| home | about us | projects | resources | careers | contact us |
 |
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|
||
Environmentally Clean “Human activities are adding greenhouse gases – pollutants that trap in Earth's heat – to the atmosphere at a faster rate than at any time over the past several thousand years. A warming trend has been recorded since the late 19th century, with the most rapid warming occurring over the past two decades (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).If emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, scientists say we may change global temperature and our planet's climate at an unprecedented rate for our society.” “According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades." There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. "Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth's atmosphere.” http://www.ipcc.ch/present/graphics/2001syr/large/02.01.jpg Quote from regional EPA office at http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/Climate.html As background, electricity generation is the largest industrial source of air pollution in the U.S. In 1999 , power plants in the U.S. emitted 13.2 million tons of SO2 and 7.9 million tons of NOx—pollutants that cause acid rain and/or smog, and lung and heart damage, including over 30,000 deaths each year. Power plants are also the largest source of mercury pollution in the U.S., releasing an estimated 49 tons of the toxin annually into the atmosphere, with the mercury then making its way into lakes and streams and accumulating in fish and wildlife, and humans who consume them. Further, fossil fuel power plants account for about 34% of the CO2 emitted by the U.S., itself the largest emitter of CO2 worldwide; in 1999, the U.S. power plants emitted 2.5 billion tons of CO2 (EPA global warming web site: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html. “We have concluded that that our current “business as usual” approach could be re-labeled “borrowing from the future.” “We are increasingly depleting our storehouse of fossil fuels, we are increasing reliant on vulnerable infrastructures, and we are increasingly adding wastes into our environment. Though we may have little choice in the very short term, we are nonetheless creating debts for future generations.” Retired Admiral Richard Truly, director National Renewable Energy Laboratory Speech at Power-Gen, Las Vegas, March 1-3, 2004 The Case for Wind Energy The contrast in environmental benefits using wind instead of coal is compelling. A single large scale wind turbine offsets a significant level of pollutants from coal plants. In areas with a large % of power generation from coal plants, the offsets are very large. For example, in Utah partly because 96% of all electricity generation is from coal (Pacificorp 2003 IRP), the state ranks 7th in the nation on a per capita basis as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide from power plants (EPA's egrid database of state pollution totals). Therefore, locating wind turbines here would have a profound impact on air quality by directly offsetting coal power plant pollutants. According to the EPA, in the Pacificorp East region comprising all of Utah, a 1.5 MW wind turbine offsets the following pollutants on a yearly basis: *Based on a 1.5 MW turbine, operating at 40% capacity, producing 5226 Mwh of electricity annually and offsetting the average of these pollutants statewide per the EPA’s Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database, 2000. http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/powerprofiler.htm The carbon dioxide savings from each turbine are equivalent to any of the following each year: In the Intermountain region, to sustain the insatiable appetite for power, all of us are faced with a choice when it comes to more power plants. Sourcing additional hydro-electric is difficult as this requires more water sources and more dams. Natural gas plants are expensive and continue to leave us vulnerable to ever increasing fuel volatility. Nuclear is a viable alternative but is many years away both from a public policy, political, and siting issue and continues to include a concern regarding spent fuel. Besides wind energy, new coal plants are the only economically reasonable solution but are ecologically damaging and consume a substantial quantity of water; an ever more scarce resource. The other alternatives are not really alternatives. So when we say the choice is wind or something, we really are saying “wind or coal”.
Because of the installation of scrubbers in the Pacificorp region, the sulfur dioxide and nitrogen emissions have been reduced on a percentage bases from previous levels, however, even with these reductions, coal plants are still dirty and the offsets of this pollution from a wind farm remain large. Further, to exacerbate the problem of coal burning, no technologies have been implemented in the region to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from the power plant stacks. Coupled with the continued increase in energy consumption year to year, these emissions continue to rise at alarming rates. The chart below illustrates that from 1998 thru 2000 the carbon dioxide emissions increased another 6%!
Prepared 06-20-03 by Art Diem, US EPA Source: eGRID2002 v2.01 www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/egrid.htm Avian Concerns Generally, the environmental impact from a wind project that receives the most concern involves birds (and sometimes bats) accidentally colliding with wind turbines. However, some perspective is useful here—avian fatalities occur much more significantly from other commonly-accepted human-related activities, when compared to wind power. For example, it is estimated that roughly 2 billion birds die each year from house cats, colliding with buildings/plate glass, vehicles, and communication towers, plus other means. Data collected to date indicate an average of 2.19 avian fatalities per turbine per year in the U.S. for all species combined and 0.033 raptor fatalities per turbine per year. Data collected outside California indicate an average of 1.83 avian fatalities per turbine per year, and 0.006 raptor fatalities per turbine per year ("Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary of Existing Studies and Comparisons to Other Sources of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States, http://www.nationalwind.org/pubs/avian_collisions.pdf. This would equate to one raptor death every 30 years for the worst case. Worst case estimates include data from Altamount Pass, CA wind farms. Altamount has an unusually high rate of raptor encounters due to the high concentration of the birds. For the more realistic case from a country wide study, the number of raptor deaths would equate to 1 every 166 years for each turbine. A typical wind farm would never encounter a raptor death. Quotes from Environmental Organizations Actively Supporting Wind Energy Since wind power provides substantial environmental benefits, especially compared to the alternatives for generating power (as discussed above), it generally receives broad support from the environmental community. Here’s what some of the environmental groups say about wind power:
|
|||||
| home | about us | projects | resources | careers | contact us |
Copyright © 2007 Wasatch Wind Inc. All Rights Reserved |
