commissioning of further assessment.)
The results of the calculations described should be submitted to planning authorities or Public Inquiries as part of the arguments used in assessing the merits and demerits of an application.
• Emissions arising from fabrication (steel smelting, forging of turbine columns, the manufacture of blades and the electrical and mechanical components);
• Emissions arising from construction (transportation of components, quarrying, building foundations, access tracks and hard standings, commissioning);
• The indirect loss of CO2 uptake (fixation) by plants originally on the surface of the site but obliterated by construction activity including the destruction of active bog plants on wet sites and deforestation;
• Emissions due to the indirect, long-term liberation of CO2 from carbon stored in peat due to drying and oxidation processes caused by construction of the site.
It is important to recognise that peat is a major store of carbon accumulated from dead plant remains over many millennia. It is held in perpetuity because the bog’s wetness and acid conditions prevent the access of oxygen and inhibit the growth of bacteria which would otherwise rot the vegetation. Draining peat for construction reverses both these long-term processes: the soil is exposed to the air, the carbon is converted to CO2 and released slowly to the atmosphere.
Several papers from the wind industry in Denmark and the UK have addressed the first two points with estimates of payback time ranging from about six to 30 months.
However, the industry rarely, if ever, considers the last two. This is a fundamental omission as their contribution to the overall CO2 debt, in particular the last, can be far greater than all the others put together. This paper outlines a procedure for quantifying it.
The guide has been prepared to enable anyone with access to the Environmental Statement (ES) that forms part of a Planning Application (PA) for a wind farm to estimate its CO2 debt. (If some of the requisite information proves to be unavailable, this ought to provide grounds for postponing consideration of the application and the commissioning of further assessment.)
The results of the calculations described should be submitted to planning authorities or Public Inquiries as part of the arguments used in assessing the merits and demerits of an application.
Extracts from the attached promotional piece. The full report may be purchased from ABS.
Lempster Wind Project: USFWS Letter to Community Energy
July 28, 2006
by Vernon B. Lang, Assistant Supervisor, New England Field Office
Starting with our first interagency meeting on April 8, 2005, we have generally discussed three broad categories of activities that pose a potential concern for fish and wildlife resources. These include the potential for bird and bat collisions with turbines, habitat fragmentation effects on wildlife and impacts to waters/wetlands. At the April 8, 2005 interagency meeting, we recommended that CEI collect three (3) years of radar data on spring and fall bird/bat migrations to document the spatial and temporal use of the airspace by these flying vertebrates. Three years of radar data should be sufficient to gather information on the spatial and temporal distribution of birds in the airspace, including the year-to-year variability in migration patterns at this site, and represent our normal request for these data at wind projects. We have consistently requested that this data be collected at our meetings and field visits and continue to make this request for radar information.
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Wildlife|
Impact on Birds|
Impact on Bats|
Erosion|
New Hampshire]
Proposed Sheffield/Sutton Wind Plant - Prefiled Testimony of Robert Ide on Behalf of the Vermont Department of Public Service
July 28, 2006
The purpose of Mr. Ide’s testimony is to present the Department’s overall
recommendations with respect to the petitioner’s request for a Certificate of
Public Good (“CPG”) under 30 V.S.A. § 248, including specific
recommendations on a number of criteria found in 30 V.S.A. § 248(b). In places,
he will be incorporating or relying on the work and testimony of other Department
witnesses
Editor's Note: The complete testimony (attached) is a worthwhile read. Selected Q & A's appear below.
Editor's Note: The complete testimony (attached) is a worthwhile read. Selected Q & A's appear below.
Representative Mollohan's Letter to the Public Service Commission of West Virginia
July 26, 2006
by U.S. Congressman Alan B. Mollohan (WV)
WV's Congressman Mollohan submitted a letter on July 26, 2006 to the WV Public Service Commission (PSC) concerning the Beech Ridge wind energy project proposed for Greenbrier County, WV by Chicago-based Invenergy, Inc. This wind energy developer successfully pushed through a windplant in Wisconsin nearby the Horicon Marsh - a globally-significant wildlife area and National Wildlife Refuge - despite the widespread outcry by national and local wildlife groups who opposed such close siting.
Mollohan's letter points out that Invenergy disregarded recommendations by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for multi-year pre-construction studies regarding the project's potential impacts on migratory birds and bats. He also observed that although WV's one operating wind project in Tucker County has been the site of record-setting bat mortality due to collision with turbine blades, the project operator (FPL Energy) has cut off access to the site for scientific study or investigation, even by the National Research Council/National Academies committee charged by the U.S. Congress to study the environmental impacts of wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (see footnote #2 in his letter).
Mollohan's letter points out that Invenergy disregarded recommendations by the US Fish and Wildlife Service for multi-year pre-construction studies regarding the project's potential impacts on migratory birds and bats. He also observed that although WV's one operating wind project in Tucker County has been the site of record-setting bat mortality due to collision with turbine blades, the project operator (FPL Energy) has cut off access to the site for scientific study or investigation, even by the National Research Council/National Academies committee charged by the U.S. Congress to study the environmental impacts of wind projects in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands (see footnote #2 in his letter).
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Wildlife|
Impact on Birds|
Impact on Landscape|
Noise|
Impact on Economy|
Energy Policy|
Zoning/Planning|
West Virginia]
Glebe Mountain Group: Comments To Windham Region Planning Commission Regarding June 12, 2006 Draft of Regional Plan
July 21, 2006
by Lawrence G. Slason, Esq., Member of the Glebe Mountain Group Legal Team
Vermont regional commissions are responsible for updating their respective 'plans' every five years. The Windham Regional Commission (WRC), comprised of representatives from the 27 towns in Windham County, submitted a draft of its updated plan for public comment in late June 2006.
Given the prevailing public concerns regarding energy, the energy section of WRC's draft plan was of particular interest. Specifically, the Glebe Mountain Group, an incorporated non-profit organization that has been actively engaged in protecting Glebe Mountain from industrialization, felt is was imperative that industrial wind generation projects not be encouraged or accorded any presumption that they serve the public good.
The Glebe Mountain Group's comments on the plan are attached as is the original 'draft' WRC plan. Some of the specific comments related to wind energy are extracted below as is the conclusion. These comments were fully endorsed by The Friends of Glebe Mountain, an unincorporated 100% volunteer group comprised of residents of and non-resident property owners in the towns of Londonderry and Windham.
Given the prevailing public concerns regarding energy, the energy section of WRC's draft plan was of particular interest. Specifically, the Glebe Mountain Group, an incorporated non-profit organization that has been actively engaged in protecting Glebe Mountain from industrialization, felt is was imperative that industrial wind generation projects not be encouraged or accorded any presumption that they serve the public good.
The Glebe Mountain Group's comments on the plan are attached as is the original 'draft' WRC plan. Some of the specific comments related to wind energy are extracted below as is the conclusion. These comments were fully endorsed by The Friends of Glebe Mountain, an unincorporated 100% volunteer group comprised of residents of and non-resident property owners in the towns of Londonderry and Windham.
Vermont PSB Denies 'Certificate of Public Good' to East Haven Project
July 17, 2006
by Vermont Public Service Board
ORDER
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Public Service Board of the State of Vermont that:
1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted, as modified above.
2. The proposed Project will not promote the public good of the State of Vermont, and a certificate of public good shall not be issued pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 17th day of July , 2006.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Public Service Board of the State of Vermont that:
1. The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Hearing Officer are hereby adopted, as modified above.
2. The proposed Project will not promote the public good of the State of Vermont, and a certificate of public good shall not be issued pursuant to 30 V.S.A. § 248.
Dated at Montpelier, Vermont, this 17th day of July , 2006.
Renewable Energy on Federal Lands
July 11, 2006
by Sally Collins, Associate Chief Forest Service, US Dept. of Agriculture
Sally Collins' statement before the U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
Also filed under [
General|
Impact on Wildlife|
Impact on Landscape|
Energy Policy|
Zoning/Planning|
USA]
Location, Location, Location- An investigation into wind farms and noise by The Noise Association
June, 2006
by John Stewart, UK Noise Association
Noise - ‘unwanted sound’ – can ruin people’s well-being and environment
“Peace and quiet is the single most important factor people have in mind when buying a home – with one in five prospective homebuyers rating it as the most important consideration when choosing where they will buy.” Alliance and Leicester Survey, 3/6/02
The Noise Association, which published this report, is the research arm of the UK Noise Association. Both organisations are based at 2nd Floor, Broken Wharf House, 2 Broken Wharf, London EC4V 3DT, tel 020 7329 0774, email info@ukna.org.uk www.ukna.org.uk
Editor's Note: The complete report is available in the attached pdf file 'Noise Association'. A smaller, edited version that excludes two pages of photos (pages 7 & 11) is also available. Selected Extracts from this report appear below.
“Peace and quiet is the single most important factor people have in mind when buying a home – with one in five prospective homebuyers rating it as the most important consideration when choosing where they will buy.” Alliance and Leicester Survey, 3/6/02
The Noise Association, which published this report, is the research arm of the UK Noise Association. Both organisations are based at 2nd Floor, Broken Wharf House, 2 Broken Wharf, London EC4V 3DT, tel 020 7329 0774, email info@ukna.org.uk www.ukna.org.uk
Editor's Note: The complete report is available in the attached pdf file 'Noise Association'. A smaller, edited version that excludes two pages of photos (pages 7 & 11) is also available. Selected Extracts from this report appear below.
..neither renewable energy nor greater energy efficiency can provide the complete solution to the shortfall we face. This will depend on securing energy supplies from abroad, in new nuclear power stations to replace those becoming obsolete and replacing older coal-fired stations with cleaner, more efficient technology.